

The myth of the well-rounded scientist - jawns
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_12_14/caredit.a1200137

======
streptomycin
_Mathematician Paul Erdős famously spent 19 hours a day doing math_

Mathematician Paul Erdős famously took amphetamines regularly.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s> "Ron Graham bet him $500 that
he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but
complained that during his abstinence mathematics had been set back by a
month: 'Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled
with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper.' After he won the bet, he
promptly resumed his amphetamine use."

~~~
wslh
This is not the main point of the article and there are more examples of
scientists spending a lot of time working and not taking amphetamines.

~~~
robbiep
It's a great piece of chat none-the less

------
toufka
I think this has very much to do with culture, and very little to do with
'science'. As a scientist, I've been in institutions where this single-
mindedness tends to be the case. Currently I'm at an institution where this is
far from the case. Each person here is a whole person. Each person here is an
award-winning scientist, a family person, and excellent at something else or
two too. It breeds itself - and those who were not "well-rounded scientists"
would not fit in here.

When writing up my own resumes and applications, I wrote in a way designed to
weed out those places that wouldn't revel in that well-roundedness. I did not
'pretend' to be something I was not - to do otherwise only invites
disatisfaction. I knew my application wouldn't be accepted by people who were
not themselves well-rounded - but I wouldn't be happy at those places anyway.

There are singled-minded scientists, like there are single-minded <insert
profession here>. There are well-rounded scientists like everyone else too.
Cultures breed one and another. Likely you'll enjoy work and life most if you
find the culture that fits you. Further, I also don't think it's particularly
correlated with talent in the field either. There are both fantastic and
crappy institutions with very different cultures, ethics and expectations.

------
zeteo
Nobody cares if you're "well-rounded". It's a gimmick that's been used for
generations [1] to preserve the ethnic / cultural make-up of various groups. A
simple way to verify this is by noticing that not all extracurriculars are
created equal. With e.g. sports, you'd have to go to East Asia to find a place
where, say, badminton and tennis are equally highly regarded. And good luck
equating leadership in a WoW guild of hundreds of people with captainship of
the local lacrosse team.

[1] At least since early 20th century Ivy League admissions got switched to
the "interview / recommendations / extracurriculars" process in order to keep
out Jewish applicants
[http://www.amazon.com/review/R2CVQUI4C0VDUQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_per...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R2CVQUI4C0VDUQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0618574581&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=)

~~~
pdwetz
I care; people with a variety of interests are more fun to talk to and work
with. Those interests need not align with my own. If anything, some variance
makes for pleasant unplanned learning. Of course, I'm speaking of real
interests that one might have; not things you might do just to pad a resume.

------
guylhem
Many people, not only in science, first want obedience and predictability.

If you have any "extracurricular activity", you are categorized as a threat
because it demonstrates both a) that you have a free spirit, and b) that you
have the capability to achieve the same most people do in a given time, only
in less time and with other thoughts on your mind - ie that you are a strong
competitor.

Some people don't want competition from people more able than them -
especially if they could also easily use their free spirit to see the obvious
failings. Usually these are not the brightest bulbs around (and they know it,
but you don't!)

In the government, public sector and large companies, they seem to be more
concentrated.

The article poster learned this difference exists, but not how to spot it yet.
He learned he can present himself differently based on the bias of his
interlocutor.

I would like to suggest the alternative - do not pretend to be someone else,
because you can then use that as a signalling strategy to filter out poor work
environments.

~~~
freework
I am a rather somewhat prolific open source developer. I sometimes feel that
this fact keeps me from getting jobs. People talk about in this industry that
you can send off 10 resumes and get 10 job offers very easily. For me, I send
off 10 resume's and get maybe 1 job offer, despite my extensive and verifiable
experience. I think you may be on to something.

------
rizzom5000
Great article. The underlying reasons that some in the workplace may frown
upon the personal projects and hobbies of their subordinates and peers, I
think, is simply related to the fact that some people are "all business" while
at work", and not interested in your personal life until the annual Christmas
party; and then they're still probably not all that interested.

If you can produce, and can show that you produce, then what you do on your
own time probably doesn't matter to anyone who matters.

The problem, I think, is when there is a perception that people who work
longer and harder, provide more value to a project. This perception can be
hard to shake. This is mostly because for your average scientist, engineer,
programmer or what have you - the contributions of one individual versus
another are not at all easily established -- which invites human speculation,
which invites irrational judgment.

~~~
cjreyes
I agree. This culture also manifests at college campuses. If you aren't taking
seven classes at once, you aren't working hard enough.

<http://thetartan.org/2012/12/3/forum/mentalhealth>

------
Xcelerate
I remember an undergraduate advisor recommending that I drop my D1 track and
field bullet point from my resume (for grad school applications). No way! I
don't want to work with anyone who would judge me negatively because of
something that I do in my own time; it will be better for both of us if I
never get to know you in the first place.

There are very few people* who can work with non-stop dedication on one sort
of task for years on end. Everyone else (I've discovered) is faking it. You
may be "working" for 12 hours a day -- minus the 2 hour lunch break, and the 3
hours on Facebook, and all the news articles that you're sure are making you
smarter. But you can easily tell who these people are because they get less
done in 10 hours than I do in two. And then these same people want to make
some sort of judgment about those who actually enjoy free time?

People who are always talking about how hard they work and how they're such a
martyr for their work rub me the wrong way.

* Some people _are_ legitimately intensely focused on whatever they're interested in (especially start-up culture). But how often do these people whine about how much they're working? If they are that into it, then they're probably really enjoying their job.

~~~
slurgfest
If track and field is not relevant to what you are applying for, and is only
something you do in your spare time, then what good reason is there to put it
on your resume?

~~~
ak217
I think you missed the point of the article, or are you trolling?

How about: in addition to being a well-rounded person, someone who has been on
a Division 1 track and field team knows how to push him or herself beyond the
limits and endure discomfort few people can comprehend, is dedicated,
disciplined, and knows how to handle competition. Actually, having been on a
D1 team in a demanding sport is some of the best proof of these qualities that
I can think of and is a stellar thing to put on a resume.

~~~
001sky
Faculty at universities are notoriously biased on this subject, tho. They
_hate_ d1 athletics, for the most part. This is worth knowing, if at least in
passing. Its not at all impossible that that might color an application
review. Either (a) they think the student expects to get a break/has already
benefitted etc; or (b) they just don;t want to listen to another view. TLDR
any "too red-blooded"activity (track, foot/basket/ball, etc) is not academic.
This kind of petty/banal stuff is pretty typical for academic politics. (Not
supporting, just explaining).

~~~
Xcelerate
Yeah, I realize there's a lot of academics that hate athletics. But it's good
for me if they let me know this up front, so we don't end up working together.

I should mention though, they miss out on a lot of good people. On the men's
track team, there were about 4 people who had 4.0's (which is very rare at a
top 5 engineering school). One of these guys ended up doing some really
amazing research in grad school. In fact, the whole track team average GPA was
higher than the school average. If you can manage these grades plus 3 hours of
practice each day, I would think that would be a positive trait. But to each
their own I guess.

~~~
slurgfest
If you are applying for a job in (say) mechanical engineering, your experience
in track and field should not outweigh greater experience in mechanical
engineering. This isn't a bias against track and field, it is simply an
observation that track and field has no demonstrable link to being better at
mechanical engineering.

------
SeanLuke
> But other schools said, “Um … 100% focused on molecular biology, please. The
> sheer fact that we’re having this conversation means that you possess
> communication skills, upon which we frown."

Um, what?

> The campus newspaper had just published a little profile of the stand-up-
> comedy-performing grad student, and my adviser happened to read it. Over the
> next 10 minutes, I learned that my hobby was an embarrassment to the
> department, that there was no way I could properly focus on biology, and
> that every negative lab result I ever produced was a direct result of
> telling jokes at night.

What the...? This doesn't sound remotely like my department, or indeed, any
department I have ever heard of. Is this a biology thing? At GMU we would have
adored that kind of student.

After reading the above two quotes, I got a very strong sense of "there's
probably another side to this story". It's so completely alien to my personal
experience as a PhD student and later as a professor that I have to wonder if
it's really true. And my experience watching other researchers, including,
yes, at least one stand-up comic.

~~~
stevenbedrick
it totally depends on the advisor. I've definitely heard stories similar to
the TFA from people in multiple disciplines and from multiple schools. I'd say
that it's less common of an attitude than it might have been thirty years ago,
but that it is far from extinct.

~~~
SeanLuke
I guess so, but it was the "communications skills" thing that rang the bias
alarm bell. Communications skills are extraordinarily valuable to a Ph.D.: you
have to be able to write, to present, to defend a thesis, and so on.
Absolutely everyone knows this. And yet _multiple schools_ told him
communications skills were a negative?

~~~
sesqu
It was fairly apparent to me that these quotes were exaggerated for comedic
effect.

------
niels_olson
I got picked up for residency this week. I had been doing a research project
in my chosen field. For about 9 months. IRB proposal written, respected
research institute collaborators. Waiting to present to IRB. I was, in so many
words, told to drop it. "Extracurricular". Maybe shelve it and think about it
in 18 months.

~~~
irollboozers
This is so damn frustrating to hear. How is an extra interest to do research
in your own field a bad thing? I don't understand how the older generation of
scientists and doctors even compute the cost benefit analysis here.

~~~
loup-vaillant
They don't. Once the activity pattern matches with "not ordered by the
hierarchy", it goes automatically in the "no good" bucket. Rationalization
like this "extracurricular" pretext may follow, but the actual decision is
based on a very quick, perceptive, and biased judgement.

------
synapticism
I experienced this first-hand as a well-rounded undergraduate working in a
graduate lab. It was frowned upon if you did anything other than live and
breathe whatever work was done in the lab. There was some kind of competition
on to see who was more dedicated and self-sacrificing of leisure time,
hobbies, friends, family, etc. I'd always be dead last playing that particular
game. I value my work/life balance and invest a great deal in my side projects
and hobbyist pursuits.

The same general disdain for people with well-rounded interests occurs at some
companies so this effect certainly isn't limited to science.

Ultimately, the solution is to change the culture of the lab (or workplace)
you are working in... not always an easy thing to do from the bottom up, mind
you.

------
martingoodson
'Are future scientists ... to be found by chance among the most serious
students who apply themselves, the winners of prizes and the winners of
competitions? At times, yes, but not always. ... A good deal more worthy of
preference by the clear-sighted teacher will be those students who are
somewhat headstrong, con- temptuous of first place, insensible to the
inducements of vanity, and who being endowed with an abundance of restless
imagination spend their energy in the pursuit of literature, art, philosophy,
and all the recreations of mind and body. To him who observes them from afar.
it appears as though they are scattering and dissipating their energies, while
in reality they are channeling and strengthening them.' ( Santiago Ramon y
Cajal)

------
zactral
What a horrible uncommitted scientist Richard Feynman must have been. His
hobbies included drumming, safecracking and many more. Also, he was a ladies
man.

------
Cthulhu_
I for one don't or barely talk about what I do in my spare time at work
anymore. In two instances, I was stared at in disbelief when I admitted I
don't do much programming in my spare time (once to a colleague, once to a
manager. The manager has been ill for six months due to overworking / stress
and gave up his management position). They almost made me feel guilty for not
continuing with my work after work hours - almost, because they're wrong.

And second because I don't really train bears or do stand-up comedy, my
personal life is pretty dull :p.

------
createmenot
The highly competitive academic research environment selects for faculty who
are 100% dedicated to their research and thus able to publish the most and
bring in the most grant money. Such faculty, of course, expect the same
dedication from their graduate students. The worst nightmare for a researcher
is to have a graduate student that makes slow progress, constantly depends on
the researcher for oversight, and produces few results of value. This graduate
student is wasting time and resources and has little hope of successful
completion.

The more assured a researcher can be that a student is completely dedicated to
research, the more likely he or she will be to accept the student. For this
reason, it makes sense to only list your experience in the field on your CV.
But if, once you enter, you are able to work efficiently and produce good
results, it should not matter what extracurricular activities you participate
in. If your adviser told you to quit your part-time job, I think that it is
more likely that he's frustrated by your lack of progress than that he is
embarrassed that you have outside interests.

~~~
Xcelerate
100% dedicated to research and spending 16 hours in the lab are mutually
exclusive concepts.

Edit: Just realized you never said that. Maybe I was reading another post...

~~~
createmenot
I agree. Any adviser that judges your capabilities based on how long you spend
in the lab is a fool.

But I think that in cases similar to the original author's, the student
incorrectly perceives the pressure on him to be to spend more time in the lab
and less on other things, whereas it is actually to be more productive and
focused. Being dedicated and having outside interests are not mutually
exclusive.

------
chrisbennet
I see this sometimes in my field (software dev) when it comes to job
applicants; they say that they want someone who "thinks outside the box" but
for whatever reason they weed out applicants that do.

I've seen the opposite as well. At one place I interviewed with at, the first
question in an interview was "Tell us about Porsches!" - that was a great
place to work.

------
tehwalrus
I don't recognise this. No one ever told me to cut my outside activities down,
indeed I used the flexibility of the PhD hours compared to a job to go to all
sorts of distracting things in the first year (you know, the type of political
meetings which are technically "open" but at 3:30pm on a Wednesday?)

Of course, of my own accord I have cut down on all my "other" activities
during weekdays (except perhaps meeting someone for lunch or a drink in the
evening) in order to make sure I actually get enough done. Time management
skills, acquired (maybe).

But seriously, no one ever said this to me, in UK universities. My entire
department does loads of sport, debating, and random things with their spare
time.

------
jamesjporter
The fact that scientists have to be "always on" these days is an interesting
development. Its probably largely down to the fact that the academic job
market is so terrible that only those who are fanatically dedicated can
succeed.

In some ways, this is a good thing for science: only those who are truly
dedicated (and thus likely very good at it) will become professional
scientists. On the other hand, the poor academic job market also means that
its tempting for smart people interested in science (who could be very good at
it) are likely to go and do other, more lucrative activities (e.g. software,
finance, etc.)

~~~
irollboozers
This is not a good thing for science. If anything, a confirmation bias here
will only mask the harm this causes to the scientific community overall.

------
Blahah
The guy is clearly just working in the wrong lab, and should find more
suitable co-workers. In my lab, I love that everyone works long hours and
their main interest revolves around the science we do. It makes for a fast-
paced and exciting workplace. That's not for everyone, and prospective
scientists should think carefully about whether they will fit in with the
ethos of a group before they join, rather than bitching about hard working
people wanting to be around other hard working people.

------
karolisd
Hypothetically, if you were hiring a front end developer, would you see his
stand up comedy hobby as a detriment? Asking for a friend.

