Hacker News Reader

> As a PhD, I now believe that pursuing a career in science is an enormously selfish and entitled life choice for anyone who doesn't have a trust fund.

This is because the career was originally set up for those who were independently wealthy, or at least rich enough to have a spouse who didn't work. All of this stuff happened within the last 150 years, and it was made worse in recent years following the massive increase of skilled people in the discipline.

A career in science also differs based on whether you're an academic or in industry. On whether you're out their seeking grants, or out making products to sell.

These are all decisions being made based on what people demonstrate that they will tolerate. No different than the Japanese Karoshi-culture. If your Ph.D. or Post-Doc supervisor won't allow you to have a life outside of science, then dump them. Leave them up the creek without a paddle. They are not your only option.

At its absolute worse, the hours involved in an academic Ph.D./Post-Doc aren't significantly worse than a chronic precariat worker. I had two jobs during a particular semester when finishing up my A.S., and averaged 3.5 hours of sleep per night (outside of the weekends). I've read about a guy who spent years walking and taking transit for 8 hours each day from his house to his 8-hour a day job. 16 hours per day just dedicated to work. Ultimately his job and/or co-workers pitched in to buy him a car.

The harsh hours in scientific academia is ultimately a choice. And the choice is not between science and a life. The choice is between science with this particular supervisor and a life.

I wonder if it would be better to go back to that time where PHD's were only for the wealthy? Would there be less incentive to do bullshit studies and cave to political pressures and bribes if the people doing the studies didn't need the job to survive?

It was bad even for some of them. (https://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/phd_octopus_w... ) A one-size-fits-all approach to education and credentialing is the original mistake.

A secondary mistake for Ph.D.s in particular is requiring an original contribution to science instead of a demonstration of appropriate levels of mastery, because this requirement really screws over students who realize that their thesis is wrong, or intractable, too late. And even worse incentivizes cheating above and beyond the already existing incentives.

> Would there be less incentive to do bullshit studies and cave to political pressures and bribes if the people doing the studies didn't need the job to survive?

People who genuinely need the job to survive, quit, and get a job that allows them to survive, sometimes alternating this with academia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski ). Or like the graduate students and Post-docs at the University of California, they band together and strike.

Social pressures and sunken-cost fallacies affect enough people of all socioeconomic classes. Especially when the added grief is spun as a status symbol.

> As a PhD, I now believe that pursuing a career in science is an enormously selfish and entitled life choice for anyone who doesn't have a trust fund.

Focusing specifically on the the word "selfish"--isn't academia about dedicating yourself to scientific discovery? That dedication may require a sacrifice from your spouse, but it should benefit humanity at large.

That may or may not be a sacrifice your family is willing to make--and it's a shame that anyone is required to make it--but it's not selfish!

If you're single and not responsible to anyone else, I agree. I think the commenter was commenting with the assumption that the self-insert has a partner who isn't also dedicating themselves to science.

Eh plenty of people pursuing science are doing it because they want to be the one to make the discovery, not because of some pure dedication to science. Sure, that's not everyone, but it's a big enough chunk of the people that stick around.

Regardless of personal intentions, it's also a fact that we have a massive oversupply of people trying to make it in academic science. Functionally the only way it is selfless then is if you are meaningfully better at science than replacement level (and again potential replacements run deep these days).

This makes most people either knowingly selfish (if they are sacrificing others' wellbeing for their research anyway) or very arrogant about their intelligence level. Or naive about the system, but I don't think you'll meet many postdocs that don't know these facts.

The people that stick around and grind away at research work even once any chance at a tenure track position has passed are a lot more defensible as selfless of course, but that's not really the most common situation to find in a lab. The majority are gunning for a career in academic science, even down to the poorly treated pre-PhD RA labor.

Now obviously if some rich kid or someone with no personal attachments wants to fuck around in academia they should totally go for it. I just don't think selfless is the right word for that, and it's certainly not the right word for your typical academic ladder climber.

But I would hope academics are not doing literally the same research? In other words, are you saying that if we had fewer people working in academia, the same quantity of research would get done in the world?

It's okay even if different researchers are working on similar problems, because replicability is important.

Enough people drop out of the race, or are filtered out, that it becomes effectively zero sum.

A common control in sociological studies of educational systems is to compare people who are just above a particular cutoff (say a 2.00 GPA), and just below that cutoff (say a 1.99 GPA). These people are often effectively equivalent except for one good or bad day, or one harsh or forgiving instructor.

If an academic department makes 15 positions available for graduate students, it will have 15 graduate students. Regardless. Is the 16th applicant who just didn't make the cut worse than the 15th who did? Probably not. And they might have been better, or at least have been a better fit.

> Functionally the only way it is selfless then is if you are meaningfully better at science than replacement level (and again potential replacements run deep these days).

I'm better at science than I am at the replacement job. Ergo the maximum I can contribute to the world is through science.

I agree to some degree. I am finishing up my PhD at the moment and have had this below-surface feeling that following this path is inherently selfish for a while.

Choosing to go into research means your career choice is entirely determined by what you are most interested in, what you are passionate about, what you want to spend your day thinking about. I feel like the benefit to society is often secondary in that choice. It's nice that often science benefits humanity as a whole, but often it also doesn't and is just obscure niche research.

And indeed, the relational sacrifices that come with a (high ambition) career in science are IMO not worth it. I would not recommend anymore to pursue some abstract high brow principle like "the pursuit of knowledge" over deep, loving, healthy, sustainable relationships with people to a young ambitious person. People are more real than principles.

Ideally you can combine it of course. But the academic job market is not easy and rarely allows this without significant friction.

I am 99% sure I will leave academia after my PhD. Not for the this reason per se, but it appears in the equation. The relational aspect is a big part, though.