The myth of the well-rounded scientist

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."

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.

[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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)