Comments on: Ideal vs. Real in your early career http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677 How to become a leading scientist Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:41:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ludovico Cademartiri http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677/comment-page-1#comment-579 Ludovico Cademartiri Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:47:53 +0000 http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/?p=677#comment-579 Hello all, this is my first post in this wonderful blog. I would like to compliment everybody for the very insightful comments from which I am learning a lot. I would just like to say that Jacopo's perspective is, to my opinion, very true. Undergrads are widely inexperienced with the career aspect of their job. Hence many happen to make the wrong choices just because they think they are the only choices they have. @Jacopo: Regarding being a B-level student. I think being a B level students depends on what the mark has been measuring. Certain skills are not measured by our educational system (emotional intelligence, ability to focus, time management, interpersonal skills, etc..) and all these things, in my limited experience, are somehow more important than your sheer intelligence in becoming a professional scientist... As undergrad we believe that if we are brilliant we will make it, until you discover that the world is full of extremely brilliant people, and you are not even close to match them. And that is when most people give up... @Myriam: I work in the US and I can say as well that it is true that personal success is not seen as a problem by anybody. Everybody is thought to gain from the success of somebody close to them. And this has very important repercussions also on how they select their candidates... @Otto: by your post I qualify completely as a "career builder" (I have been in a famous group for PhD and now doing a postdoc at Harvard in an even more famous group) :-) I hope I won't have to feel discriminated :-) All I can say is that people I have talked to around the world have a very distorted idea about Harvard, the people working there, and what it means to be from Harvard. Hello all,

this is my first post in this wonderful blog. I would like to compliment everybody for the very insightful comments from which I am learning a lot.
I would just like to say that Jacopo’s perspective is, to my opinion, very true. Undergrads are widely inexperienced with the career aspect of their job. Hence many happen to make the wrong choices just because they think they are the only choices they have.

@Jacopo: Regarding being a B-level student. I think being a B level students depends on what the mark has been measuring. Certain skills are not measured by our educational system (emotional intelligence, ability to focus, time management, interpersonal skills, etc..) and all these things, in my limited experience, are somehow more important than your sheer intelligence in becoming a professional scientist… As undergrad we believe that if we are brilliant we will make it, until you discover that the world is full of extremely brilliant people, and you are not even close to match them. And that is when most people give up…

@Myriam: I work in the US and I can say as well that it is true that personal success is not seen as a problem by anybody. Everybody is thought to gain from the success of somebody close to them. And this has very important repercussions also on how they select their candidates…

@Otto: by your post I qualify completely as a “career builder” (I have been in a famous group for PhD and now doing a postdoc at Harvard in an even more famous group) :-) I hope I won’t have to feel discriminated :-) All I can say is that people I have talked to around the world have a very distorted idea about Harvard, the people working there, and what it means to be from Harvard.

]]> By: Mirjam http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677/comment-page-1#comment-528 Mirjam Sat, 02 May 2009 09:17:38 +0000 http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/?p=677#comment-528 *If an employer really doesn't recognize any other qualities than a silly degree at a famous place then I seriously question whether you should want to work for such a short-sighted person. If the reason is that the person is famous and you think it increases your chances later on then you are as much part of maintaining that system as they are... It should be possible to convince any reasonable person of your own qualities if these happen to be different from degrees at famous places. Maybe I am idealistic, but if you want to change the system then you shouldn't bend over for it. *I agree that young scientists should be made aware of the fact that it is not only swift and fancy careers that count, but I would say that most scientists around us are not examples of a 'wunderkind'. I think perception plays a large role too in this case. Related to this: somehow many Dutch (and maybe other Europeans?) have this idea that if someone else does well this is bad for you yourself. As if there isn't 'enough for everyone' to share... This indeed leads to shark-like behavior. I am not going to claim that the US is perfect in this respect (sharkiness may be a bit of a human trait too), but I find that people there value much more the idea that (1) you can create your own opportunities, independent of the success of other people and (2) everyone benefits if someone else does well (e.g. your colleagues in the same department). Makes it much more fun to collaborate, without dirty political games! *Of course, in some cases the price to pay for a certain step in your career may be too high. But in order to develop you have to push your own limits too. I think a lot of people are scared too easily by the thought of having to live in a somewhat sub-optimal way for a limited time in order to get ahead. Silly example: many Dutch freak out at the thought of having to live more than 100 miles from the place where they were born and keep their friends or apart from their partner for 1 or 2 postdoc years. But is this really such a disaster? Somewhat more reflection beyond ones initial emotional reaction sometimes isn't a bad idea... *disclaimer: if you think I am picking too much on the Dutch here, don't worry, that is just because I know them best, as I am Dutch myself *If an employer really doesn’t recognize any other qualities than a silly degree at a famous place then I seriously question whether you should want to work for such a short-sighted person. If the reason is that the person is famous and you think it increases your chances later on then you are as much part of maintaining that system as they are… It should be possible to convince any reasonable person of your own qualities if these happen to be different from degrees at famous places. Maybe I am idealistic, but if you want to change the system then you shouldn’t bend over for it.
*I agree that young scientists should be made aware of the fact that it is not only swift and fancy careers that count, but I would say that most scientists around us are not examples of a ‘wunderkind’. I think perception plays a large role too in this case. Related to this: somehow many Dutch (and maybe other Europeans?) have this idea that if someone else does well this is bad for you yourself. As if there isn’t ‘enough for everyone’ to share… This indeed leads to shark-like behavior. I am not going to claim that the US is perfect in this respect (sharkiness may be a bit of a human trait too), but I find that people there value much more the idea that (1) you can create your own opportunities, independent of the success of other people and (2) everyone benefits if someone else does well (e.g. your colleagues in the same department). Makes it much more fun to collaborate, without dirty political games!
*Of course, in some cases the price to pay for a certain step in your career may be too high. But in order to develop you have to push your own limits too. I think a lot of people are scared too easily by the thought of having to live in a somewhat sub-optimal way for a limited time in order to get ahead. Silly example: many Dutch freak out at the thought of having to live more than 100 miles from the place where they were born and keep their friends or apart from their partner for 1 or 2 postdoc years. But is this really such a disaster? Somewhat more reflection beyond ones initial emotional reaction sometimes isn’t a bad idea…
*disclaimer: if you think I am picking too much on the Dutch here, don’t worry, that is just because I know them best, as I am Dutch myself

]]> By: jacopo http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677/comment-page-1#comment-523 jacopo Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:10:27 +0000 http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/?p=677#comment-523 Professors and experienced researcher might not notice that but in most cases young people (starting university, starting the PhD or even starting the post-doc) lack the most basic knowledge on what they should expect for their career. Of course there are exceptions, but most of them (I should say "of us" since I'm just in my early post-doc) are exposed to unrealistic models (Enrico Fermi graduated at 21, but you cannot really expect that from any modern student) that create the false impression that the only sensible way to get a career at all is to be a genius and that a genius will never face any real problem. This create arrogant and "shark-like" young scientists that try with every possible mean to create an image of "young brilliant scientist" for themselves. This is far from healthy for science. Young people should be aware (on a deep level, not just on the surface of their mind) that you can be a good scientist even if you are not the first in your class since primary school to university, and they must be aware that becoming a good scientist is not a smooth path and that they will have to make choices. @Mirjam: I'm not as optimistic as you are regarding the capacity of employers to recognize qualities. But maybe it's just me :-) On your second comment I agree but I'm also aware that sometimes you just don't have to possibility to choose. Or, to put it better, choosing what's best for your career might imply a price that is too high to pay. Professors and experienced researcher might not notice that but in most cases young people (starting university, starting the PhD or even starting the post-doc) lack the most basic knowledge on what they should expect for their career. Of course there are exceptions, but most of them (I should say “of us” since I’m just in my early post-doc) are exposed to unrealistic models (Enrico Fermi graduated at 21, but you cannot really expect that from any modern student) that create the false impression that the only sensible way to get a career at all is to be a genius and that a genius will never face any real problem. This create arrogant and “shark-like” young scientists that try with every possible mean to create an image of “young brilliant scientist” for themselves. This is far from healthy for science. Young people should be aware (on a deep level, not just on the surface of their mind) that you can be a good scientist even if you are not the first in your class since primary school to university, and they must be aware that becoming a good scientist is not a smooth path and that they will have to make choices.
@Mirjam: I’m not as optimistic as you are regarding the capacity of employers to recognize qualities. But maybe it’s just me :-)
On your second comment I agree but I’m also aware that sometimes you just don’t have to possibility to choose. Or, to put it better, choosing what’s best for your career might imply a price that is too high to pay.

]]> By: Otto Muskens http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677/comment-page-1#comment-522 Otto Muskens Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:56:33 +0000 http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/?p=677#comment-522 @Mirjam, I agree with you that some 'self-made' aspects can make people much more interesting. Career builders who do a PhD in a famous group and then some years of postdoc at Harvard are likely to have succes in science. There are however many other less obvious pathways which can produce equally (or more) capable scientists in the end. The decisive factor are peoples' individual qualities, which can be stimulated along the way through either successes or hardship. @Mirjam, I agree with you that some ’self-made’ aspects can make people much more interesting. Career builders who do a PhD in a famous group and then some years of postdoc at Harvard are likely to have succes in science. There are however many other less obvious pathways which can produce equally (or more) capable scientists in the end. The decisive factor are peoples’ individual qualities, which can be stimulated along the way through either successes or hardship.

]]> By: Mirjam http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/phd_life/ideal-vs-real-in-your-early-career_677/comment-page-1#comment-521 Mirjam Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:41:09 +0000 http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com/?p=677#comment-521 I am not sure what your point exactly is, but personally I frequently find people that didn't take the straightforward route and that had to fight a bit to achieve their goals much more interesting characters with more experience and better ideas. The straightforward route without sweat can lead to narrowmindedness, unrealistic expectations and no backbone to fight for what you want. Hopefully potential employers are able to recognize these qualities too. Comment on the side 1: I get the impression it hardly matters what you did as an undergraduate. Things seem to become more serious at the PhD level, but even then there is a lot of time to develop and catch up on things. Comment on the side 2: sometimes you have to make temporary sacrifices (e.g. living apart from your partner for a couple years) to gain something in the long run. Some people are too focussed on the short-term aspects of their choices. I am not sure what your point exactly is, but personally I frequently find people that didn’t take the straightforward route and that had to fight a bit to achieve their goals much more interesting characters with more experience and better ideas. The straightforward route without sweat can lead to narrowmindedness, unrealistic expectations and no backbone to fight for what you want. Hopefully potential employers are able to recognize these qualities too.

Comment on the side 1: I get the impression it hardly matters what you did as an undergraduate. Things seem to become more serious at the PhD level, but even then there is a lot of time to develop and catch up on things.

Comment on the side 2: sometimes you have to make temporary sacrifices (e.g. living apart from your partner for a couple years) to gain something in the long run. Some people are too focussed on the short-term aspects of their choices.

]]>