Do ya love SCIENCE? Well, DO? YA?

[Kai]

There's this sad preoccupation in research academia, or should I say, sad obsession with foregoing life outside the laboratory. To the point where friends, family, and any other "extracurricular" activity are accessories to Science.

After the recent Nobel awards, there was a panel of Nobel laureates offering advice to young scientists on how to be like them. I won't say successful, or happy, or even good at science, because I don't think these things are implicit in the advice to work yourself to exhaustion, forgoing all existence outside your work.

Scicurious has a full account of the issue. There's this strange self depreciation that is applauded in many circles, that a harder worker makes a better person. This isn't just an academic issue; in this country, and in many other places, we are judged publicly by the visibility of our toil and hardship towards success. Not our ingenuity, not our efficiency or ability to plan and then execute, but how much we wear our body down to dust day to day. People who refuse to destroy their life are "not cut out for Science". This is very cultish sounding, and I've pointed out before that academia has many cult like trappings.

When I was in grad school for my master's degree, my mentor told me that the very best scientists spend 80+ hours a week working. Thinking it wouldn't hurt me to try, I proceeded to do several weeks of that. I ended up exhausted, depressed, over stressed, and I got even less done than I did when I only worked 40 hours a week. Don't get me wrong, science does require passion and devotion. If you only think about research at the bench, then you probably aren't a good scientist. But it does not require social suicide. If the whole point of science is to figure out how the universe works by testing hypotheses and making discoveries, then the execution part of that equation should not take up most of the time. That's very inefficient. Good hypotheses come at weird moments, and good experiments take much more time to plan than they do to carry out. What a person gains by wasting their life in a lab is praise from other people who spend their lives in the lab. Most grad students hear "effort = excellence" and break themselves working till 4 am, and then discuss this the next day in a fashion similar to recalling drunken exploits while hungover. Except unlike drinking, the working late at night isn't really all that fun during, or in hindsight.

And then there's this Scott Kern character. He has passion and dedication, yes, which is a requirement of all good scientists. What he also has is a snobbish attitude towards anyone who doesn't exist entirely in a research hospital. And despite his prestige I don't think he has many friends, and maybe even is secretly unhappy. Or perhaps he has delusions of grandeur. Anyway, his mentality is the classic archetype of pompous, overworked, unsuccessful academia. "If only I worked even HARDER maybe I wouldn't be such a loser like those other losers!" As Drug Monkey said (in the link above), "The younger generations have chosen a different path. Deal, old grumpy dude. Deal. Your personal failure to cure pancreatic cancer (and thereby justify the choices you made vis a vis your personal life) are not the fault of the trainees you would like so desperately to exploit even more than you do already."

[Cain]

From my favourite writer, in The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense

HARD WORK

The work ethic remains a popular explanation for the success of the West.  This doubtful argument relies heavily on comparing humans to insects such as ants.  Above all, the work ethic has a feel about it of low-level morality aimed at the poorer end of society.

There are lots of poor in the world who work all the time, often with great skill and remain poor.  On the other hand, large deposit banks, although non-productive, have been among the most profitable institutions over the last half-century.  Their executives continue to work relatively short hours.  The executives of large, publically traded corporations work longer hours than the poor.  And they compete with each other - not with other corporations - to work ever harder, by spending more of each day at their desks processing paper and developing relationships.  This benefits their reputations and their careers.  There is no proof it has an effect on productivity or profits for the corporation.

Entrepeneurs are quite different.  They usually have to work very hard in order to create their enterprise in order to not have to work hard later on in their lives.  In other words, they create in order not to work.

To the extent that the West has succeeded, it is probably the result not of work but of innovation - not just technological, but social, intellectual, political, verbal, visual, acoustical, even emotional.  In order to innovate some have spent a great deal of time thinking and experimenting, perhaps more than any other civilization in history.

Technological innovation in particular continues as if we were on an unstoppable roll.  Yet our structures do not as a rule reward either thinking or innovation.  And they don't reward physical hard work.  What they do favour is a narrowly defined type of intense labour best described as white collar slogging. 

[Freeky]

My brain is munching on this.  I think I have a few questions, and they're probably stupid ones, but I might ask them in a minute after I read the articles anyway.

[Kai]

Cain, that's /exactly/ it. Innovation and thinking is where the success comes from. But what is rewarded is hours spent "slogging", and the reward is admiration from other people who spend long hours slogging.

[Freeky]

So okay, there's all this cultish shenanigans going on, and you're expected to not have a social life, but you want to do both.


Wat do?  I mean, obviously back-up plans are good.  But do you just do what they want you to do until you're in a position to do what you want and not get the boot for it, or do you give up on either thing forever?  Do you keep doing what you want and hope for the best? 

[Kai]

So okay, there's all this cultish shenanigans going on, and you're expected to not have a social life, but you want to do both.


Wat do?  I mean, obviously back-up plans are good.  But do you just do what they want you to do until you're in a position to do what you want and not get the boot for it, or do you give up on either thing forever?  Do you keep doing what you want and hope for the best? 

You don't take the bullshit. What really matters is your successes, and due to human limits more than 40 hours a week for an extended period is going to lower productivity and cognitive ability. So you say screw it, I'm going to do my work and not compete for the "binge research" award. 8 hours of work, 8 hours of play, 8 hours of sleep, eat healthy, exercise, spend time with family and friends.

It's a con, that you /have/ to overwork to be successful. It works in the favor of major advisors when grad students do this, because they're usually working on the professor's research, and the more work THEY do the less the professor has to work. This is complete BS. Assistantships get paid for part time, which is no more than 20 hours a week, generally. This is how grad students get paid. Past that, it's your research (ideally a couple hours a day), and coursework. That adds up to eight hours a day, and forty hours in a week.

And from experience, the good grad advisors (the ones that you want to be under) are the ones who take seriousness about your time with great respect. If you take your time very seriously, and when they try to put more than you can handle on you, and you TELL them, they will respect that.

Grad school is a proving ground. In the initial committee exam (usually first semester), you prove your background, your initial skillset. In your research and discussions, you prove your passion and your seriousness. In your assistantship and coursework you prove your dedication. Eventually as you discuss and argue, your professors and advisors (if they are good ones) start to see you as a colleague. All the while, your confidence is building. Then comes the defense and final exam, where you confidently prove to your committee why you should have the degree already. The whole point is to show that, not only are you equal to an MS or PhD, but that you BELIEVE you are equal. When I got to that point, it was basically like I was demanding they give me what was rightfully mine. And my committee was like, yes, you're right, it's yours, the certificate is on the way. Students that just buckle under and work hard but don't break out and make themselves heard are usually remembered, regardless of how many hours they put in.

And none of this required more than 40 hours a week of what would be considered work by most people. The discussions and conversations and arguments and piddling around the internet reading articles and thinking about my research was fun, low stress on the side stuff, and yet it was as important as what I did during the work week. The expectation not to have a social life is a trap, the idea that you have to give your life to the lab is a lie.

[Freeky]

So okay, there's all this cultish shenanigans going on, and you're expected to not have a social life, but you want to do both.


Wat do?  I mean, obviously back-up plans are good.  But do you just do what they want you to do until you're in a position to do what you want and not get the boot for it, or do you give up on either thing forever?  Do you keep doing what you want and hope for the best? 

You don't take the bullshit. What really matters is your successes, and due to human limits more than 40 hours a week for an extended period is going to lower productivity and cognitive ability. So you say screw it, I'm going to do my work and not compete for the "binge research" award. 8 hours of work, 8 hours of play, 8 hours of sleep, eat healthy, exercise, spend time with family and friends.

It's a con, that you /have/ to overwork to be successful. It works in the favor of major advisors when grad students do this, because they're usually working on the professor's research, and the more work THEY do the less the professor has to work. This is complete BS. Assistantships get paid for part time, which is no more than 20 hours a week, generally. This is how grad students get paid. Past that, it's your research (ideally a couple hours a day), and coursework. That adds up to eight hours a day, and forty hours in a week.

And from experience, the good grad advisors (the ones that you want to be under) are the ones who take seriousness about your time with great respect. If you take your time very seriously, and when they try to put more than you can handle on you, and you TELL them, they will respect that.

Grad school is a proving ground. In the initial committee exam (usually first semester), you prove your background, your initial skillset. In your research and discussions, you prove your passion and your seriousness. In your assistantship and coursework you prove your dedication. Eventually as you discuss and argue, your professors and advisors (if they are good ones) start to see you as a colleague. All the while, your confidence is building. Then comes the defense and final exam, where you confidently prove to your committee why you should have the degree already. The whole point is to show that, not only are you equal to an MS or PhD, but that you BELIEVE you are equal. When I got to that point, it was basically like I was demanding they give me what was rightfully mine. And my committee was like, yes, you're right, it's yours, the certificate is on the way. Students that just buckle under and work hard but don't break out and make themselves heard are usually remembered, regardless of how many hours they put in.

And none of this required more than 40 hours a week of what would be considered work by most people. The discussions and conversations and arguments and piddling around the internet reading articles and thinking about my research was fun, low stress on the side stuff, and yet it was as important as what I did during the work week. The expectation not to have a social life is a trap, the idea that you have to give your life to the lab is a lie.

It seems like this is a lie that is hard to spot, since it seems like (and the account of the panel seems to support the observation) everyone does it at some point.  But you say there are some good professors and advisors out there who might back off (for lack of a better term to say it as) if you tell them they're putting too much onto your plate (I'm guessing within reason)?  If I'm reading and interpreting that right (I know I didn't say it right), how many good ones are out there, would you say, if you know?  I am curious about this. 

Also, Grad school is post-BA, right? 

[Kai]

I mean, I'm not saying there weren't times I pulled an all nighter, but these were more due to procrastination on coursework than anything else. The "everybody does it" is obvious peer pressure; work only as hard as you need to succeed at whatever you're doing. That's efficiency. In your case that's just doing coursework, and possibly some research (if you're that lucky). My comments mostly refer to people pursuing a master's degree or higher.

And yes, there are good advisors out there, more good than bad (though there will always be disagreements and friction). You can generally figure out which one is a good one just by talking with them. The good ones take an interest in your research interests and are not looking over the shoulder of their students all the time; they trust their students to do what needs doing and only go hands on when needed. You can also learn the same thing from talking with their students.

Although, with the matter of saying no, you have to show how important your time is by having a tight schedule. Otherwise you won't be taken seriously. And by tight schedule I mean setting aside each day a certain amount of time for work, and sticking to that. For me it was at least four hours every weekday in the office working on assistantship, and then four more hours of coursework and research. At 5 I caught the bus home, and my mentor knew that and never tried to make me stay later.

[Freeky]

That all makes sense.  Thanks, Kai.

[The Johnny]

This reminds me somewhat of "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" in which Max Weber correlates protestantism with slaving oneself at work, beacuse of a certain logic of "the more money i accumulate, the more virtuous i am".

Sure, you are talking about academia, and not necesarrily a geographic delimitation... but still, i see a connection i cant quite explain.

[Phox]

This reminds me somewhat of "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" in which Max Weber correlates protestantism with slaving oneself at work, beacuse of a certain logic of "the more money i accumulate, the more virtuous i am".

Sure, you are talking about academia, and not necesarrily a geographic delimitation... but still, i see a connection i cant quite explain.

No, no. That comparison is perfectly valid. I completely see what you mean, and i agree with you. 

[AFK]

That is one benefit of being in the "soft" sciences.  We definitely are encouraged to go all out and be successful and come up with new ideas and innovations.  But we also really, really like to socialize.  So their is work time, then there is hang out and network time.  Everybody's happy!

[LMNO]

To comment on this from business terms, it's become clear to me that a person who can go above and beyond their assigned roles within their normal workday is noticed and promoted far more often than the person who stays late every day.  Because it clearly indicates that the former person has their shit together.

LMNO
-Living Proof.

[Cain]

"Publish or die" sums up everything that is wrong with academia.

[Triple Zero]

"Publish or die" sums up everything that is wrong with academia.

Or, as they say in Academia,

   



(incidentally, I just found one of the best online LaTeX equation editors I've ever seen)