| I was talking to my friend, a post-doc in my lab, the other day, and he brought up a very interesting point, and one that I've been thinking about fairly often recently: What to do?? You know, in 2-3-4-x years, when I leave Caltech for something (better? Ideally) else. There are really two options, and they are not only quite distinct in job description, but also in how they will affect my entire life as a whole. They are: 1) Academia, and 2) Industry/business-related. Let me lay this out for you. Academia is attractive because, once (once!) one gets tenure, one is guaranteed a job that pays s x 1+[slightly more than the rate of inflation, discounting any threats to move from said institution which shall result in anywhere from a value of 0.25 to infinity] essentially until death. Because it is the purest (so to speak) of professions; you are forwarding science at the rawest and most basic of levels; you are curing cancer; you are solving the world's ills, one day at a time; AND, you somehow manage to instill upon the shiny, fresh minds of worthy undergrads the wonders of knowledge in your field and to push them to pursue the work that you love. Discover the undiscovered. Cure the worst ills of mankind. Shape the future. Change the world. "Save the cheerleader. Save the world." You know. Industry/business is just as it seems. It is more profit-driven, sure, but you get what you dont get in Academia: money thrown at you for you to do what THEY want, and a salary S that is >> s. And, most probably, a life that is closer to a 9 to 5 job, at least in your latter years. And one would still be able to change the world, perhaps even at a scale that is more tangible to the average folk (not that this is important, of course). So, which? When I first decided that I wanted to get my PhD, Academia was the Pearl. I wanted to be like my professors at Penn: intelligent, affable, successful, and wise. With permanent jobs, happy spouses and families at home, etc. With aspirations of field-changing papers, of flashy prizes, and (oh can one dream??) of that one Holy Grail, perhaps, maybe! In the far future. ....Since then, there has been much change. I am leaning towards industry/business now because I realize that I would be much more comfortable in that type of environment.. and, well, because, as my post-doc friend mused the other day, as an Academic, one was to give up Everything. How so? What does that mean? It means that, when one looks at who is successful in Academia, it is not the ones who participated in 9847239487324893 "pre-professional" clubs when they were in undergrad/grad school. Not the ones who organized the ski trips. Not the ones who scoured the job fairs on the first day of grad school. And, heck, not the ones who had extracurricular activities of any sort. Obviously, there are exceptions, and obviously, I am exaggerating a little here. But it remains, that those who are successful in the world of Higher Education, have far more Publications (and even Teaching Awards) than "President of X" 's or "Treasurer of Y" 's, or even "Other Activities." What does THAT mean?? It means that, by and large, to be an Academic, one has to by and large eschew that part of life. And I don't think that this is because of the Time factor (let's face it, there are really only 24 hours in a day), but because of the Brain factor. The Brain is one's single most important tool when one does primary research (although, I must say, the automatic pipette was a huuuge improvement over the mouth-suctioned one.. probably less deaths by poisoning). And, a Brain uncluttered by extraneous thoughts is a well-oiled machine. Meaning, there can be none but the almighty trains of thought leading to great discoveries going on in there. No space for all the clutter that might disrupt the processes that could cure cancer! In other words, the Successful Academic is the one who does nothing but eat, sleep, and Think. About science. There is no place for anything else. It is Reason, pure and simple. It is thought. there is no room for creativity (in the artistic sense). There is no room for the, essentially, dispensible. Evidently, as I mentioned before, this is a generalization. Are there successful Nobel laureates who also have a passion for watercolors? Oh, sure. But don't you think that he or she could be even more brilliant by dropping that part of his life? Not that the Nobel laureate cares, though; he already has his Holy Grail. My point is, I have come to the sad conclusion that, in order to be the Best Academic (and there really is no reason to be less than the best), I must have no life. I must be Reason herself. There can be nothing more. Honestly? Nope, sorry. Passing on that one. Maybe I'm being a bit selfish, but you know what, I believe in Evolution and Evolution tells me to be selfish. Someone else can discover the cure to the common cold; I will be alright with funding its distribution to the masses. |
