<story><title>Working on the weekends – an academic necessity?</title><url>https://thegradient.pub/working-on-the-weekends-an-academic-necessity/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lmeyerov</author><text>Numbers-wise, something like 3% of phds lead to professorships: it&amp;#x27;s not quite as competitive as becoming a professional athlete, but not far. Peak competition. Most professors watching their interview candidates nowadays freely admit they wouldn&amp;#x27;t have made the cut. That is unhealthy levels of competition bc at that point it is more of a lottery.&lt;p&gt;But there is something valuable going on here for everyone else. Most eventually realize they are not in the 3% bucket one way or the other, so then it becomes whether they want to invest in themselves or not. (Good) Phd programs are rare opportunities to work with the best from around the world and not worry about $ as much as results and other impact, and with like-minded people. For example, in my cohort, as folks switched for entertaining the idea of continuing in academics, they used the environment to do other equally hard things, such as startups with their peers. In both cases, only as limited as your work ethic. Others got cushy jobs where they could work hard till 5p but then clock out, but it was rarer, and even folks with families generally pulled the long hours: this was their time to grow.&lt;p&gt;For people happy to clock out and try to convince others to do the same, that devalues the experience for others who ARE there to work as hard &amp;amp; creatively as they can to do amazing things with like-minded individuals. A big part of picking a PhD program is the students you will be exploring with. Masters programs are great for learning technical skills and doing semi-structured technical projects, and a 9-5 view there makes sense. The PhD, which is researching new things, often starts after that, and a different environment. Think an artist colony where someone asks everyone to only do sports &amp;amp; gambling as soon as the sun sets.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lumost</author><text>This also leads to a few bad outcomes for society at large.&lt;p&gt;- PhD programs can become abusive of their students&amp;#x2F;workers.  Paying below subsistence or even charging money to study.&lt;p&gt;- PhD programs can become places where only those with no opportunity cost go.&lt;p&gt;- PhD students will stop caring about long term careers in their field - recognizing the impossibility.&lt;p&gt;- Science enters a hyper-competitive phase where scientists do not target ground breaking research.  Instead focusing on small repeatable wins.&lt;p&gt;- Scientists adopt anti-competitive practices to secure their small slice of research funding including review kabals, and disuading research in conflicting views.&lt;p&gt;While I&amp;#x27;m all for letting students take the risks they feel like taking, the current situation is the result of a systemic &lt;i&gt;massive&lt;/i&gt; overproduction of PhDs through government funding.  It&amp;#x27;s possible this overproduction of apprentices results in decreased productivity amongst those working in the field by introducing noise, and training costs to researchers.&lt;p&gt;If typical science PhD programs reduced their admittance by a factor of 3-10, you would still have a highly competitive field - but one where students, and in turn faculty have a career path should they produce results.</text></comment>
<story><title>Working on the weekends – an academic necessity?</title><url>https://thegradient.pub/working-on-the-weekends-an-academic-necessity/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lmeyerov</author><text>Numbers-wise, something like 3% of phds lead to professorships: it&amp;#x27;s not quite as competitive as becoming a professional athlete, but not far. Peak competition. Most professors watching their interview candidates nowadays freely admit they wouldn&amp;#x27;t have made the cut. That is unhealthy levels of competition bc at that point it is more of a lottery.&lt;p&gt;But there is something valuable going on here for everyone else. Most eventually realize they are not in the 3% bucket one way or the other, so then it becomes whether they want to invest in themselves or not. (Good) Phd programs are rare opportunities to work with the best from around the world and not worry about $ as much as results and other impact, and with like-minded people. For example, in my cohort, as folks switched for entertaining the idea of continuing in academics, they used the environment to do other equally hard things, such as startups with their peers. In both cases, only as limited as your work ethic. Others got cushy jobs where they could work hard till 5p but then clock out, but it was rarer, and even folks with families generally pulled the long hours: this was their time to grow.&lt;p&gt;For people happy to clock out and try to convince others to do the same, that devalues the experience for others who ARE there to work as hard &amp;amp; creatively as they can to do amazing things with like-minded individuals. A big part of picking a PhD program is the students you will be exploring with. Masters programs are great for learning technical skills and doing semi-structured technical projects, and a 9-5 view there makes sense. The PhD, which is researching new things, often starts after that, and a different environment. Think an artist colony where someone asks everyone to only do sports &amp;amp; gambling as soon as the sun sets.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>coastflow</author><text>I found myself agreeing with much of your comment, except: &amp;quot;For people happy to clock out and try to convince others to do the same, that devalues the experience for others who ARE there to work as hard &amp;amp; creatively as they can to do amazing things with like-minded individuals.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Is there possibly a separation between PhD students who work 9-5 with a mentality of hard work but strong time boundaries, versus PhD students who work 9-5 but don&amp;#x27;t plan to make the most of the opportunity?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m also instinctively wary of any romanticization of a PhD program, especially when working long hours. From anecdotal reports, national labs also provide the resources to do great research, with far more reasonable hours and less of a pressure to work longer hours. I&amp;#x27;ve read of too many reports, which exist even if they are minority situations, where advisors take advantage of the power they have over students, such as in this HN thread: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=26367099&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=26367099&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I believe that doing &amp;quot;amazing things with like-minded individuals&amp;quot; is worthwhile, but can also happen in the private sector where the pay is commensurate to the value of the provided work. In general, I&amp;#x27;m very wary of the idea that working longer hours should ever be romanticized, because the potential downsides are severe and should not be underestimated (including physical&amp;#x2F;psychological health problems due to burnout from long hours and failed relationships&amp;#x2F;divorce).</text></comment>