Mathematician Paul Erdős famously spent 19 hours a day doing math
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."
Well, it may be confusing to some that one of the most, if not the most, prolific mathematicians of modern times accepted, and even embraced, what would be in modern times, the use of a substance that would make said prolific mathematician a felon (at least in the US).
Also, Wikipedia, while generally good, is likely not good to use a definitive source.
It explains how even the academics seen as superhuman still couldn't do what the scientific community expects of the average grad student today, without having to use some extreme measure.
I think this has very much to do with culture, and very little to do with 'science'. As a scientist, I've been in institutions where this single-mindedness tends to be the case. Currently I'm at an institution where this is far from the case. Each person here is a whole person. Each person here is an award-winning scientist, a family person, and excellent at something else or two too. It breeds itself - and those who were not "well-rounded scientists" would not fit in here.
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.
Nobody cares if you're "well-rounded". It's a gimmick that's been used for generations [1] to preserve the ethnic / cultural make-up of various groups. A simple way to verify this is by noticing that not all extracurriculars are created equal. With e.g. sports, you'd have to go to East Asia to find a place where, say, badminton and tennis are equally highly regarded. And good luck equating leadership in a WoW guild of hundreds of people with captainship of the local lacrosse team.
I care; people with a variety of interests are more fun to talk to and work with. Those interests need not align with my own. If anything, some variance makes for pleasant unplanned learning. Of course, I'm speaking of real interests that one might have; not things you might do just to pad a resume.
I don't follow your logic at all. The assertion that some colleges altered their admissions policies to prevent Jews from getting in implies "Nobody cares if you're well rounded"? All sports not being equal makes none of them possess any value to an individual? Being well-rounded isn't a gimmick; it's about enjoying a fulfilling life that supplements your work.
Great article. The underlying reasons that some in the workplace may frown upon the personal projects and hobbies of their subordinates and peers, I think, is simply related to the fact that some people are "all business" while at work", and not interested in your personal life until the annual Christmas party; and then they're still probably not all that interested.
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.
I remember an undergraduate advisor recommending that I drop my D1 track and field bullet point from my resume (for grad school applications). No way! I don't want to work with anyone who would judge me negatively because of something that I do in my own time; it will be better for both of us if I never get to know you in the first place.
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.
If track and field is not relevant to what you are applying for, and is only something you do in your spare time, then what good reason is there to put it on your resume?
I think you missed the point of the article, or are you trolling?
How about: in addition to being a well-rounded person, someone who has been on a Division 1 track and field team knows how to push him or herself beyond the limits and endure discomfort few people can comprehend, is dedicated, disciplined, and knows how to handle competition. Actually, having been on a D1 team in a demanding sport is some of the best proof of these qualities that I can think of and is a stellar thing to put on a resume.
Faculty at universities are notoriously biased on this subject, tho. They hate d1 athletics, for the most part. This is worth knowing, if at least in passing. Its not at all impossible that that might color an application review. Either (a) they think the student expects to get a break/has already benefitted etc; or (b) they just don;t want to listen to another view. TLDR any "too red-blooded"activity (track, foot/basket/ball, etc) is not academic. This kind of petty/banal stuff is pretty typical for academic politics. (Not supporting, just explaining).
Yeah, I realize there's a lot of academics that hate athletics. But it's good for me if they let me know this up front, so we don't end up working together.
I should mention though, they miss out on a lot of good people. On the men's track team, there were about 4 people who had 4.0's (which is very rare at a top 5 engineering school). One of these guys ended up doing some really amazing research in grad school. In fact, the whole track team average GPA was higher than the school average. If you can manage these grades plus 3 hours of practice each day, I would think that would be a positive trait. But to each their own I guess.
If you are applying for a job in (say) mechanical engineering, your experience in track and field should not outweigh greater experience in mechanical engineering. This isn't a bias against track and field, it is simply an observation that track and field has no demonstrable link to being better at mechanical engineering.
> But other schools said, “Um … 100% focused on molecular biology, please. The sheer fact that we’re having this conversation means that you possess communication skills, upon which we frown."
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.
it totally depends on the advisor. I've definitely heard stories similar to the TFA from people in multiple disciplines and from multiple schools. I'd say that it's less common of an attitude than it might have been thirty years ago, but that it is far from extinct.
I guess so, but it was the "communications skills" thing that rang the bias alarm bell. Communications skills are extraordinarily valuable to a Ph.D.: you have to be able to write, to present, to defend a thesis, and so on. Absolutely everyone knows this. And yet multiple schools told him communications skills were a negative?
Agreed. And the idea that you might contact their grad admission committee and get a clear cut idea about whether extracurriculars are a positive, negative, or don't care factor seems nutty also. It's a committee, which means its members will all have biases of various kinds to various activities, and it would be impossible to summarize. I'm dubious any committee member would care to characterize it, and if they did, you'd be silly to put much stock in what they said.
I got picked up for residency this week. I had been doing a research project in my chosen field. For about 9 months. IRB proposal written, respected research institute collaborators. Waiting to present to IRB. I was, in so many words, told to drop it. "Extracurricular". Maybe shelve it and think about it in 18 months.
This is so damn frustrating to hear. How is an extra interest to do research in your own field a bad thing? I don't understand how the older generation of scientists and doctors even compute the cost benefit analysis here.
They don't. Once the activity pattern matches with "not ordered by the hierarchy", it goes automatically in the "no good" bucket. Rationalization like this "extracurricular" pretext may follow, but the actual decision is based on a very quick, perceptive, and biased judgement.
'Are future scientists ... to be found by chance among the most serious students who apply themselves, the winners of prizes and the winners of competitions? At times, yes, but not always. ... A good deal more worthy of preference by the clear-sighted teacher will be those students who are somewhat headstrong, con- temptuous of first place, insensible to the inducements of vanity, and who being endowed with an abundance of restless imagination spend their energy in the pursuit of literature, art, philosophy, and all the recreations of mind and body. To him who observes them from afar. it appears as though they are scattering and dissipating their energies, while in reality they are channeling and strengthening them.' ( Santiago Ramon y Cajal)
I experienced this first-hand as a well-rounded undergraduate working in a graduate lab. It was frowned upon if you did anything other than live and breathe whatever work was done in the lab. There was some kind of competition on to see who was more dedicated and self-sacrificing of leisure time, hobbies, friends, family, etc. I'd always be dead last playing that particular game. I value my work/life balance and invest a great deal in my side projects and hobbyist pursuits.
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.
What a horrible uncommitted scientist Richard Feynman must have been. His hobbies included drumming, safecracking and many more. Also, he was a ladies man.
I for one don't or barely talk about what I do in my spare time at work anymore. In two instances, I was stared at in disbelief when I admitted I don't do much programming in my spare time (once to a colleague, once to a manager. The manager has been ill for six months due to overworking / stress and gave up his management position). They almost made me feel guilty for not continuing with my work after work hours - almost, because they're wrong.
And second because I don't really train bears or do stand-up comedy, my personal life is pretty dull :p.
The highly competitive academic research environment selects for faculty who are 100% dedicated to their research and thus able to publish the most and bring in the most grant money. Such faculty, of course, expect the same dedication from their graduate students. The worst nightmare for a researcher is to have a graduate student that makes slow progress, constantly depends on the researcher for oversight, and produces few results of value. This graduate student is wasting time and resources and has little hope of successful completion.
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 agree. Any adviser that judges your capabilities based on how long you spend in the lab is a fool.
But I think that in cases similar to the original author's, the student incorrectly perceives the pressure on him to be to spend more time in the lab and less on other things, whereas it is actually to be more productive and focused. Being dedicated and having outside interests are not mutually exclusive.
I see this sometimes in my field (software dev) when it comes to job applicants; they say that they want someone who "thinks outside the box" but for whatever reason they weed out applicants that do.
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.
I don't recognise this. No one ever told me to cut my outside activities down, indeed I used the flexibility of the PhD hours compared to a job to go to all sorts of distracting things in the first year (you know, the type of political meetings which are technically "open" but at 3:30pm on a Wednesday?)
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.
The fact that scientists have to be "always on" these days is an interesting development. Its probably largely down to the fact that the academic job market is so terrible that only those who are fanatically dedicated can succeed.
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.)
Yup, this typically does not work out well. I love science, and in an ideal world would work at it for the rest of my life. However, there's no freedom left in it. You have to go raise money, work on what other people want you to, and put up with most of the private sector crap while not being adequately compensated for your efforts.
When I was a researcher, everyone I knew worked all weekends and evenings. What did they get from this - not much. In the private sector, there's a lot of crap but at least they don't expect you to be fanatically devoted to your job.
The worst part is that academia has little to no security left, and that was always the tradeoff - less money but more security and freedom. I don't actually see how this is going to continue, and these issues will retard science until the funding models and expectations change.
The guy is clearly just working in the wrong lab, and should find more suitable co-workers. In my lab, I love that everyone works long hours and their main interest revolves around the science we do. It makes for a fast-paced and exciting workplace. That's not for everyone, and prospective scientists should think carefully about whether they will fit in with the ethos of a group before they join, rather than bitching about hard working people wanting to be around other hard working people.
Many people, not only in science, first want obedience and predictability.
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.
I am a rather somewhat prolific open source developer. I sometimes feel that this fact keeps me from getting jobs. People talk about in this industry that you can send off 10 resumes and get 10 job offers very easily. For me, I send off 10 resume's and get maybe 1 job offer, despite my extensive and verifiable experience. I think you may be on to something.
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."