发信人: studio (成功三绝:不要脸,不要钱,不要命), 信区: DP.THU 标 题: 不知道有人转过没:千万别当科学家 发信站: 水木社区 (Mon Dec 28 15:00:16 2009), 站内
这篇文章够牛,物理学教授写的,句句大实话。翻译过来给大家共赏。 Don’t Become a Scientist! Jonathan I. Katz Professor of Physics Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. [my last name]@wuphys.wustl.edu 千万别成为科学家! 约拿单 I. 卡茨,物理学教授,华盛顿大学
Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the wor ld works? Forget it! Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you are sma rt, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as an undergraduate . But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation, you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should not even consider going to graduate school in science. Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.
Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you from follow ing a career path which was successful for me? Because times have changed (I r eceived my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American science no longer offe rs a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career. American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. I n the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in “holding pattern” postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don’t pa y much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years a fter the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. F or many more details consult the Young Scientists’ Network or read the accoun t in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly.
As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent Assistant Pro fessorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduate school (he didn’t get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinks is brilliant , was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was he offered his fir st permanent job (that’s not tenure, just the possibility of it six years lat er, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new job every two years). Th e latest example is a 39 year old candidate for another Assistant Professorshi p; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scienti st with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering ar e the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence, ambition and willingness to work hard to succee d in science can also succeed in any of these other professions. Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at ?,000 annually in the biological scienc es and about ?,000 in the physical sciences (graduate student stipends are les s than half these figures). Can you support a family on that income? It suffic es for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist who se wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospe ct of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district and all the other necessities of ordinary middle cl ass life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not just ify an oath of poverty or celibacy.
Of course, you don’t go into science to get rich. So you choose not to go to medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns two to t hree times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a good senior-leve l job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in order to have the free dom to work on problems which interest me. But you probably won’t get that fr eedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else’s ideas, and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independent collaborator. Eventually, you w ill probably be squeezed out of science entirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not do this at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientific job market first? The longer you spend in s cience the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers in other fields. Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; some universit y (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences) will be so i mpressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two year s out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labo r means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a v ery long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appea r to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find th at the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and t hat they must struggle with the rest.
Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professors hip. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, a nd again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing propos als rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by yo ur competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort an d talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They’re not the same thing: you cannot put you r past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new i deas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that o riginal ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find th at it is not what you wanted after all. What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations. Young Americans h ave generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence of a reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it. If you haven’t yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I have known more people whose lives have be en ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.
If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to persu ade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientists is enti rely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduate education is pai d for by federal grants). The funding agencies are bemoaning the scarcity of y oung people interested in science when they themselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. They could reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand, but they refuse to do so, or even to discus s the problem seriously (for many years the NSF propagated a dishonest predict ion of a coming shortage of scientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). The result is that the best young people, who should go i nto science, sensibly refuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled wit h weak American students and with foreigners lured by the American student vis a.