A common trend amongst academic scientists is "the important stuff." Said stuff is new science--new discoveries and understanding. In other words, figuring stuff out. The goal is to do that as much as possible, be it at the expense of everything else.
You know this. At least, anyone who watches movies can recognize the scientist: Bad hair. Goofy glasses. Scatterbrained during lectures. Socially inept. Wearing a lab coat out of habit... Because, after all, how could spending $20 on a haircut every month possibly help in the understanding quantum physics?
Most of us are not the stereotype, however we do tend to focus on the "important stuff." We're aware of the realities of living in society. We notice and care about looking respectable, being nice, and trying to explain things clearly. We love our families--normal stuff. From college you probably know that profs are normal people who just tend to focus on something they do well.
The reason I'm writing is to reveal an aspect of most academic scientists that people usually don't know: fallacies about money.
Although there are a plethora of reasons why people go into academic careers (egotistical: gaining respect from peers, renown ... practical: relaxed work hours, liberal atmosphere... or even altruistic: helping students) they never go into the job for the money. Mention "salary" to most professors and you'll most often hear a grumbly answer about under appreciation or work load.
From within, a career in academic science is viewed as one of sacrifice. We don't do it all for the nuggie--we do it for the important stuff. At least that's the official reason.
Candidly, we hope and pray for the best of all possible worlds: that we end up as one of the few success stories out there that can both do "important stuff" and then somehow retire rich due to some simple and profitable spin-off application of their discoveries. Forget 401k--scientists hope for a multi-million startup with their names on it.
... But isn't that whack?
I mean, if you believe in logic and cause and effect, and you live your life hoping that your dedication important stuff will be recognized for it's importance, correctness, and worth, and that a big fat financial retirement plops in your lap one day, aren't you setting yourself up for a fall? Isn't the most statistically favored outcome to just end up bitter?
... Alternatives? One is to convince yourself that even unappreciated work makes a difference. Another is to give yourself credit for at least trying. But yet another--which is looking increasingly honest and worthwhile to me--is dropping the act and going straight for money from the beginning.
Of course, the trouble with science for profit is that it's restrictive. Ideas have to be useful. Competition isn't just for street cred any more. And suddenly lawyers and accountants are equally as important as you. But doesn't it make sense to follow your honest dream?
I'm not turning my back to academia. Rather, I view it as something to do after having retirement worked out. I guess I've realized that while I can do science at some level, it's not the impressive kind that changes the world quickly. If I do stumble onto something big, I hope to have both eyes on idealistic goals--not one looking for a nest egg.
So that's the theory. Time to do the experiment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think most of us that have left academia go through the angst of believing that we're abandoning something. It's part of being in academia, which is a closely knit group of people that share a roughly common interest that few outsiders would understand.
Every job is a close knit community of jargon and shared interest. You leave school and enter a field. Very little changes except for the take home pay.
Your post would have been equally as effective if you replaced science with teaching or with any art. Whether writing, or painting, music, etc. all have the same rule. You aren't an artist for money.
The fact is that science hasn't really changed, just the competition for the money has. More people for the same amount of money means less money for some and none for others.
We aren't concerned as a society any longer with future problems. We're concerned about current problems and popular problems. These problems rarely have a scientific fix, and they allow uneducated people to provide input (see global warming).
Ultimately the average person fears, resents, and distrusts an intelligent person. You can see muscles, but not brain power. Intelligent people are more likely to tell someone that they are wrong, and they learned that in school. People on the news, claiming to be intelligent, are spouting all sorts of crap that the average person doesn't believe or thinks is wrong. People don't mind being weaker than someone, but will not tolerate being less intelligent. It is more threatening to destroy someone's dogma than to punch them in the face.
Yes- people in this country love to equate smart as a direct correlation to rich. Never does luck enter in the equation. Never does making mistakes. Not lying. Not taking credit for others. Smart = rich.
By that logic, they could easily say "if you're smart, then, you wouldn't be a scientist."
And that'd be dead on right.
*gack!*
Post a Comment