Ask HN: Current and future perspectives on college and life in STEM academia?
Hi HN, I don't know if this has been asked before and it possibly doesn't have enough to do with hacking, but I would like to share this. I am a graduating US high school senior and I was recently admitted to a top US university with strong STEM programs and will be attending. I however was not admitted to its peer institutions with perhaps stronger programs and more prestige. I am grateful for the opportunity to go this school, but I can't help but think what could have happened differently had I been admitted at those places. I'm sure a lot of you have gone through this and I am interested in your perspectives. I do hear that college doesn't really matter, but I am not looking at this from an entrepreneur's standpoint who wants to get out of school as fast as possible. I am strongly considering pursuing some kind work in academia and am also worried I don't have the brains or talent of someone who gets to the top of those fields so I'm also interested in hearing from grad and PhD students. Thanks in advance.
3 comments
I can't speak for the TEM in STEM, but for science it doesn't really matter that much where you do your undergrad. In fact, if you choose well, it's better to go to a less prestigious university if you will have an opportunity to do actual research (and take full advantage of that opportunity). It's a lot more important to have solid bench experience than a degree from Harvard. A degree is just a piece of paper. If you aren't happy with where you're at when you are finishing up your undergrad, you should also consider using a masters degree as a stepping stone to a better PhD program. It matters a lot more who you do your PhD and postdoc with (and to a lesser extent where).
On the issue of brains and talent, this is something I didn't appreciate for a long time. People get to the top through a lot of hard work and dedication. It's not like a Hollywood movie where there are people that are just born brilliant and are able to make things happen without effort. When you see someone college-age doing amazing things, it's usually because they've been working at it for a long time before college. If you focus beyond just passing tests, four years is a fair amount of time to catch up. When you see a brilliant 60 year old scientist, that outcome is the result of a career of hard work.
You will go far if you spend some time thinking about what you need to do to get yourself to the next level and start acting like it. If you want to be in academia, be the undergrad that thinks and works like a grad student. When you're a grad student, act like a postdoc; when you're a postdoc, act like a professor. And it shouldn't be just an act, you need to actually take on the responsibilities and do the work of someone at the next level. Let your work speak for itself rather pretending to be at the next level by talking down to your peers. When you think this way, it makes it very easy to take the next step. People making the hiring decisions won't have to think very hard to imagine you stepping up to the next level.
On the issue of brains and talent, this is something I didn't appreciate for a long time. People get to the top through a lot of hard work and dedication. It's not like a Hollywood movie where there are people that are just born brilliant and are able to make things happen without effort. When you see someone college-age doing amazing things, it's usually because they've been working at it for a long time before college. If you focus beyond just passing tests, four years is a fair amount of time to catch up. When you see a brilliant 60 year old scientist, that outcome is the result of a career of hard work.
You will go far if you spend some time thinking about what you need to do to get yourself to the next level and start acting like it. If you want to be in academia, be the undergrad that thinks and works like a grad student. When you're a grad student, act like a postdoc; when you're a postdoc, act like a professor. And it shouldn't be just an act, you need to actually take on the responsibilities and do the work of someone at the next level. Let your work speak for itself rather pretending to be at the next level by talking down to your peers. When you think this way, it makes it very easy to take the next step. People making the hiring decisions won't have to think very hard to imagine you stepping up to the next level.
Don't doubt yourself so much. While talent is undeniably an advantage, in the long term, someone who is persistent, overcomes obstacles, and has real interest in the work will win over raw talent 9/10 times [grit,1]. The fact that you were accepted to a good school is justification that you have more than enough intrinsic ability. Just find some area that you're interested in and you feel is important and challenging, and stick with it day after day and you'll be rockin it soon.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H14bBuluwB8
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H14bBuluwB8
To make it in academia, you have to produce research -- conference papers, journal papers, grant applications, maybe even books (depends on your field). Demonstrating intelligence in the form of good grades and high GRE/GMAT scores is important for getting into a PhD program, but to actually finish, you need to be able to stick to a difficult multi-year project and finish it. There are many "ABDs" in the world. These are people who had the intelligence to do the PhD "all but dissertation" but didn't have the persistence to finish the dissertation.
I am a new faculty member and not yet working with PhDs, but if they put me in charge of PhD admissions, I think the number one indicator that a candidate could succeed would be "did they do a masters thesis?" and the number one indicator of whether they could handle a research masters would be "did they do an undergrad honors thesis?".
So my suggestion is, work hard to get straight A's, but also make a point of doing research projects. That might mean joining your school's honors program, or doing independent study courses, or working as a research assistant for a professor. Get your name on some published research, and (this is important) make sure you have an advisor (or two) who are active in their fields and who will be known to professors on the admissions committee at schools you'll apply to.
I am a new faculty member and not yet working with PhDs, but if they put me in charge of PhD admissions, I think the number one indicator that a candidate could succeed would be "did they do a masters thesis?" and the number one indicator of whether they could handle a research masters would be "did they do an undergrad honors thesis?".
So my suggestion is, work hard to get straight A's, but also make a point of doing research projects. That might mean joining your school's honors program, or doing independent study courses, or working as a research assistant for a professor. Get your name on some published research, and (this is important) make sure you have an advisor (or two) who are active in their fields and who will be known to professors on the admissions committee at schools you'll apply to.