gusl: (Default)
Interests can be divided into "gee-whiz" interests (i.e. hobbies, etc) and "serious research interests" (areas where I'm trying to make an impact in the near future). As aspiring world-experts-in-something, PhD students have no time for hobbies, or so I'm told. The idea is that the former type of interest is important too, but only insofar as it's needed to keep us sufficiently entertained to be able to focus on the one-thing-that-people-will-associate-with-my-name-for-years-to-come.

To keep this vivid in my mind, I made these pictures:


Local expertise


Global expertise

Suppose red and light-blue are competing for a position in a department populated with the other colors.

As we can see, red is well-rounded, and has lots of knowledge that his/her colleagues don't have, which suggests that he/she could be an excellent collaborator. But light-blue has clearly made his/her name in one field.

Who gets the job? Who gets the grants?

Light blue does!

Apparently this is true even if his/her specialty is a very theoretical area. Red could potentially get lucky if the hiring committee isn't good at assessing world expertise, because it is outside of their areas and they didn't do a good job of eliciting world expertise, or don't care (e.g. because it's for a teaching position).

---

UPDATE: and then we read bios like this:

<< The research contributions of Professor Meng cover almost all areas of statistics, including statistical issues in astronomy and astrophysics, modeling and imputation in health and medical studies, and elegant mathematical statistics. >>


talk about a mixed message!
gusl: (Default)
A couple of weeks ago, I met with Carlos to get his advice about PhD admissions. Recommendations are most important, and publications come second. He gave me his ranking for AI schools. Surprisingly, Toronto came 3rd and MIT only 7th, behind schools like UMass, Penn and UW. He said I should be focusing on a single topic, with the goal of publishing a paper as first author, in which I propose a novel idea.

In the last months, I've been regaining much of my faith in academia, particularly the graduate admissions process and the peer-review process. If you have a good paper, there will always be a place to publish it: the system commits type II errors instead (failure to reject), i.e. errors of commission. It's high-recall / low-precision. As a whole, I think academic institutions behave pretty rationally, given the world they live in.

The explosion of information that the world has been experiencing has created not only a huge Knowledge Management problem: it also left little room for those who want to advance science in more creative ways, those who want to shift paradigms, i.e. the so-called framers. The world doesn't need more wheel reinventions. Our age has no room for rennaissance men (what about Herb Simon?), a priori philosophers. Now that all the low-hanging fruit is gone, you need to spend several years in school, climbing a narrow branch before you can reach any fruit.

This is for the same reason that we have the stereotype of the starving artist, the starving academic: everyone wants to be a framer, to work on his own ideas, and to talk about them to the world. The world already has plenty of wannabe-framers. What it needs are more fillers, so it is not surprising that this is those who it rewards.

Just as Paul Graham laments schools and suburbia as a necessary evil given the super-specialization required by the modern information society, I have come to accept that graduate schools want people who are narrowly focused on advancing their advisor's research program.

Making progress in science today requires focus and dedication: the proverbial giants, over whose shoulder we had to climb have now become a totem of giants.

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags