Why do it if someone else does it better?

[PowerIso]

The point is this: is there any point of competing with the top tier students. Academia favors results. And top students deliver.

Of course there is a point. You will never know if you are a top tier student if you don't try. Yes, some people are very brilliant and don't have to work as much as you, but that shouldn't discourage you.

I was probably one of those "top tier" students and I used to brag about how easy concepts were for me, but as I got older, I came to the realization that your natural ability hits a wall. What makes progress is the ability to keep going even when you don't think you can keep going. Motivation, hard work, and determination is all you really need to compete.

 

[RasslinGod]

The problem was that, when compared to those who are considerably better than me, one could say that I'm not actually good at all. The problem was that I feel like my efforts are meaningless, because I have worked my butt off to get the same results those brilliant guys could in a blink of an eye.

The point of this thread wasn't that I have to be the best. The point was that I don't want to be useless. (Of course many have already stated that one doesn't have to be a genius to be useful, so the point of this thread has been met at least partially.)


That's what at least I am trying to figure out. The problem is that in theoretical physics there isn't much work opportunities available outside academia, at least not where I live.

i talked to my school' s advisor on physics grad programs. getting into a theoretical PhD program is hard. So If you don't got what it takes, then you'll prolly end up in an experimental program instead anyways. It's not likely that you'll slip through the cracks.

even otuside academia, good paying jobs w/ physics degree is hard to come by, if they exist at all. If i were you, i'd just study physics 4 funz and get a real job. Is money much of a concern for you? If not, you can go do a PhD in physics and get post-doc jobs, and hope fot the best that a tenure professorship is going to be open. You'll be compteing with hundreds of other pst-docs for that same (and few) positions. Is this huge amt of school for a not so bright future what you have in mind?


But then again, we need more physicists. they need to spend their lives figuring out the universe so that we can read about it in a popular science magazine for about 5 minutes and go on with our lives.

 

[lincs_b]

I must be really thick! I enjoy studying physics, so that's what I'll do, and I don't really care if people are academically better than me. In physics I think it is good to make mistakes, as long as you can go back and realize where the mistakes are.

 

[will.c]

This thing about hundreds of brilliant people fighting over a couple tenure-track positions gets regurgitated over and over. It's not like the only academic job a physicist can take is "string cosmologist at Cambridge." There are a lot of academic jobs, and while the competition is tough, if you're willing to work somewhere other than MIT and in a field with a reasonable amount of funding potential (sorry, string cosmologists - you can always write a popular book, though!) it's certainly not insurmountable. Is your life worth anything if you don't work at MIT and win the Nobel prize (twice)? Probably not. Oh well, at least you had fun.

 

[BioCore]

I think people over rate geniuses. Most studies that have been done over the past years and decades have shown that even geniuses if not nurtured properly will become regular people. Besides in my eyes, a genius is anyone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice. A Scientist is one who uses that knowledge not to over boast about his abilities, but help people live better lives.

Also remember that even these so called geniuses have to do regular practice or else they will be like all the other students who just read but don't do work.

 

[Howers]

I think people over rate geniuses. Most studies that have been done over the past years and decades have shown that even geniuses if not nurtured properly will become regular people. Besides in my eyes, a genius is anyone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice. A Scientist is one who uses that knowledge not to over boast about his abilities, but help people live better lives.

Also remember that even these so called geniuses have to do regular practice or else they will be like all the other students who just read but don't do work.

What studies show that genius is lost?

I really wish that were true but it isn't. Most geniuses don't even open a book until they get to a demanding course in college, and still get straight As. Thats exactly what a genius is, someone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice.

I think most people under rate genius. They talk about hard work and determination, as if the genius is somehow incapable of doing that too. The difference though is you will be light years behind the genius given that you both put in the same amount of effort.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The point is this: is there any point of competing with the top tier students. Academia favors results. And top students deliver.

Says who? In my experience, there is only partial correlation between a particular student's "book smart" ability and their "lab smart" ability.

There are many students who can regurgitate course material very well. Not many of them can independently discover questions worth asking.

 

[turbo]

Let's use the example of music.
Is Bob Dylan the best singer with the best singing voice? Nope. Not even close.
Can he play guitar better than anyone else? Nope -mediocre/folky at best.
Is he the the best harmonica player around? Actually, he's terrible.
What if he had never pursued a music career because he wasn't the best (or even close) at these things? With his quirky writing and approachable musicianship he managed to sell millions and millions of albums.

Same thing with academia and work. If your talents (however modest) work together well and you are willing to find a niche, you can be wildly successful. For instance, what if you are in the bottom half of your class in engineering school, but you are pretty good at fabricating prototypes, and have a good grasp of production costs and whether you can scale a manufacturing process to the point where you can be competitive with other business and make a profit making stuff that others can't? My brother works for just such a fellow - the business makes parts out of plastics that other companies have a lot of trouble handling, and his boss is a whiz at going after contracts that are well-suited to the size of his business - too small for the big boys, too technical for most of the smaller businesses, and with quality-control standards that make his little company a "preferred supplier" for some really big names in US manufacturing. The guy is not a genius - he is a practical hard-working guy who has a talent for evaluating the market and grabbing contracts that others can't deliver on.

 

[BioCore]

What studies show that genius is lost?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coaching-the-gifted-child"


And yes Howers I read both articles from A-Z. From most of your comments Howers you seem to have just given up on the fact that anyone including yourself can be a genius. Telling yourself that it is impossible embeds a thinking in your mind which hinders your abilities and thinking prowess. This is actually a common symptom I have seen in University, I actually almost fell into it myself.

But I have picked myself up and am doing great so far just as I did in high school.

 

[qspeechc]

It's unlikely anybody is born a genius. The only way to become a genius is to work extremely hard from a young age. I read this in Scientific American, August 2006, don't know where you can get this edition/ read this article from this edition. Well, I found this:

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=000E5E86-9BA2-14CF-9BA283414B7F0000

EDIT: I've found the article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

 

[JasonJo]

Can I take a different approach?

I think I know enough about how academia works to know that I probably will not have a great shot at being a professor. However, it would kill me to not have at least tried. So right now, I'm trying my best, giving it my all. I am by no means a genius, never have, never will be.

But what is wrong with trying and having a backup plan if it doesn't work out?

Let me also reiterate, I am not trying to convince anyone to keep up with their physics or math studies. Frankly, I don't care either way. But I would like to offer the other perspective.

My plan is to give a PhD a real try, study my butt off and a few things can happen:
1) Get my PhD, no good postdoc offers. Having a PhD was one of my goals, so I accomplished my goal, could not quite accomplish the goal of getting a nice postdoc position, but it's nice to move on and try something else. I gave it an honest try. Plus having a math or physics PhD is pretty damn good. I'm sure you can get employed somewhere or enter a new field (business, finance).
2) Get my PhD, get a nice postdoc offer and the road to tenure track now depends on how I do during my postdoc
3) Not get my PhD, probably get a terminal masters and pursue some other field.

Either one of those I am fine with. I understand how the game works. I try to take on a much more basic view than the I want to pursue math to further mankind's understanding or anything like that. I like doing math. If I can get paid to do math, then I will try like hell for that, if I can't, i'll move on, hopefully to something related to math.

I can understand why there is this "If I'm not the best, then why bother" since all of us have admired the great mathematicians. But in reality, most mathematicians will not be remembered. Most of them will not have a great theorem named after them, most of them will not produce any kind of ground breaking results. This includes PhD's from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley, etc. I would say well over 50% of mathematicians and physicists will go by the wayside, never to be mentioned again.

So it's not the worst thing in the world. Plenty of good mathematicians go "unnoticed" over time. Yes as a graduate student or as a professor you will know more mathematicians than an undergrad would, but I think my point is still valid. Not every PhD from Harvard or MIT go onto to become studs, in fact, most do not.

With all that being said, it makes sense to me, to just pursue what I want to pursue and try to take an original view on the subject matter. That to me is the best way to produce a meaningful result.