Most often #1 is sought after as the prerequisite for achieving #2. And due to the structural factors on the number of positions available, funding available, and supply of new PhDs and postdocs, it's most often a really good idea to avoid #1 these days.
Re:Fraud, so much fraud
by circus1540 on Friday September 27, 2024 @04:05PM
(#41675009)
PhDs and postdocs aren’t fungible. The ones worth working with go to the same top 20-40 programs in their field. Even finding PhDs that have the bare minimum qualification of “caring about the field” can be tough as there are all sorts of weird incentives pushing people towards PhDs. Applies for most other things in science as well. Number of papers has greatly increased. Number of papers worth reading has not increased nearly as much.
The older I get the more sympathy I have for people who claim they didn't become traditionally successful due to adhering to ethical principles.
I used to think that was just cope. But now I've been in a few situations where there's fairly clear opportunities to profit from shady behavior, and seen colleagues that I formerly respected jump at the chance.
Thanks for not being a fraud.
Re:Fraud, so much fraud
by nonrandomstring on Saturday September 28, 2024 @03:54PM
(#41682580)
As another commenter said, thanks for being a scientist and not a
fraud. Whatever you think you achieved (which may be more than you
think).
Of those three, I certainly didn't achieve #1 or #2, but did achieve #3, mainly because I didn't write very much and obsessed over what was sent to the editor. Merely being a non-fraud is only part of success.
(note: I've changed my definition of success, I now realize that I never ever really wanted to be a tenured professor at a Tier 1 university, because that role is far less fulfilling that I thought it would be).