next »

[theholme]

hello,

I wanted to know if postdocs here in Chronicle might shed some experience during your PhD study. It might sound weird but since I wonder, did it ever occur to you that..

During your PhD coursework study, some of your cohorts stood out as in ever asking questions from instructors and sounding smart, critiquing papers quite well as if they're going to turn into great scientist of the 21st century.  If you happened to encounter such, do you ever wonder "where are they now?" Are they publishing like hell or finally realize that even publishing a paper calls for a lot of effort: data to collect, time to finish up, attempt to write next grant, politics to play, and at least "luck".

From your experience, do they turn out like a greyhound, once released, they run like hell, (once they're graduated, they're publishing like one after another)?

I would like to hear your experience. Please share with me if you have time.

Thanks

[lasquires]

I am in the humanities, but one prof in my program who serves on the graduate admissions committee once told me that in every entering class, there are the golden children and the dark horses but that those categories have little predictive value when it comes to determining if or when one will finish the degree, what kind of job they will get, or what kind of academic profile they will have when they leave. For example, the "superstar" of my cohort the first year in grad school entered with a prestigious fellowship and a lot of bluster. He flamed out spectacularly in the second year and wound up leaving without even a Master's because he had systematically alienated every prof in his field, and no one was willing to work with him on a thesis. Three years later, he was working part time and spending most of his time with his Playstation.

Keep in mind that the appearance of superiority can often be a cover for deeper inadequacies. Furthermore, grad students with a lot of innate talent and a high degree of professionalization coming in may lack other skills essential to success, including the ability to cope with setbacks, the ability to work without a lot of supervision, or the ability to just get along with people.

[marigolds]

I do like to imagine that the ones who left are now silent killers. I guess "assassin" is a pretty good Plan B.

[theholme]

thank you very much for your reply. Your experience gave me new perspective.

[spiralworm]

The pseudostars that I've met were all big talkers and schmoozers. They became so dependent on talking their way up the ladder that they failed to develop other skills and eventually fell off. Just ignore them and you'll be fine.

[totoro]

I was one of those people that others complained to the professor that I asked too many questions. I came in with a "presidential fellowship" and my first journal article was in print the first semester of my PhD program (single authored). I got my PhD in four years and now I am a full professor at a good research university. I learnt to be a bit more tactful along the way.... So I agree with lasquires that it can go either way.

[hipgeek]

I do like to imagine that the ones who left are now silent killers. I guess "assassin" is a pretty good Plan B.

It was my Plan A but the market is surprisingly flooded.

[polly_mer]

I see a lot of those people go for quality instead of quantity.  The people who were very good performers in graduate school/post-doc time continue to be solid performers, but don't pound out papers like a machine.  Instead, those folks go to a couple conferences a year, publish a few papers a year, and enjoy their lives.

The second-raters pound out reams of trivial papers and wonder why no one sees their greatness.

[lasquires]

In addition to Spectacular Flame Out Guy, here are a couple of other case studies:

The Heir Apparent who stepped into the "top spot" (they don't really rank us here, but everyone knows who the superstars are) once SFOG left is defending in a few weeks, well ahead of the rest of the cohort that started with BAs six years ago. He has excellent publications, won a competitive university fellowship, and had a campus visit at a prestigious R1 last year as an ABD (but no job offer--I expect he'll do well with degree in hand this year).

One of my best friends, on the other hand, was sort of a dark horse. She came from a great undergraduate program, but she was constantly overwhelmed the first couple of years and didn't exactly stand out. I remember one time we holed up in the TA office to just cry on each other's shoulders second year. Well, she published her Master's Thesis almost immediately, won the same competitive university fellowship as HA, then went on to win an ACLS fellowship and should finish her diss within the year.

[theholme]

wow..thanks a lot
I tended to think that those extroverts can go both ways, either become a great scientist or goofing around with a lot of questions. Even before starting my first year, I submitted a paper (1st author) to the journal and I was hopeful about my publication. I prepared everything; wrote up the MS, uploaded the microarray data, revised after every co-author's comments. But then the paper was rejected because of the paper not being fit in with the journal's research theme according to editor's comment. Then I looked for another journal and re-edited the MS format and tried again. It took 3 months to get back the reviewers' comments. Then again, with a few additional experiments they want us to add in, it takes like forever.

Knowing the whole process of publication, it was exhausting, chasing colleagues for their interesting experiments (might be additional proof for our data), trying to deal with last-minute comments from co-authors, and such. I'm not making a big deal out of this process which you all are familiar with. But for such a beginner, I'd say I have a pre-knowledge of how publication works, data to support, digging old stuff for sometimes if your co-workers left half-way through. Having said that, when I see my peer in grad school critiquing Nature, Science paper (not asking questions, criticizing or critiquing you may call that), I was like ... WTH...
Are they like future generation of scientist or just a mere fresh grad whose ideal world is based on asking "why" question when you don't know.

And that's how I started this thread.

Thanks a lot for your response. Your experience calm my neurotic phase.         

[kron3007]

I think that you are missing a very important factor in what leads to "success", namely luck.  You can have great potential weather you are the wall flower or the extrovert, but ultimately your future career development is linked to your field, your advisor, your timing, etc.   

I was fortunate that I had a great advisor during my PhD, and now have a great boss as a postdoc.  I really dont think I work harder than others (or at least not harder than others say they work).  Yet, during my PhD I was typically one of the "stars".  I dont attribute this to any great attribute that I possess, rather, I attribute it to the support (in many ways) of my advisor.   

I guess my point is that either personality can flourish, what is at least as important is being in the right place at the right time.     

[totoro]

wow..thanks a lot
I tended to think that those extroverts can go both ways, either become a great scientist or goofing around with a lot of questions. Even before starting my first year, I submitted a paper (1st author) to the journal and I was hopeful about my publication. I prepared everything; wrote up the MS, uploaded the microarray data, revised after every co-author's comments. But then the paper was rejected because of the paper not being fit in with the journal's research theme according to editor's comment. Then I looked for another journal and re-edited the MS format and tried again. It took 3 months to get back the reviewers' comments. Then again, with a few additional experiments they want us to add in, it takes like forever.         

I first submitted papers with my advisers when I was doing my bachelors degree. They were rejected (but later I got one of them published). Two years later after my masters I got my first one accepted as I was starting my PhD. So I just got started earlier. And maybe because I went to a very academically strong high school in England etc. And did not need to do any distribution requirements as an undergrad and did 7 courses a semester for 3 years (in a non-English speaking country though I'm a native English speaker) in my undergrad degree (and didn't need to work). So I was just all along on a very accelerated path compared to the typical American student. I worked in a consulting firm between my masters and PhD churning out research reports for clients.

[bcohlan1]

*Sees thread title, enters, makes fart joke, leaves.*

[theholme]

*Sees thread title, enters, makes fart joke, leaves.*

Why would I do a troll? I can feel your sentiment looking at my number of posts. Anyway this post of yours alone will increase your number as well, I guess. Or check my very first post

Thanks!

[voxprincipalis]

*Sees thread title, enters, makes fart joke, leaves.*

Why would I do a troll? I can feel your sentiment looking at my number of posts. Anyway this post of yours alone will increase your number as well, I guess. Or check my very first post

Thanks!

As astonishing as this may seem to you, bcohlan's post has nothing to do with you being a new member or having a low post count. I know this is the first possibility people always jump on, but it's wrong.

English is obviously not a language in which you are comfortable, so you may not know that "silent killer" is a phrase commonly applied to, well, certain bodily emissions that are inaudible but very perceptible to the nose.

(Actually, your dichotomy of "overachiever" vs. "silent killer" makes no sense at all, but I figured I'd just let that go, until you decided to take a whack at bcohlan.)

VP