See, Edward Witten, also Lisa Randall.

I wonder how much of this has to do with degrading STEM education in the US, and the general increase in medicating younger people that might be considered eccentric.

IrateShadow: I wonder how much of this has to do with degrading STEM education in the US, and the general increase in medicating younger people that might be considered eccentric.

Considering it's a long term trend that's been going on for 100+ years, and that the US is not the only country in the world, I'm going with very very little.

My intuition says that that as the body of scientific knowledge continues to increase, it just takes longer for smart people to incorporate it all before they can make their own meaningful contributions.

I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

When did it become generally accepted that people can start at the top?

ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

It has more to do with the fact that when you hit that age, you have a whole fleet of undergrads, grad students, and postdocs doing all the real work for you, multiplying your influence hugely.

/Grad student
//Not bitter at all

Zap_Rowsdower: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

It has more to do with the fact that when you hit that age, you have a whole fleet of undergrads, grad students, and postdocs doing all the real work for you, multiplying your influence hugely.

/Grad student
//Not bitter at all

Hello, fellow indentured servant.
/If you're going to increase the general fee, could you at least #@%#@ increase the grad student pay? Please?
//Oh, no, it all goes to football. Well, that's okay then.

Felgraf: /If you're going to increase the general fee, could you at least #@%#@ increase the grad student pay? Please?

What field are you in? My GS's are supported off of the the same grant that supports me, my travel, etc... The university sets the pay scale uniformly, but the money (and a significant overhead - ouch) comes from your advisor's grant... cheers

What ZombieNeurosurgeon said. As a (totally non-bitter) graduate student, I spend more time trying to teach myself EE (to fix malfunctioning equipment) or programming (ditto) than work actually related to the science I do...

(Of course, the system is basically rigged so that you can't really do any meaningful work until you're in your early 30's or so anyway...)

/but at least I can set my own hours... sort of at least

Zombie Neurosurgeon:

My intuition says that that as the body of scientific knowledge continues to increase, it just takes longer for smart people to incorporate it all before they can make their own meaningful contributions.

This. Fifty+ years ago some people received their Ph.D. in as little as 18 months. Hell, in the late 60s my father -in-law had his doctorate and a tenure-track job by 24. Today most doctoral candidates don't even schedule their comps until 18 months in., and most programs say four to five years to get your Ph.D., but it's not uncommon to see people take six or seven. Add to that a couple of post-docs and you're in your mid 30's.

uber humper: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

When did it become generally accepted that people can start at the top?

Huh? I'm not saying people could ever start at the top. Just saying that every subsequent generation has farther to climb until they get there. The opportunities to make a real impact on a field are becoming less and less general.

Zap_Rowsdower: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

It has more to do with the fact that when you hit that age, you have a whole fleet of undergrads, grad students, and postdocs doing all the real work for you, multiplying your influence hugely.

/Grad student
//Not bitter at all

Lol, I admit, I didn't think of that. I definitely believe it too.

wjllope: Felgraf: /If you're going to increase the general fee, could you at least #@%#@ increase the grad student pay? Please?

What field are you in? My GS's are supported off of the the same grant that supports me, my travel, etc... The university sets the pay scale uniformly, but the money (and a significant overhead - ouch) comes from your advisor's grant... cheers

Physics. Actually, I may get a pay raise from my advisor soon, currently getting paid through the university itself (Via a weird grant I was qualified for). I was sort of a free researcher for my advisor the first two years.

I'm not really bitter (I love my department!), I'm just somewhat frustrated with the university itself sometimes.

Nice to see a lot of fellow grad students on fark. Hopefully I'll be done within a year, but with a 2 year post doc I'll be ~30 when I get a real job.

/totally not bitter
//it is nice to set your own hour. I voluntarily come back after dinner and stay til 11 and love working on saturdays
//organic chemistry

satanorsanta: organic chemistry

I found the problem...

/P-chem here...

Well, we've kind of already worked out the problems that can be worked out with pencils, paper, and good intuition. Most of the remaining cool shiat that's accessible to modern science is a matter of legwork right now. And that takes longer.

Plus, yeah, generally you don't even really finish your apprenticeship period until you're in your early 30s, and before that no one's going to even give you control of a lab.

Yeah, but there was another study awhile back that showed that young, single scientists produce more than older, married scientists.

Much like comedy, science suffers once you get steady sex.

I was going to say all the young nerds are now getting laid on Craigslist, but um, what Zombie Neurosurgeon said.

uber humper: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

When did it become generally accepted that people can start at the top?

THIS exactly.
As the entitelement in this thread proves, people for some reason believe they should have it all in the first decade or so of working.

sure haven't: uber humper: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

When did it become generally accepted that people can start at the top?

THIS exactly.
As the entitelement in this thread proves, people for some reason believe they should have it all in the first decade or so of working.

How exactly is this entitlement? The rate of growth of the scientific body of knowledge is exponential, saying that it takes longer now to reach the pinnacle of knowledge in your area of expertise is hardly stating that people deserve to start at the top, just a statement of fact. While I won't say it isn't possible (who knows when someone will suddenly have a revelation that gives us a new view on the way the world works, but I don't expect it in my lifetime), the days of breaking major scientific ground because an apple hit you in the head are largely over. Stop trying to turn this into a farking political wank thread, it adds nothing to the discussion.

To the topic on hand, while it is interesting it is hardly surprising. Those friends I've known to go on and pursue a career in research don't finish their doctorate until their late 20s or early 30's. I wouldn't expect them to be able to make major contributions (at least not where they were the lead) until well into their 30's just because most of them will not have an established career until then.

/I'm greedy, left college with a MS in engineering so I could make money
//Offered a full ride to get my doctorate, was too sick of being poor

satanorsanta: Nice to see a lot of fellow grad students on fark. Hopefully I'll be done within a year, but with a 2 year post doc I'll be ~30 when I get a real job.

/totally not bitter
//it is nice to set your own hour. I voluntarily come back after dinner and stay til 11 and love working on saturdays
//organic chemistry

32 here and was just awarded a sweet post-doc.

My goal is to never have a real job.

My unsolicited advice? Don't be afraid to go after your own funding. ANY lab will take you if they don't have to pay you out of their own pocket...

Its structural. Young people still do the best actual thinking (sorry to all the old people like me but it is true).. the modern science organisation however simply does not permit anyone to do that work until they have been through the meatgrinder for 10+ years. By which time they are not at their best. That 55 year old who gets a nobel prize.. imagine what he could have done if he had been exploiting his full potential when 25 instead of doing 4 million repeat dna processes for a professor?

A lot of the best work is being done by postgrads and juniors and published under the name of professors anyway.. *snark*

The other factor is the fact that cutting edge experimental work now often takes decades..

Felgraf: Zap_Rowsdower: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

It has more to do with the fact that when you hit that age, you have a whole fleet of undergrads, grad students, and postdocs doing all the real work for you, multiplying your influence hugely.

/Grad student
//Not bitter at all

Hello, fellow indentured servant.
/If you're going to increase the general fee, could you at least #@%#@ increase the grad student pay? Please?
//Oh, no, it all goes to football. Well, that's okay then.

Ours did. They increased the "institutional fee" (read: "the university's going broke fee") up to $450/semester up from $0/semester three years ago. Thankfully the department gave us all a $2k raise this year.

Zap_Rowsdower: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

It has more to do with the fact that when you hit that age, you have a whole fleet of undergrads, grad students, and postdocs doing all the real work for you, multiplying your influence hugely.

/Grad student
//Not bitter at all

Look on the bright side. Once you hit 50 you'll be done with your 8th post doc and read for a faculty job.

I read a really good piece in the economist that basically stated there were two types of people:
Those young innovators who did brilliant work at young ages then petered out
and those who toiled in obscurity for decades before making major breakthroughs

Therefore both axioms are correct, just not for the same individual. I can't find the article but they used price of artwork as a marker. Some famous artists like picasso had their later works be shyiat and sell for nothing. Others toiled for decades broke before anyone bought their stuff. The said the trend held for other industries like science etc it was just harder to put a metric to.

As all of the grad student farkers have mentioned. Now it would be extremely hard to get any funding/clout etc behind you to do something major by the age of 30. Likewise most fields are significantly mature that you can't go discover x-rays in your office with cheap equipment. Fields like mathmatics, chemistry, physics etc take decades of labor and work to do anything that gets recognition.

Conversely I would argue that most breakthroughs in software development (which doesn't fall under nobel prizes) are done by the under 30 crowd. So I think it will continue to be that young engineers/scientists/luminaries etc will corner the market on innovation and new paradigms. Where older folks tend to dominate established fields and high level big funded research that would be hard for young folks to break into regardless of skill

gaspode: Its structural. Young people still do the best actual thinking (sorry to all the old people like me but it is true).. the modern science organisation however simply does not permit anyone to do that work until they have been through the meatgrinder for 10+ years. By which time they are not at their best. That 55 year old who gets a nobel prize.. imagine what he could have done if he had been exploiting his full potential when 25 instead of doing 4 million repeat dna processes for a professor?

A lot of the best work is being done by postgrads and juniors and published under the name of professors anyway.. *snark*

The other factor is the fact that cutting edge experimental work now often takes decades..

I agree and propose an experiment. Compare these results to the ages of Fields Medalists - math has all of the same problems except for the structural issue. You still need more and more knowledge and specialization to hit the front line of research, but as you can't force grad students and post docs to spend most of their time working on your research, they can do their own much more.

Of course that won't prove anything - if nothing else the Fields Medal has an age cap which would skew things. The Abel prize is much closer to the Nobel prizes, but it's too new to offer much data.

I'm the youngest first year graduate student in my department (out of 14 first years), and if all goes to plan I'll get my Ph.D. around age 27-28. Ideally I then do 2 or 3 assignments as a post doc. It's not surprising at all that scientists aren't heading up major research before age 30.

LockeOak: Ours did. They increased the "institutional fee" (read: "the university's going broke fee") up to $450/semester up from $0/semester three years ago. Thankfully the department gave us all a $2k raise this year.

Let me guess, they make a point of saying "tuition" stayed the same.

sure haven't: uber humper: ProfessorOhki: I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that as our understanding progresses, it takes an entire lifetime of specialization to get to the point where you can start to really understand and work on the bleeding edge.

When did it become generally accepted that people can start at the top?

THIS exactly.
As the entitelement in this thread proves, people for some reason believe they should have it all in the first decade or so of working.

I'm not sure what entitlement you're talking about. Who in this thread is showing any sense of entitlement? It takes much, much longer now to get up to speed on the current base of knowledge in a field than it did 100 years ago. Therefore it takes longer to be in a position to make a major contribution. What about that is entitled?

ProfessorOhki: LockeOak: Ours did. They increased the "institutional fee" (read: "the university's going broke fee") up to $450/semester up from $0/semester three years ago. Thankfully the department gave us all a $2k raise this year.

Let me guess, they make a point of saying "tuition" stayed the same.

If you're paying tuition in grad school, you're doing it wrong.

Zombie Neurosurgeon: IrateShadow: I wonder how much of this has to do with degrading STEM education in the US, and the general increase in medicating younger people that might be considered eccentric.

Considering it's a long term trend that's been going on for 100+ years, and that the US is not the only country in the world, I'm going with very very little.

My intuition says that that as the body of scientific knowledge continues to increase, it just takes longer for smart people to incorporate it all before they can make their own meaningful contributions.

This, the "geniuses" 200 years ago knew less than the average scientists do now.

science is like anything. 20% of the people are doing 80% of the work.

/80%'er here though...

The_Time_Master: This, the "geniuses" 200 years ago knew less than the average scientists do now.

average is still shiatty, and your statement is completely false.

proteus_b: science is like anything. 20% of the people are doing 80% of the work.

/80%'er here though...

The_Time_Master: This, the "geniuses" 200 years ago knew less than the average scientists do now.

average is still shiatty, and your statement is completely false.

No, he's pretty right. In physics, for instance, 200 years ago an expert would have known mechanics. Volta was just beginning his electromagnetism work 200 years ago. There was no concept of quantum mechanics. Nowadays an undergraduate physics student knows a solid chunk of e&m and quantum mechanics.

In chemistry, Mendeleev didn't present the periodic table until just about 150 years ago.

Yes, we have a vastly larger base of knowledge now than we did 200 years ago. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and those giants would be absolutely in awe at what a typical science student knows today.

nunoyo: We stand on the shoulders of giants, and those giants would be absolutely in awe at what a typical science student knows today.

I hate those damn giants from the past. Always coveting the knowledge of our scientists. Jealous much, haters? Next time don't be born in a stupid century.

gaspode: Its structural. Young people still do the best actual thinking (sorry to all the old people like me but it is true).. the modern science organisation however simply does not permit anyone to do that work until they have been through the meatgrinder for 10+ years. By which time they are not at their best. That 55 year old who gets a nobel prize.. imagine what he could have done if he had been exploiting his full potential when 25 instead of doing 4 million repeat dna processes for a professor?

A lot of the best work is being done by postgrads and juniors and published under the name of professors anyway.. *snark*

The other factor is the fact that cutting edge experimental work now often takes decades..

I imagine the brilliant theoretical stroke of sheer genius will still mostly be done by young men and (hopefully) women.

But the world is not all abstract math and theoretical physics. A lot of science requires learning a lot of stuff about a rather messy real-world, gaining long practical experience, and/or setting up a team efforts. That is older person stuff.