Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've thought about becoming a professor, but I don't think I have the personality for it. I love to conduct research and write. Truthfully, the thought of standing in front of hundreds of people and talking for hours each week doesn't appeal to me. I love to communicate in writing, not so much verbally. I love the thought of people "learning" through my reports and articles, not via oral lectures. (I think I'd be better suited for a fully online format.)
A more behind-the-scenes position requiring a Ph.D. that entails research and writing? Now we're talking, but I don't know if that even exists.
I don't miss college. I didn't have a damn clue wth I wanted to do with myself. I still don't but at least I'm not getting graded for confusion. I still take classes on the side, classes I like and online classes. I still go to the library and read books and write and learn new things. Don't know why you need to be registered in school for that. Guess some people like the grades/approval. You could always get your Ph.D. I hear that's some school hell you might like.
My advice is to not listen to people who suggest academia if they so not have firsthand experience with PhD-track academia. It's not what people think.
For those who earn college degrees and land a job, the ultimate sweet-spot in life is about 23-28 years old. You have a good balance of time, money, and lack of major responsibilites with spouse/kids/family/work depending on the choices you make.
I loved college and had a great experience and personal freedom.
The "real world" was an adjustment particularly the first year to get settled, but the next 5 years were a whirlwind of awesome times that only having money, the ability to travel the world, friends from different social circles, a lack of major life commitments, and the ability to make plans/decisions at the drop of the hat could afford.
Once everyone started "settling down" and some of the activities and lifestyle choices in the early/mid 20s got old or unsustainable did I realize the glory days were behind me.
I have to agree with the OP, and I struggled with the difference between undergraduate and "corporate" lifestyles for many years after graduation.
A friend of mine put it best; "The single biggest negative about college is that it's followed by a big, looong first period, and they take attendance."
As an undergrad, assuming you attended most classes and paid attention, you were free to satisfy the needs for independent study at whatever hour of day or night suited your mode of living; (things tightened up a little at the graduate level). But most employment, particularly anything above the front lines, revolves around eight hours a day, five days a week in a structured setting. You're monitored constantly, any ability to discharge your responsibilities in less time will only lead to a heavier burden, with the promise that "it'll be remembered at your next performance review". HOGWASH! -- the only thing likely to be remembered is some aspect of your work or mode of living that the powers-that-be don't approve.
If your employer falls on hard times, you'll likely be asked to put in more hours, or to "temporarily' take on additional responsibility -- with no additional compensation, sine you're already "trapped" in a straight salary. And there's no guarantee the whole thing won't fall apart -- thanks to poor judgement by somebody several layers above you in the "up-or-out" pyramid.
There are undoubtedly many people for whom this scenario turns out differently; but the corporate world is seldom friendly to the well-educated introvert who seeks autonomy and clear measures of performance, in a challenging, but well-defined and still-flexible environment.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-05-2016 at 01:39 AM..
I'm guessing that Sealie means that being in a PhD program is not all it's cracked up to be for an academically oriented person.
My feeling is that a PhD program involves a lot of office politics, a lot of sucking up to your professor, a lot of grunt work, a lot of higher-ups (professors, in this case) taking all of the credit and glory for your hard work, being forced to focus on a very narrow area that might not even be your main area of interest (but whatever project your advisor has funding for), and seeing your peers make a lot more money for a lot less work. In other words, more like the corporate world than what an academically oriented person wants in academia.
I have to agree with the OP, and I struggled with the difference between undergraduate and "corporate" lifestyles for many years after graduation.
A friend of mine put it best; "The single biggest negative about college is that it's followed by a big, looong first period, and they take attendance."
As an undergrad, assuming you attended most classes and paid attention, you were free to satisfy the needs for independent study at whatever hour of day or night suited your mode of living; (things tightened up a little at the graduate level). But most employment, particularly anything above the front lines, revolves around eight hours a day, five days a week in a structured setting. You're monitored constantly, any ability to discharge your responsibilities in less time will only lead to a heavier burden, with the promise that "it'll be remembered at your next performance review". HOGWASH! -- the only thing likely to be remembered is some aspect of your work or mode of living that the powers-that-be don't approve.
If your employer falls on hard times, you'll likely be asked to put in more hours, or to "temporarily' take on additional responsibility -- with no additional compensation, sine you're already "trapped" in a straight salary. And there's no guarantee the whole thing won't fall apart -- thanks to poor judgement by somebody several layers above you in the "up-or-out" pyramid.
There are undoubtedly many people for whom this scenario turns out differently; but the corporate world is seldom friendly to the well-educated introvert who seeks autonomy and clear measures of performance, in a challenging, but well-defined and still-flexible environment.
Very well said. That is exactly how I feel. And I also fit that description of "well-educated introvert" who thrived in college but not so much in the real world. I've posted other reasons in this and other threads.
Very well said. That is exactly how I feel. And I also fit that description of "well-educated introvert" who thrived in college but not so much in the real world. I've posted other reasons in this and other threads.
your well educated introvert only thrives in college because he doesn't worry about money... that's the problem with academic phds to me, you can't get research funding without interacting with people, and people who want to be a shut in researcher isn't going to go funding events as often.
outside of working for a govt/large corporation, phd/researchers need to spend as much time grant writing as they do researching
working as a grant writer for them is pretty nice, they outsource the funding problem to someone else. But well, there's still only so much to go around. staying in academia as a researcher and wanting to make it big doesn't work together. Ask if any college professor who was strictly research ever got rich, the answer is always no. Even the ones who make money are required to get out of the lab and teach a class or lecture.
again, you could always be a poor academic and enjoy that life... by keeping to the broke student budget forever
edit: @mitsguy below, I was more addressing the OP who wants to be the well educated introvert than your comment. being a well educated introvert without an audience for that education means he could be a poorly educated introvert and do just as well. all the education in the world means nothing if no one wants to buy what is being sold. hence, thinking having a PhD would solve his problems is misguided if he can't solve the funding issue first.
your well educated introvert only thrives in college because he doesn't worry about money... that's the problem with academic phds to me, you can't get research funding without interacting with people, and people who want to be a shut in researcher isn't going to go funding events as often.
outside of working for a govt/large corporation, phd/researchers need to spend as much time grant writing as they do researching
working as a grant writer for them is pretty nice, they outsource the funding problem to someone else. But well, there's still only so much to go around. staying in academia as a researcher and wanting to make it big doesn't work together. Ask if any college professor who was strictly research ever got rich, the answer is always no. Even the ones who make money are required to get out of the lab and teach a class or lecture.
again, you could always be a poor academic and enjoy that life... by keeping to the broke student budget forever
That is all very true, and it fits with my previous post (#127).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
