|
This confusion as to my abilities has led me into a lot of depression this semester, and I've started to become really scared that my life will amount to nothing, since in my opinion academic success is the ultimate measure of my life's value.
|
It's a very bad idea to measure your life's value by your academic success. Ability to handle failure is crucial. Thus, people who only measure their life's value in terms of academic success are probably dooming themselves to failure because eventually, it gets so hard that anyone who spends their time doing research is probably failing most of the time at what they do. The people are the top are just the ones who either have the least failures or their number of attempts is so large that it overwhelms the failures. Research isn't like some homework assignment where you get 99% of it right when you do all the work and double-check everything. Most of what you do in research is just failing all the time at everything, and through persistence, occasionally something that you try works or it doesn't even work, but you manage to salvage something publishable out of the burning wreckage of your miserable failures and blunders (I suppose some of this happens doing homework, too, if it is sufficiently difficult, but not on the same scale).
Not to mention there is more to life than academics. After years of working like a slave and time flying by at breakneck speed because you never have even one hundredth of the time you would like to have to do the work that you are given and keep up with your field, you may realize you haven't gotten married, you haven't seen the world, you haven't enjoyed yourself, and, indeed, perhaps, you have become a mindless mathematical automaton. And it may be too late to save yourself. I am 31 years old. I am not old yet, but graduate school pretty much robbed me of 7 prime years of my life and turned them into darkness and despair--all for nothing, in the end. I'm quitting this nonsense as soon as I have the PhD, and I am going to have my life back.
|
I feel like I am sub-par since I am not going to Harvard or MIT. I graduated a year early from high school, and due to my laziness during freshman and sophomore years, I didn't have stats similar to other students applying to ivy leagues. As a result, I am attending Stony Brook, and I'm afraid that this will affect me later in my career.
|
Plenty of the best people don't go to the top schools for all sorts of reasons--financial, temporary laziness, etc. A big name helps impress people but is by no means essential.
|
Am I up to par for a career in pure math? How do know if my standards for myself are too low or high?
|
I would worry more about your confidence than your ability. That could be a real problem later on. I came out of my undergraduate program, feeling like I was one of the smartest guys around, but now, as I am nearing completion of my PhD, I seem to have developed an overwhelming inferiority complex.
|
And finally, will the most intelligent mathematicians from better universities ultimately be better than me, no matter how hard I work?
|
Well, if you want to be the very best at something, often, since there are so many billion people on the planet, SOMEBODY out there has tried every possible combination of genetics, learning philosophies, and so on, and so, if you want to be the absolute best, you have to get dealt the best hand in every way possible. But, I think it might not always be that way. Math is a much more diverse subject than, say, running 400 meters. So, the little mathematicians know about all kinds of things that some hot-shot mathematician might have no idea about because it's not his area. So, in some small way, you'll probably be better than everyone else. In your own way.