Do you agree with Jeff Bezos on theoretical physics?

[Monsterboy]

I recently watched a video of Jeff Bezos explaining his journey from Princeton to Amazon. (watch from 24:39)


He said when it comes to theoretical physics, if you are not in the top 50, you are probably just wasting time. How accurate is this opinion ? Are most theoretical physicists just wasting their time when they could pursue some other career and be more successful ?

 

[James William Hall]

Most people spend time trying to achieve goals. If your goal is to make money, and you are not in the top 50, then Bezos is probably right: engineering is probably the better way to go. If your goal is to do physics because you love to do physics, well...

 

[Choppy]

I think the point is that academia is extremely competitive.

You can be in the ninetysomethingth percentile in whatever metric you have for intelligence, passion, drive, etc. and still not be guaranteed a position because there just aren't that many permanent academic positions to go around. A lot of extremely gifted people will finish their PhD with well cited publications, then jump from post-doc to post-doc and still end up in their mid-thirties competing as one of hundreds of applicants for a tenure-track position. In situations like that, the decisive factors are no longer intelligence or research output, because everyone on the short-list is on par with each other. Instead the factors that can make the difference can be a lot more serendipitous... like the specifics of one person's body of work aligning more directly with other efforts in the department.

That said, I don't think that just because you aren't the top student in your class you should give up and not pursue your dreams. It's just important to recognize what game looks like and have an intelligent plan B if plan A doesn't work out the way that you hope.

 

[Rive]

He said when it comes to theoretical physics, if you are not in the top 50, you are probably just wasting time.

To have that 50 do some worthy research you need another 300 (almost-never-mentioned) around them, at the very least.
To 'feed' the whole bunch you need lot of more people (starting from engineers to accountants and students).
So apart that 50 all the other should be considered just wasting time?

Sorry, that's just not how the world works. Jeff should just keep on with his Amazon.

 

[gmax137]

I didn't watch the video but that opinion tells us more about Bezos than it tells us about the world.

 

[jack action]

if you are not in the top 50, you are probably just wasting time.

Depending on your definition of success, wouldn't that statement be true for any field?

 

[Monsterboy]

Depending on your definition of success, wouldn't that statement be true for any field?

No, according to Bezos (if you watched the video, just watch for a few minutes from 24:39) in most fields if you are in the 90th percentile you can do quite well but not so in theoretical physics, here you need to be in top 50 or else you are not really helping, he goes on to explain how he decided to quit physics.

 

[gmax137]

Depending on your definition of success, wouldn't that statement be true for any field?

I don't think so. It is judging yourself and your efforts in relation to others, rather than judging your efforts in absolute terms.

 

[gleem]

To my way of thinking Bezos was "psyched out" by his episode with his "brilliant" classmate's performance. Making a life decision based on one instance of mental gymnastics of another does not seem reasonable. Bezos et al. spent three hours trying to solve a problem, a whole three hours, golly gee whiz they must have been exhausted. I've lost a lot of respect for Bezos after that anecdote.

I have quoted Leon Lederman several times from his article on a letter from a student asking if he knew he was Nobel Prize material. (Physics Today, January 1990). He does not appear to agree with Bezos.

"It was probably five years after my Ph.D. when I began to realize that I was fairly competent. By year 10, I realized to my surprise that I was as productive as those best friends who brought me into physics, even though they understood much more than I did". . . ."Hard work,--yes, it really accounts for a lot of success. Most scientists aren't brilliant. Some are even very slow. Being solid is important--that means really knowing what you have to know even if it takes a long time. Many "brilliant" guys are superficial. Determination, doggedness, and hard work are the characteristics that are highly valued in a group. Imagination puts the icing on the cake."

I think hard work is as important to a theorist as to an experimentalist.

 

[Dr.D]

I think the point is that academia is extremely competitive.

While there is no doubt that what Choppy says is true, we can also ask, "so what?" I see no reason to think that the only place to do top level physics, math, or engineering, is in an academic position.

I've played both sides, full professor and also practitioner, and I've enjoyed both and done good work in both. We need to move away from this warped perspective that academia is the only way to do good work.

 

[jack action]

Bezos et al. spent three hours trying to solve a problem, a whole three hours, golly gee whiz they must have been exhausted. I've lost a lot of respect for Bezos after that anecdote.

That reminds me of the time, while at university, one of my classmates read a book I lent him just to tell me that he didn't understand a thing after spending 2 hours on the book while watching TV. Really? I sometimes spent 2 hours on a single page re-reading the same statements over and over again trying to make sense of it.

Somehow, a lot of people thought I had a "gift" for understanding so much more than they did. It seemed to be the only logical explanation.

 

[mpresic3]

Bezos went to Princeton, and gave up his major in physics because he had to ask someone for help after spending more than 3 hours on a physics problem. This is not an uncommon story. He was impressed when an older student with some experience, was able to "map" the problem to one he did earlier. He concluded you have to be in the top 50 theoretical physicists to contribute.

Often at work, coworkers find I have solutions that to them, border on mysticism. In truth, after 40 years in physics, I've been around the block a few times. Experience is often underated.

I don't think this experience alone is sufficient motivation to change majors, although if I changed majors from physics, I would have changed to EE as well. I have about 8 grad courses in EE as well as physics. Remember, I have 40 years experience, and my career has encouraged more learning, with financial support, and time off. EE is equally as challenging as physics for the right persons. I am glad Bezos has found his niche.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So here's a definition of success that I think is reasonable:
- be paid at least as much as the average person, and have a long term stable job position, before the age of 30.

Basically impossible in physics, fairly trivial in software engineering?

I don't think he's that wrong. For the number of open positions available in academia in general, there are a lot of smart people that want the job.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So here's a definition of success that I think is reasonable:
- be paid at least as much as the average person, and have a long term stable job position, before the age of 30.

By that definition medical doctors aren't successful. Medical residents don't make much money. And you have to be a resident before you can be a doctor.

 

[Office_Shredder]

By that definition medical doctors aren't successful. Medical residents don't make much money. And you have to be a resident before you can be a doctor.

So what, you have to change the definition from 30 to 32? What fraction of residents become doctors? What fraction of post docs become professors?

 

[jack action]

So here's a definition of success that I think is reasonable

The problem is that a definition of success is personal; there are no wrong answers.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The problem is that a definition of success is personal; there are no wrong answers.

Totally agree. And I guess I should have clarified, I don't think what I wrote is a standard anyone should be applying to their lives. It's just an attempt to actually write something down on paper.

Anyone can do this. Write down what your career would have to look like for you to be satisfied, then evaluate your chances of it actually working like this. I think it's common for people going into a PhD to say they want to be a professor, it's very rare for someone to say they want to take a 10% chance of being a professor and a 70% chance at switching to industry and a 20% chance of becoming a non tenured teacher at the college or high school level. If someone went into a PhD saying they are happy with that, I say more power to them.

Obviously the odds aren't the same for everyone. If you're doing a PhD at Caltech your odds are very different. But that also means if you're doing a PhD at like, University of Nebraska, your odds are also very different, and not in a good way. (Apologies if the corn huskers are sneakily a top 10 physics school).

Or if you go into a PhD saying I just want to write a thesis, that's my definition of success, that's also fine. You're actually reasonably likely to accomplish that goal in most programs.

 

[bob012345]

Most people spend time trying to achieve goals. If your goal is to make money, and you are not in the top 50, then Bezos is probably right: engineering is probably the better way to go. If your goal is to do physics because you love to do physics, well...

I wouldn't mind having the $51^{st}$ largest income.

 

[James William Hall]

We all know what success looks like when we see it though we can’t agree on a definition. I think that is all we can say about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Leaving physics was certainly a great thing for him!

So what, you have to change the definition from 30 to 32? What fraction of residents become doctors? What fraction of post docs become professors?

You gave a definition. It fails so you move the goalpost?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Leaving physics was certainly a great thing for him!

You gave a definition. It fails so you move the goalpost?

No, my point was I just wrote down a somewhat arbitrary definition. You can pick a different definition if you want. There are many different definitions for which software engineering is a better choice than physics. Some of them will result in medicine being a terrible career choice. Some of them will result in medicine being a fine career choice. There are some definitions where physics is the better choice, but I think it's probably true that for most people, when they envision career success in various fields, it's more readily available both in software engineering and in medicine than it is in physics. What percent of people who graduate medical school become doctors? What percent of people who get a physics PhD become physicists?

 

[Monsterboy]

I will pitch in my definition of success

You are successful professionally, if you -

• are earning enough money and not depending on handouts from anyone or the government.
• are convinced that your labor is productive i.e your work is contributing to the economy/human condition.
• are not consistently(over many years) getting a bad feeling every Sunday, when thinking about Monday.
• are able to pursue (if you want to) hobbies and/or explore other career paths without compromising any of the above points.

 

[Office_Shredder]

are earning enough money and not depending on handouts from anyone or the government.

This is so impossible to define. If you live in the UK, is getting healthcare from the nhs a handout? What about Medicaid in the us? What about getting a discount on health insurance through Obamacare? The line between a government handout and a government program is so hard to draw.

 

[Monsterboy]

This is so impossible to define. If you live in the UK, is getting healthcare from the nhs a handout? What about Medicaid in the us? What about getting a discount on health insurance through Obamacare? The line between a government handout and a government program is so hard to draw.

Well, I would say the only government programs that count as handouts are unemployment benefits. If the government chips in on healthcare, it's coming from your taxes and of others. so the part of your taxes that goes to healthcare can be considered as a health insurance premium...I guess.

 

[Bystander]

...I guess.

Very exorbitant/extorted, but ...

 

[jack action]

Well, I would say the only government programs that count as handouts are unemployment benefits. If the government chips in on healthcare, it's coming from your taxes and of others. so the part of your taxes that goes to healthcare can be considered as a health insurance premium...I guess.

That is true for any government benefit. The only reason for the existence of a society is to help the people in need when they need it.

About unemployment benefits, where I come from, the program is literally called unemployment insurance and you have to pay a premium to the government - take directly from your paycheck - dedicated solely to the unemployment program.