A true story.
I’m sitting on the graduate admissions committee for the physics department at a major research university. Across the table, fellow committee member Prof. A is perusing the file of an applicant who is on the bubble. Prof. A turns to Prof. B next to him and says, “Did you see this one? The student has a Masters degree in Divinity.”
Now, you know me. Not really the Divinity-School type. But still, I’m thinking, that’s interesting. Shows a certain intellectual curiosity to study religion and then move on to physics. There’s some successful tradition there.
But Prof. A shakes his head slowly. “I would really worry about someone like this, that they weren’t devoted enough to doing physics.”
Prof. B nods sagely in assent. “Yes, you have to be concerned that they just don’t have the focus to succeed.”
The student didn’t get in.
who sought a PhD in biology specifically so he could use it to battle “Darwinism.”
Distortions, aberrations, ignorance and bad intentions do exist out there in various forms and can pass hidden in many situations.
But what I believe Sean was addressing to in his post was the issue of whether lack of “focus” is a fundamental (and objective) criterion for rejecting a candidate in a PhD program. In this respect, there is the issue of considering the danger of losing really good candidates just because they have previously shown deep interest in other fields, and hence, being “less focused”.
In the example given, of a student with an Masters degree in Divinity applying to a PhD in physics, there are really only two options: to deny admission (and this should really be based on objective criteria) or to go one further step in the process with a face to face interview. That would allow the comittee to learn more about the potentialities of the candidate and, at the same time, to detect possible distortions, as mentioned above.
However, it is not an easy situation, I think.
In this respect, there is the issue of considering the danger of losing really good candidates just because they have previously shown deep interest in other fields, and hence, being “less focused”.
Once again, the “really good candidates” are not the ones on the bubble.
Once again, the “really good candidates” are not the ones on the bubble.
Yes, in general.
But what are “really good candidates” anyway? A reasonable thing would be to use some objective criteria to define them, but… I do not believe this is always a simple issue. There is for instance the question of lack of “social capital” (mentioned before), with the effect of throwing some candidates right on the bubble just to start off.
@ Christine,
I think you’re conflating the issues that one can change the focus of ones interests in a relatively short space of time with your putting down of “technicians”. Broadening this out to science and engineering, I’d be inclined to argue we’ve got far to many “big thinkers” and far too few technicians. The problem is that almost anyone who has the skillset for getting a Phd in science can be a “big thinker” because it just relies on having ideas (the initial having of which isn’t that hard) and maintaining a limited level grasp of current research. You’ll get plaudits for being innovative and big thinkers are always much more popular because, by their very nature, what they’re talking about isn’t details you need to study up on to understand. By contrast, actually being a technician is hard because you’re working on the harder, buried problems, trying to properly understand every apsect of the problem (to see if there’s something being missed) rather than the “immediately accessible” stuff big thinkers do. And it’s difficult to talk about what you do to people because you have to explain detailled background other people just don’t want to listen to.
And yet, very few of the people who self-consciously set out to revolutionise things with their big thoughts, and most world changing stuff arises from the details. Eg, analysing blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect gave rise to quantum theory.
This isn’t to say one shouldn’t have a spread of interests (both professionally and personally), but I think science and engineering primarily advance through people who in their work focus in on details.
When I was admitted to the certain institution with which Sean Carroll is associated at the moment, I did not realize how deep the devotion to science is there…
Somehow whoever was on the admission committee decided that I will fit right in…
And what is the in that I speak of? A socially awkward block of buildings and people; but nonetheless one in which freedom of ideas flow is present! And ideas about everything- science, life, beliefs, activities,gadgets…
Of all the socially bizarre individuals I interacted with, none ever refuted my personality or my ideaologies based on their own preconceptions. Everything was in game!
And while I will never understand the reasons behind my admission, I do understand that I did fit in…
Later on when I pursued graduate work elsewhere, I did not encounter the same understanding of my character, strengths and inclination for my chosen field of study…
Pissed…I was…but that only reinforced my belief that there is this one miraculous place on earth and that I will be forever a part of it…
There are always better places for better people..
I’d be inclined to argue we’ve got far to many “big thinkers” and far too few technicians.
I think this is right.
Listen to the rhetoric of Universities when talking about their research programs and the kind of faculty they want to hire and keep. They always talk about being the leaders in their field.
If everybody is the leader, whom do they lead?
Ultimately, universities aren’t interested at being good at what they do. They are interested in looking like they are good at what they do. Often, many figure out that being good at it is one of the easiest paths to looking that way, but the pressures are set up so that looking good is the ultimate goal. And, often being good gets sacrificed in that name. Prestige is more important than actual competence. Scientists who get the press releases are more important than the scientists who do a lot of the work.
This is hardly unique to science. This is the way all of American society (at least) works. We worship the winners, and all but ignore everybody else.
-Rob
dave tweed wrote:
I’d be inclined to argue we’ve got far to many “big thinkers” and far too few technicians.
I think science and engineering primarily advance through people who in their work focus in on details.
Perhaps my use of the word “technician” has a more derogatory sense, which I explain in the following.
What I see around me (and my experience might be somewhat different from yours) is that most people try to increase their “technical knowledge” just enough to have a lot to say around in workshops and conferences, with really very little true understanding of what they are saying. Students are mostly trained to be technicians (and good presenters) and not thinkers. This formulae usually result in a very big number of papers with really little useful content in general.
In this context I very much appreciate the following passage from Schopenhauer in his book Parerga and Paralipomena, “On learning and the learned”:
In analogy to Schopenhauer’s point, I would say that a technician profile is not really very useful if he/she does not realize that technique is just a means and not an end.
But of course that I agree with your second assertion above: the best combination is the “good thinker” with enough wisdom of knowing how to use their learned techniques. I agree that these are the people who really advance science. If this is the definition of a “focused” person, so, yes, these are excellent scientists.
But let us go back to Sean’s post. The student in question was judged as someone with a lack of “focus” because of his Master in Divinity. How can one tell from this that he did not have the potential of being a “good thinker with enough wisdom of knowing how to use his learned techniques”?
Thanks,
Christine
As someone who applied to Physics & Astronomy grad programs with a resume that included on-the-bubble raw numbers and lots of “focus” flags (liberal arts degree, time off to do odd stuff), I would caution against drawing general conclusions from this single anecdote. In conversations with admissions committees and department faculty, I found their attitudes towards candidates like me to be varied, almost random. Certain departments which one would have expected to be quite conservative were surprisingly open to non-cookie-cutter candidates, while others rejected them (well, rejected me at least) without a second thought. As long as there are quality departments that will consider admitting people with a wide range of backgrounds and qualifications, I don’t believe we are in a crisis situation. And if (as many commenters have asserted) the more narrow-minded top departments are missing out on some of the best people, then they won’t be top departments for long.
I’m not sure that the issue only has to do with universities narrow-mindedly not wanting to admit students with breadth. Personally, I would happily accept a student with a masters in biology or math or engineering or chemistry. However, I would certainly have some apprehension about a student with an M.Div. I think it’s quite unlikely that an M.Div. requires that same kind of critical thinking, attention to detail and capacity for logic that an M.Sc. requires. Given that this student was already on the bubble, I think this is a perfectly reasonable excuse to deny admission.
I disagree with you bubble. Presumably, the totality of the student’s scores, letters, applications packet, and educational history were taken into account and after all that, they were “on the bubble”. The problem with what happened is that having studied for an M.Div. was taken as a lack of focus and therefore a reason not to admit.
bubble:
The comparison is not between M.Divs and M.Scs. Most students applying ti US grad schools have only Bachelor’s. I’m assuming, since the student in question was on the bubble, that he had a Bachelor’s in physics, or equivalent physics experience. So, just because the student went on to get an M. Div where other applicants simply applied straight to physics grad school, he is discarded.
Re Ben’s comment:
I was also told by at least two professors that taking time off would count against me. I think that’s something that probably varies from person to person. But the fact that there exist people on admissions committees who frown upon taking a year or two off is enough to induce trepidation about taking time off. I can understand why they would balk at candidates who stayed away from physics for longer periods, since it is likely that one’s skills would deteriorate in over longer periods, but one or two years seem perfectly reasonable to me.
I have no idea if Sean’s experience was at the U of C, but as an undergrad there, I’ve had mixed reactions when I tell physicists that I’m also a philosophy major. Three physicists approved of that combination (with the caveat that one of those three has worked on foundations of physics issues), but I did encounter one who was strongly dismayed by that. In contrast with this professor’s attitude, philosophy professors regard double majors with unequivocal approval, especially if the non-philosophy major is in a quantitative field. And it’s not just that they prefer applicants who specialise in philosophy of science to have a science degree: quantitative experience is regarded as an intrinsic indicator of philosophical potential whether one is an ethicist or a logician.
I also agree with those who suggest that people who have changed fields tend to have given greater thought to why they finally choose physics. In my opinion, way too many undergrads rush headlong into physics grad school because that’s the standard thing to do. Very few of them know enough about other fields to make a truly informed choice. But perhaps those on top who disapprove of polymaths like to have ignorant proteges whom, as they become increasingly specialised in physics, are unlikely to be lured away by other temptations.
Pingback: Focus: Not What It Seems « The truth makes me fret.
Several people have used the phrase “on the bubble”, which was unfamiliar to me but, as I gather from a quick web search, means “just short of a position or prize with a monetary award”. It’s pretty obvious how this would apply to, say, a pool competition; but could someone briefly explain, to someone not in academia, how it relates to a university admission?
Surely this guy could not have expected to go straight from an M.Div to a physics PhD program without having previously obtained a physics BSc and MSc, or can we take the latter as read and I’m being obtuse for even mentioning it?
One last point, which I don’t think anyone has mentioned. Could the profs’ real reason for rejecting the applicant have been a concern that in switching from M.Div to physics, which might involve a rapid catch-up, the applicant would somehow “show up” the physics department and the other students by proving in catching up that the syllabus and/or standard time alloted for it was not as demanding as it might be?
John, I believe it is implicit in the fact that the student is a borderline admission case that he had the requisite physics background, and so would not have had to play catch-up. Mark’s comment supports this interpretation. Simply put, after looking at the usual credentials, the student was considered on par with several other students, all “on the bubble”. However, in order to break the tie, the fact that that student had an M.Div was used against him.
I suggest that Sean didn’t include enough detail for the conclusions jumped to on both sides.
One of the first things scientists should do is question whether there is enough information available to draw a useful conclusion. Actually, that’s one of the first things everyone should do, on every optional decision. When you gotta make a decision with less than optimal data, sure–make the decision. But when it doesn’t have to be done, don’t do it.
For those of you who like to jump to conclusions, I do have a few select shares in the Brooklyn Bridge I have been authorized to let go to individuals with sufficient monetary resources. Feel free to jump.