-
This whole thread is so worth reading. I’m just a bit off with the "stars" narrative: by definition, not everyone can be a "star". But "stars" aren’t the only researchers worth listening to. There’s talent and good idea everywhere. Don’t limit yourself to the "stars". @cheng_christine/1109032251600310272Permalink
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 6 Favorites
Mood +9 🙂
-
I’m actually increasingly doubtful of the whole "stardom system" in academia, in part because stardom is stochastic. I’m not saying "stars" don’t deserve to be "stars". I’m actually saying the opposite: a ton of people also deserve to be "stars" on top of the actual ones.Permalink
Mood +1 🙂
-
You rarely become a star if you’re from a less prestigious PhD program. Is it because you’re less "good" than people at fancy programs, or because you had to fight for things that are granted in such programs? Like money, network, opportunities, etc.Permalink
Mood +7 🙂
-
Once again, I’m not saying that hard working people in high profile universities do not deserve to be here. But it seems obvious to me that if you have great work conditions, you have better chance to do impactful research and to turn into a "star" – ceteris paribus.Permalink
Mood +6 🙂
-
So instead of focusing on stardom, why not focusing on things like kindness? Inspiration? Understanding of economics? Ability to argue without biases and fallacies? Willingness to help? An open mind? "Stars" may have those traits. But "non-stars" may have those traits too.
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +12 🙂