> The issue isn't the level of competitiveness but the cost of losing.
I agree but only to some extent.
First, there are many research institutions in the world. The same way there is more than one software company. They are not all equally selective and prestigious.
There are also a lot of companies doing R&D. It may not be academic research, but it can also be pretty cool. In that sense, not getting an academic position isn't the end of the world. Even if it may seem so from the perspective of a post doc.
Yep, you can probably get a position at some backwater university that will pay (in the rich Western World) still enough to live a "normal" life. But of course everyone thinks they deserve a place at the top of the totem pole and anything less prestigious is a catastrophe. It's understandable. Many were always the top or one of the top kids in class or in school, won various local competitions but then it comes to competing against everyone across the globe and suddenly the story changes and it's no longer automatic and a given that you are at the top. It's a cold shower to many.
>Yep, you can probably get a position at some backwater university that will pay (in the rich Western World) still enough to live a "normal" life.
This is a bit of a misconception. Even if you're willing to take any tenure-track job anywhere, the odds are still against you. There are simply far fewer tenure-track jobs per year than there are graduating PhD students.
How could it be in any other way though? I just can't get into the viewpoint of people who are surprised. Did they think that getting to tenure is just a normal, default stage in life that you will progress to as a natural consequence of time passing? Do they also think that everyone who works for long enough at a company will become a manager, then a VP then a CEO and if not, then they either did something wrong and worked below expectations or the system failed them?
Who starts a PhD and believes strongly that they will with high likelihood become profs? You have one prof as your supervisor and the same prof has many more PhD students. Do people not notice this?
After a certain point of bloat, growth cannot be sustained. Especially in America the system has ballooned up to an unreasonable degree and will collapse when people realize that value is elsewhere and will refuse to pay into the system through tuition.
Prestige, status, attention, fame etc. are scarce resources. Not every garage rock band can become superstars, most will not even be able to sustain it as a job or even to earn nonnegligible money.
Prestige is zero sum because it is relative. If everyone can become a professor then being a professor will inflate its meaning (already happening). But be assured there will be new concepts to signal prestige and people will be disappointed that they aren't all getting that prestige.
Yes, you're totally right. I think in general people do these things because they think they're special. You could ask the same question about why people found startups or attempt to become olympic athletes.
I agree but only to some extent.
First, there are many research institutions in the world. The same way there is more than one software company. They are not all equally selective and prestigious.
There are also a lot of companies doing R&D. It may not be academic research, but it can also be pretty cool. In that sense, not getting an academic position isn't the end of the world. Even if it may seem so from the perspective of a post doc.