>while a bunch of others did because they had paper authorship in their undergrad. But paper authorship in undergrad has NO correlation with your actual scientific skills! It just meant you were connected and or a hustler
uh, the whole point of a phd is learning how to produce scientific knowledge usually in the form of a paper? I can't think of a better measure for that then if you have experience publishing papers because that means you've contributed to the production of some scientific knowledge? sure there's tons of variability there due to circumstance, but I think my point holds
and finding connections is bad? the scientific process is one of cooperation, teams building off the work of other teams. the lone polymath is a long dead myth.
and again, having hustle is bad? I think you'd want someone who can be self motivated enough to get involved with research going on at their university
Getting a paper in undergrad has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be a good scientist or even a good PhD student. I’m talking about regular smart kids though, not people you could call a True Genius™. As I mentioned above, most undergrad paper authorship is peripheral where you just succeeded in establishing yourself in a lab long term and contributed to some research.
It’s great experience but I am saying again that my personal experience suggests this to be a worse indicator of success than a good standardized test.
>As I mentioned above, most undergrad paper authorship is peripheral where you just succeeded in establishing yourself in a lab long term and contributed to some research.
and what do you do in a research lab as an undergrad? you contribute to research of course. you plan, monitor, and execute experiments. you write up the results and their impacts, limitations, and related aventures for future work. you work with others in a research environment. you gather the nexessary background knowledge required to understand the field of research. in short, you do most every you would do in a PhD just with more guidance. you're not giving much reasoning beyond your "personal anecdote".
All of us did all of the above - no one finishes undergrad without extensive lab experience and expects to get into a good institution for a PhD directly. The main differentiator is whether you get a paper out of it. I worked every evening and summer all through my undergrad in multiple labs without ever coming close to a paper. This outcome is often out of the undergrads hands - except again if you’re connected or are a hustler just hunting a paper without trying to get a variety of experience.
As I mentioned above, I chose not to go the academic route past my PhD. I don’t believe it’s a viable system and want no part in perpetuating it. Not that I didn’t have a choice (my professors actively encouraged me to do so, which they typically don’t to most of their students).
uh, the whole point of a phd is learning how to produce scientific knowledge usually in the form of a paper? I can't think of a better measure for that then if you have experience publishing papers because that means you've contributed to the production of some scientific knowledge? sure there's tons of variability there due to circumstance, but I think my point holds
and finding connections is bad? the scientific process is one of cooperation, teams building off the work of other teams. the lone polymath is a long dead myth.
and again, having hustle is bad? I think you'd want someone who can be self motivated enough to get involved with research going on at their university