The Academic Path of Least Resistance

Okay, I admit it. I was somewhat of a slacker during my college and undergrad years. After working waaaay too hard during high school under the pressure of Tiger parents (swish, I might as well join the other Asians on the bandwagon blaming our parents for pushing us to hard), I figured that I would take the foot off the gas.

In fairness, it took my until my junior year at Penn to completely appreciate that I could afford to miss tons of classes and cram for the two exams which made up 80% of my grade. I realized that I developed enough writing acumen that I could bluff my way through writing passable papers. Business school was even worse given that our future employers never saw our transcripts (besides knowing if we passed or failed) and most professors and classmates agreed that getting good grades wasn't the point. Well, unless you were "Mitch", but that's besides the point.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is right. In fact, if any of my children are reading this: Don't do what daddy did. Study hard and make your parents proud. Get good grades and we'll be happy to return your pets to you safe and sound. Score well on your standardized tests and you'll be allowed to leave the basement and eat dinner with the rest of the family.

Anyway... I was reminded of all of this when I read a recent article on CNN.com about how our national capabilities in science, technology and engineering are being crippled partly because college students who are inclined to these areas are instead choosing field which are far less rigorous. It's hard to blame them - it's tough to sell the upside of staying in college a few extra semesters and to spend some of the most entertaining parts of your life crammed in a lab or a library while everyone else is partying or having rich social lives.

The general premise of the article is that a great number of talented students actually want to enter fields related to math and science but they end of choosing other fields. The biggest reason put forward by the author is that the educational culture around these fields is structured along the lines of Darwinism, with an eye towards weeding out he weak so only the very best survive, as opposed to a collaborative culture which emphasizes the possibility and hope that "everyone can and will graduate successfully and enter these scientific fields."

That may be the case, but I wonder if a larger part of it is simple case of economic and social incentive. The path of a career in mathematics and science is extremely rigorous, with those who want to reach the top of their profession needing to accumulate master's and doctoral degrees. Add to that the post-doctoral programs, and the timeline may seem long before the financial rewards start kicking in. And even as a staff researcher of, let's say, a pharmaceutical company, the salary will compare unfavorably to an MBA hire (who also had to spend four less years in school) at that same pharmaceutical company.

Granted, people are incentivized by more than money, but let's not be naive to think that the financial implications (or the social sacrifices necessitated by killer coursework) aren't a factor. But as my friends who are in education or government fields can attest, the phenomena of choosing a field because you love it - as opposed to the "return on investment" - is not a rare one, and I certainly hope that there are more and more people who are inclined in the sciences who are encouraged by the prospect of doing meaningful work that they love to do, as opposed to to being discouraged about the seemingly difficult mountain to be climbed.