you can’t become world-class at everything, right?
October 14, 2017 11:03 AM Subscribe
Have you liked or excelled at doing several very different things, and chosen to sacrifice some of them in exchange for gaining deep expertise in one or two things? Or have you decided to pursue everything or combine some of the things? I’m facing some choices and would like to hear your stories.
Here’s some background on why I’m asking this question. (But you don’t have to give me advice specific to my situation; I’d also like to hear stories of how you decided to sacrifice interests or pursue everything you liked, and how that turned out for you, and what you wish you’d done differently or not.)
I’m an early-stage PhD student, of the typical age, in a STEM field. I already know that I want to pursue both research and art, but I’m having trouble narrowing it down. I’m really interested in three research subfields of my field and have made contributions there. I’m also interested in three specific kinds of art and have also made work there. I’m friends with people in these communities and like all of the communities.
From working in these fields (for months to years) I know I like all of them and am pretty good at all of them. But I’m not going to really excel at or be known for anything unless I pick one or two and really push myself to focus. Does saying “yes” to doing everything means saying “no” to doing anything well (at least for the next few years)?
I’ve gotten recent feedback from a supervisor that read “X has a very rare combination of skills. This allows them to do things few people can do. But to be effective at working on a team, they should try to develop deep knowledge in something.” That’s a big part of why I’m pushing myself to make choices now. How do I sacrifice some interests for the others? Concretely, that means something like “I have less to show my advisors because I’m performing this weekend” or “I won't participate in this residency because I have a paper deadline.”
Just wanting to pursue three research subfields is way too broad; people tend to become world-class experts at subfields of subfields (e.g. “hand grips for robots”). And being interested in three different kinds of art is too broad; I know artists who are, again, renowned for their “thing,” which is a specific style/medium in a subfield (e.g. “zines about relationships”). Right now I feel hopelessly spread out and illegible, like “not a real anything.”
Perhaps if I keep doing all the things, I can get really good at all of them and do deep (inter)disciplinary work; it’ll just take me five times as long. Or maybe I’ll never get really good at all of them; I’ll just keep doing shallow (inter)disciplinary work. (I'm not really a fan of having hobbies; I tend to be very "all or nothing.")
Some of my friends have faced a similar dilemma. Their solutions were, respectively, to become a new media artist; to completely give up their STEM research and focus on their art; and to pick one thing and do it for a few years, then change fields.
I know I'm overthinking it, so I’m looking forward to hearing external perspectives.
Here’s some background on why I’m asking this question. (But you don’t have to give me advice specific to my situation; I’d also like to hear stories of how you decided to sacrifice interests or pursue everything you liked, and how that turned out for you, and what you wish you’d done differently or not.)
I’m an early-stage PhD student, of the typical age, in a STEM field. I already know that I want to pursue both research and art, but I’m having trouble narrowing it down. I’m really interested in three research subfields of my field and have made contributions there. I’m also interested in three specific kinds of art and have also made work there. I’m friends with people in these communities and like all of the communities.
From working in these fields (for months to years) I know I like all of them and am pretty good at all of them. But I’m not going to really excel at or be known for anything unless I pick one or two and really push myself to focus. Does saying “yes” to doing everything means saying “no” to doing anything well (at least for the next few years)?
I’ve gotten recent feedback from a supervisor that read “X has a very rare combination of skills. This allows them to do things few people can do. But to be effective at working on a team, they should try to develop deep knowledge in something.” That’s a big part of why I’m pushing myself to make choices now. How do I sacrifice some interests for the others? Concretely, that means something like “I have less to show my advisors because I’m performing this weekend” or “I won't participate in this residency because I have a paper deadline.”
Just wanting to pursue three research subfields is way too broad; people tend to become world-class experts at subfields of subfields (e.g. “hand grips for robots”). And being interested in three different kinds of art is too broad; I know artists who are, again, renowned for their “thing,” which is a specific style/medium in a subfield (e.g. “zines about relationships”). Right now I feel hopelessly spread out and illegible, like “not a real anything.”
Perhaps if I keep doing all the things, I can get really good at all of them and do deep (inter)disciplinary work; it’ll just take me five times as long. Or maybe I’ll never get really good at all of them; I’ll just keep doing shallow (inter)disciplinary work. (I'm not really a fan of having hobbies; I tend to be very "all or nothing.")
Some of my friends have faced a similar dilemma. Their solutions were, respectively, to become a new media artist; to completely give up their STEM research and focus on their art; and to pick one thing and do it for a few years, then change fields.
I know I'm overthinking it, so I’m looking forward to hearing external perspectives.
Best answer: I once was a really really good trombonist. I rocked in the kitchen when i was a chef. But, in one case it takes a lot of practice amd contacts to play at the level i would want to, and i the other case, to cook at the level i like would sacrifice a family i care more about.
So my fall back career was this mix of data modeling, systems architecture and building big data solutions. I still cook breakfast, lunch and dinner, special family meals, and i work with my kids on music theory, piano, and guitar...
But - yeah, I don't climb anymore. I don't sail, since I dont have a boat. I don't row because my schedule doesn't make a boat house run in the early AM a possibility... But, I am back to puzzles, board games and crossword style puzzles.
Wow... i sound like i am 80.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:30 AM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
So my fall back career was this mix of data modeling, systems architecture and building big data solutions. I still cook breakfast, lunch and dinner, special family meals, and i work with my kids on music theory, piano, and guitar...
But - yeah, I don't climb anymore. I don't sail, since I dont have a boat. I don't row because my schedule doesn't make a boat house run in the early AM a possibility... But, I am back to puzzles, board games and crossword style puzzles.
Wow... i sound like i am 80.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:30 AM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
Best answer: This is a good problem to have!
But, yeah....you probably have to sacrifice some interests now to get really good at one thing - that's sort of the academic gig. We're specialists, or "deep divers" as TrinicWS puts it. But most of us have secondary and tertiary specializations and, in fact, use those to enhance our primary specialization and make it distinct (or really, really specialist-y). I'm in the humanities, but I specialize in X thing. I have colleagues who also specialize in X thing. X thing has conferences associated with it, and job listings, etc. I mostly publish and teach about X thing, and that's important because it means that I can make valuable contributions to other folks who work on X thing. However, I also publish on Y and Z thing, too, and sometimes teach a course on Y or Z (a little less frequently). Meanwhile, I tend to think through my approach to X thing with Y and Z in mind, which tends to make my take on X thing unique.
Part of succeeding in academic or professionally-specialized communities means a) figuring out what's already been done, and b) figuring out what your work will add to that body of knowledge. This necessarily entails deep diving. You want to undertake projects that speak to others' work -- that others will recognize so that they can use your work to develop theirs. That's how your work gets known and admired. You never want your work to be so out there or so new that no one will know what it is or what to do with it, at least at first. Once you've established yourself as a reliable, helpful thinker in an ongoing conversation, then you can introduce something really new and your interlocutors will be willing to listen because they have already benefited from and admired your previous work.
On the one hand, then, you could choose your X thing, but also think about how your Y and Z things would make your work on X unique, new, and more impactful or meaningful. On the other hand, someone once told me that what a PhD really does it teach you how to teach yourself new things all the time. I love that. Like you, I have lots of interests, and now I'm not only free to explore them since I'm pretty professionally settled, I also know how to explore them efficiently and in ways that are productive for me. Doing X thing now does not, in other words, preclude you from doing Y and Z thing in the future.
I often remind my graduate students writing papers or working on projects that this isn't the only paper they'll ever write/project they'll ever do, so they don't have to take it on like it has to include every single thing they've ever thought about or been interested in. There will be lots of papers and projects in the future. LOTS. Save those ideas and be excited about the fact that there will be opportunities to work on/experiment with them in the future.
Finally, being a grad student/early career is a juggling act when it comes to chasing opportunities and making sacrifices. You have to turn in high-quality deliverables and papers on deadlines. To be honest, the most successful people seem either to do it all or they are really good at figuring out what will matter most and rocking the socks off of that. So you'd want either to organize your time in a way so that a performance doesn't mean disappointing your advisors, that a residency doesn't mean leaving a paper incomplete, or you decide that the performance or the work due to your advisors or the residence or the paper are going to give you the most bang for your buck and know that sacrificing the other things for now is a good choice because opportunities do come back around more often than you might expect.
posted by pinkacademic at 11:51 AM on October 14, 2017 [6 favorites]
But, yeah....you probably have to sacrifice some interests now to get really good at one thing - that's sort of the academic gig. We're specialists, or "deep divers" as TrinicWS puts it. But most of us have secondary and tertiary specializations and, in fact, use those to enhance our primary specialization and make it distinct (or really, really specialist-y). I'm in the humanities, but I specialize in X thing. I have colleagues who also specialize in X thing. X thing has conferences associated with it, and job listings, etc. I mostly publish and teach about X thing, and that's important because it means that I can make valuable contributions to other folks who work on X thing. However, I also publish on Y and Z thing, too, and sometimes teach a course on Y or Z (a little less frequently). Meanwhile, I tend to think through my approach to X thing with Y and Z in mind, which tends to make my take on X thing unique.
Part of succeeding in academic or professionally-specialized communities means a) figuring out what's already been done, and b) figuring out what your work will add to that body of knowledge. This necessarily entails deep diving. You want to undertake projects that speak to others' work -- that others will recognize so that they can use your work to develop theirs. That's how your work gets known and admired. You never want your work to be so out there or so new that no one will know what it is or what to do with it, at least at first. Once you've established yourself as a reliable, helpful thinker in an ongoing conversation, then you can introduce something really new and your interlocutors will be willing to listen because they have already benefited from and admired your previous work.
On the one hand, then, you could choose your X thing, but also think about how your Y and Z things would make your work on X unique, new, and more impactful or meaningful. On the other hand, someone once told me that what a PhD really does it teach you how to teach yourself new things all the time. I love that. Like you, I have lots of interests, and now I'm not only free to explore them since I'm pretty professionally settled, I also know how to explore them efficiently and in ways that are productive for me. Doing X thing now does not, in other words, preclude you from doing Y and Z thing in the future.
I often remind my graduate students writing papers or working on projects that this isn't the only paper they'll ever write/project they'll ever do, so they don't have to take it on like it has to include every single thing they've ever thought about or been interested in. There will be lots of papers and projects in the future. LOTS. Save those ideas and be excited about the fact that there will be opportunities to work on/experiment with them in the future.
Finally, being a grad student/early career is a juggling act when it comes to chasing opportunities and making sacrifices. You have to turn in high-quality deliverables and papers on deadlines. To be honest, the most successful people seem either to do it all or they are really good at figuring out what will matter most and rocking the socks off of that. So you'd want either to organize your time in a way so that a performance doesn't mean disappointing your advisors, that a residency doesn't mean leaving a paper incomplete, or you decide that the performance or the work due to your advisors or the residence or the paper are going to give you the most bang for your buck and know that sacrificing the other things for now is a good choice because opportunities do come back around more often than you might expect.
posted by pinkacademic at 11:51 AM on October 14, 2017 [6 favorites]
But to be effective at working on a team, they should try to develop deep knowledge in something.
People without deep knowledge of something cannot be effective at working on a team? Is that even true? I guess it depends on the kind of team. Developing deep knowledge would be an excellent thing to do, but it sounds to me like the supervisor just needed to come up with something critical.
posted by thelonius at 11:57 AM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
People without deep knowledge of something cannot be effective at working on a team? Is that even true? I guess it depends on the kind of team. Developing deep knowledge would be an excellent thing to do, but it sounds to me like the supervisor just needed to come up with something critical.
posted by thelonius at 11:57 AM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
I always assumed in academia, STEM and PhD things, you needed to specialize. You can be a shotgun and okay at a lot of stuff, or be a laser and be really, really 'effin' good at one thing. MAYBE two. Don't look at this as a bad thing. Sometimes limitations can set you free and lower your stress level a great deal.
Some recommended reading:
"Essentialism"
"The Power of Less"
and especially "Deep Work".
Remember not to major in minor things :)
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 12:29 PM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
Some recommended reading:
"Essentialism"
"The Power of Less"
and especially "Deep Work".
Remember not to major in minor things :)
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 12:29 PM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I've done non-diliettante work in six fields....none scientific. Generally two at any one time.
It's not hard to develop expertise and credits in multiple fields, if you're wired that way. What's hard is:
1. Maintenance. You will have the persistent, dreadful feeling that one important part of your life or another is always threatened with going underwater due to lack of consistent upkeep. You know the guy spinning plates on sticks at the circus, who needs to keep them all whirling? I'm him. But this feeling of sustained imminent collapse keeps me humble.
2. Perception I'm taken less seriously in each field by colleagues aware of my other pursuits. In my 20s, I assumed this would improve as my abilities were proven. Very incorrect. In fact, I became widely prominent and respected in one field, yet continued to frequently be referred to by colleagues in that field as "the guy who does [one of the other things]". We know to take specialists seriously, but there's no mechanism in place for assessing polymaths. As a result, they smell a little funny. Ignore this warning at your peril; it's real.
posted by Quisp Lover at 12:57 PM on October 14, 2017 [9 favorites]
It's not hard to develop expertise and credits in multiple fields, if you're wired that way. What's hard is:
1. Maintenance. You will have the persistent, dreadful feeling that one important part of your life or another is always threatened with going underwater due to lack of consistent upkeep. You know the guy spinning plates on sticks at the circus, who needs to keep them all whirling? I'm him. But this feeling of sustained imminent collapse keeps me humble.
2. Perception I'm taken less seriously in each field by colleagues aware of my other pursuits. In my 20s, I assumed this would improve as my abilities were proven. Very incorrect. In fact, I became widely prominent and respected in one field, yet continued to frequently be referred to by colleagues in that field as "the guy who does [one of the other things]". We know to take specialists seriously, but there's no mechanism in place for assessing polymaths. As a result, they smell a little funny. Ignore this warning at your peril; it's real.
posted by Quisp Lover at 12:57 PM on October 14, 2017 [9 favorites]
Best answer: For artists, I think the question is what business are they in. There are plenty of musicians who like Bach and Mozart just fine, but are in the business of rock and roll. A painter may really like landscapes in watercolor, but be in the business of abstract oils. It's hard enough to earn a living in any of the arts, and all artists are forced to go where the money is, at least to some extent.
I think it's different in academia/STEM. The snobbery of being in the business of creating new science is pretty overwhelming. It's dangerous to a career to take time out for even a small detour, e.g. some attempt at popular education, at least until you have some significant achievement on the scorecard.
posted by SemiSalt at 1:41 PM on October 14, 2017
I think it's different in academia/STEM. The snobbery of being in the business of creating new science is pretty overwhelming. It's dangerous to a career to take time out for even a small detour, e.g. some attempt at popular education, at least until you have some significant achievement on the scorecard.
posted by SemiSalt at 1:41 PM on October 14, 2017
The whole point of getting a PhD is to write a dissertation in a subfield. But that does not mean that you are limited to that subfield for the rest of your life. Many people change subfields for their postdoc, and many researchers pursue new lines of research throughout their careers. The presumption is that the process of getting the PhD helps you become the kind of person who can transfer their research skills to a new subfield.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:58 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:58 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I found that jumping around in academia between A, B, and C (interrelated STEM fields) made me less appealing to any of those departments. I also have creative pursuits that I love, and have been viewed the way Quisp Lover describes. I mean, one possible answer to the question is "be better than me at your interests" or "work harder than me so you can get your 10,000 hours in on 3 things at once." I didn't do the absolute maximum to achieve the maximum amount in all my fields of interest. Frankly, I chose my primary focus by following enough money for a solid stable home life, and my secondary focus (which shifts regularly) is whatever I enjoy the most. It is pretty hobbyish as a result; I look pretty flaky to people in my creative fields. My family life has also been about 80% of my non-work time for the past few years, which may be another long-term consideration, and my primary work sometimes gets complicated in unexpected ways. Unless you have a specific long-term vision for combining your interests or the exceptional good luck of having a truly unfettered life, I'd give serious thought to picking a lane.
posted by tchemgrrl at 5:17 PM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by tchemgrrl at 5:17 PM on October 14, 2017 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Me again, from above.
Another option: firewall your identities. Maybe even use slightly different professional names. I've seen that work okay. No need to be perfectly seamless about it, just don't give in to temptation to flaunt your versatility, like, at all. It'd be counterproductive. So: no full resumé anywhere, no all purpose homepage, etc. Be several different people (it's not so weird; many people firewall, say, their work life from their hobby; it's like that).
Just to stress again (and please don't think me boastful) that despite solid, uncontestable bona fides in all my fields (including leading status for decades in one), I rarely feel fully accepted by colleagues, including those who admire my work. Do not expect to "prove" your way past this impasse.
posted by Quisp Lover at 5:47 PM on October 14, 2017 [6 favorites]
Another option: firewall your identities. Maybe even use slightly different professional names. I've seen that work okay. No need to be perfectly seamless about it, just don't give in to temptation to flaunt your versatility, like, at all. It'd be counterproductive. So: no full resumé anywhere, no all purpose homepage, etc. Be several different people (it's not so weird; many people firewall, say, their work life from their hobby; it's like that).
Just to stress again (and please don't think me boastful) that despite solid, uncontestable bona fides in all my fields (including leading status for decades in one), I rarely feel fully accepted by colleagues, including those who admire my work. Do not expect to "prove" your way past this impasse.
posted by Quisp Lover at 5:47 PM on October 14, 2017 [6 favorites]
So, this question essentially overlaps with "What do you think is a career path/hobby path you would like to pursue?"
If one planned to stay in academia and/or research, specialization is essentially critical. Saying "Yes" to something is always saying no to something else. Depending on your point of view, that may or may not be a bad thing. Having a clear idea of what you want to do with your life, either in vocation or avocation, will help you decide what you want to say yes and no to. The crummy thing about that is that you may have no idea what exactly you want to do. If you're like me, you can't even tell until you actually try it, which makes unpaid internships an unfunny joke. Even worse, in today's world, you can do everything right and still not wind up in the job you want to have; in my experience, one's ability to make connections or know the right people nearly always trumps actual qualifications or ability.
In my mind, the answer to your question is answered by asking what you would like to be doing with your life in the next 5-10 years. Sorry, I've answered your question by posing a new question. I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear.
If you don't want to be a specialist, things are a little easier. In some career paths, specialization is only for junior employees; as you move up the chain, you do less work directly yourself and instead manage the people who do. In that case, being a generalist helps because then you can understand 80+% of what your employees are doing, which should be enough to manage them, if you're a decent manager.
In my current job, I've actually leveraged being a generalist fairly well - I'm now involved in about a dozen different things, and I have to leverage knowledge of chemistry, sampling technique, error propagation, computers, metrology, a bit of politics, mechanical stuff, technical writing, some of the arcana of contracts, and also supervise a few more junior coworkers while working collaboratively with others - all of that simultaneously. I like being a generalist, and I like the fact that my job has enabled me to be one professionally. But it's not for everybody, and I've noticed that only a couple of my coworkers can context-switch as fast as I can.
I should mention that one can be a specialist and generalist simultaneously, but I wouldn't recommend that option: you brute-force it. You essentially use grueling organization and filing to have all the knowledge you need close at hand while also doing more. You basically have to put in twice as much work as any sane person should, or be rich enough to hire people to handle it for you. Needless to say, I don't think this is a viable option for anybody who intends to have a social life, or anything resembling a balanced life at all.
posted by Strudel at 5:52 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
If one planned to stay in academia and/or research, specialization is essentially critical. Saying "Yes" to something is always saying no to something else. Depending on your point of view, that may or may not be a bad thing. Having a clear idea of what you want to do with your life, either in vocation or avocation, will help you decide what you want to say yes and no to. The crummy thing about that is that you may have no idea what exactly you want to do. If you're like me, you can't even tell until you actually try it, which makes unpaid internships an unfunny joke. Even worse, in today's world, you can do everything right and still not wind up in the job you want to have; in my experience, one's ability to make connections or know the right people nearly always trumps actual qualifications or ability.
In my mind, the answer to your question is answered by asking what you would like to be doing with your life in the next 5-10 years. Sorry, I've answered your question by posing a new question. I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear.
If you don't want to be a specialist, things are a little easier. In some career paths, specialization is only for junior employees; as you move up the chain, you do less work directly yourself and instead manage the people who do. In that case, being a generalist helps because then you can understand 80+% of what your employees are doing, which should be enough to manage them, if you're a decent manager.
In my current job, I've actually leveraged being a generalist fairly well - I'm now involved in about a dozen different things, and I have to leverage knowledge of chemistry, sampling technique, error propagation, computers, metrology, a bit of politics, mechanical stuff, technical writing, some of the arcana of contracts, and also supervise a few more junior coworkers while working collaboratively with others - all of that simultaneously. I like being a generalist, and I like the fact that my job has enabled me to be one professionally. But it's not for everybody, and I've noticed that only a couple of my coworkers can context-switch as fast as I can.
I should mention that one can be a specialist and generalist simultaneously, but I wouldn't recommend that option: you brute-force it. You essentially use grueling organization and filing to have all the knowledge you need close at hand while also doing more. You basically have to put in twice as much work as any sane person should, or be rich enough to hire people to handle it for you. Needless to say, I don't think this is a viable option for anybody who intends to have a social life, or anything resembling a balanced life at all.
posted by Strudel at 5:52 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
Best answer: To be honest, there's a niche for shallow interdisciplinary work too :) I do a lot of it. I have a combination of technical skills (programming and so on, including in some new areas like VR and machine learning that are less common even in STEM) and a humanities/social sciences background. Even the fact that my primary academic discipline sits at the boundary between humanities and social sciences means that I'm across a wide range of frameworks in these areas. For a long time I tried to 'pick' something to become a really deep expert at, but I'm also bad at saying no to opportunities.
The advantages to staying broad are two-fold:
1. at the end of your PhD if you are looking for academic jobs, there are twice as many things you can apply for. In fact, you might be able to frame your CV in four or five different ways to apply for ALL OF THE JOBS. While you might think that you aren't competitive with someone who has spent five or more years just focusing on a tiny niche area that is EXACTLY what a job is advertising, you are, because:
2. you will get invited into more collaborations because of your unique combination of skills, and because for many of your colleagues in a particular area, you will be the only person they know in the other areas. For example, in a previous life where I was a non-interdisciplinary linguist in a linguistics department, for someone to invite me to be part of a team for a national grant, I needed to have some unique skillset within linguistics that they didn't already have in the team, and to be honest, they were likely to know plenty of other linguists who did X who weren't only three or four years out of a PhD. Nowadays, I am the only linguist that most of my colleagues in my non-linguistics humanities department know, and the only one that the people in the next door institute for cultural studies know, and the only one that my colleagues I work closely with in computer science know, so I get invited as 'the linguist' onto just about every project that involves anything even tangential to linguistics. And at the same time, I'm the only techie person my linguistics colleagues know, and I get invited to collaborate with them on just about everything digital. So I've built up a ton of co-authored papers and large funded projects on my CV this way.
A++ would follow my scattered unfocused dreams again
posted by lollusc at 6:45 PM on October 14, 2017 [11 favorites]
The advantages to staying broad are two-fold:
1. at the end of your PhD if you are looking for academic jobs, there are twice as many things you can apply for. In fact, you might be able to frame your CV in four or five different ways to apply for ALL OF THE JOBS. While you might think that you aren't competitive with someone who has spent five or more years just focusing on a tiny niche area that is EXACTLY what a job is advertising, you are, because:
2. you will get invited into more collaborations because of your unique combination of skills, and because for many of your colleagues in a particular area, you will be the only person they know in the other areas. For example, in a previous life where I was a non-interdisciplinary linguist in a linguistics department, for someone to invite me to be part of a team for a national grant, I needed to have some unique skillset within linguistics that they didn't already have in the team, and to be honest, they were likely to know plenty of other linguists who did X who weren't only three or four years out of a PhD. Nowadays, I am the only linguist that most of my colleagues in my non-linguistics humanities department know, and the only one that the people in the next door institute for cultural studies know, and the only one that my colleagues I work closely with in computer science know, so I get invited as 'the linguist' onto just about every project that involves anything even tangential to linguistics. And at the same time, I'm the only techie person my linguistics colleagues know, and I get invited to collaborate with them on just about everything digital. So I've built up a ton of co-authored papers and large funded projects on my CV this way.
A++ would follow my scattered unfocused dreams again
posted by lollusc at 6:45 PM on October 14, 2017 [11 favorites]
Best answer: My thing is that I’m very interdisciplinary (my profile should have my website). I have heard the whole "you'd be more effective if you focused!!" thing, but I've developed an international career in various fields precisely because I have experience in different fields. (Hell I'm writing this from a tech rehearsal at a major theatre event; I suspect I got my role because my background is so storied.) I've even made other people famous and successful because I was able to connect two people I knew who only knew me in common. I don't think I would be nearly as effective if I just focused on the one thing; my different experiences inform each other and allow for much more innovative work.
My sister went all the way up to a post-doc in biotech before going "fuck this shit" and pursuing illustration. She's always loved art but was never really encouraged to make it a career, but she also loved science so it wasn't like she was forced into it. She didn't stop making art while in science, and even her art now is very rooted in science. So it's not impossible.
(You sound like you'd be interested in the work that science museums and science centres do)
posted by divabat at 8:52 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
My sister went all the way up to a post-doc in biotech before going "fuck this shit" and pursuing illustration. She's always loved art but was never really encouraged to make it a career, but she also loved science so it wasn't like she was forced into it. She didn't stop making art while in science, and even her art now is very rooted in science. So it's not impossible.
(You sound like you'd be interested in the work that science museums and science centres do)
posted by divabat at 8:52 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Also "world-class" is subjective and something even those who focus on the one thing find hard to accomplish. Doesn't mean anything you do isn't worthwhile! Would you be okay with goals that aren't "be #1 in the world at X"?
posted by divabat at 8:54 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by divabat at 8:54 PM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]
If you want to be a career academic, then yes you will need to pick one topic to specialise in (obviously in the short term you will have to pick one topic to do your thesis on anyway).
If you don’t want to be a professor, then post-PhD there’s no need to specialise. I don’t know what your field is, but there are plenty of practitioner jobs outside of academia which require a broad knowledge base. Your artistic pursuits may end up being more like hobbies, but that is true for most artists sadly, regardless of skill and commitment. It’s hard to do art as a long term career.
posted by tinkletown at 4:12 AM on October 15, 2017
If you don’t want to be a professor, then post-PhD there’s no need to specialise. I don’t know what your field is, but there are plenty of practitioner jobs outside of academia which require a broad knowledge base. Your artistic pursuits may end up being more like hobbies, but that is true for most artists sadly, regardless of skill and commitment. It’s hard to do art as a long term career.
posted by tinkletown at 4:12 AM on October 15, 2017
Best answer: It all depends on your goal – is it to excel and be known? Is it to enjoy what you do? Is it to make a good living? None of those are incompatible of course, but there's an adage that of three, you can only have two at a time: a job that's interesting, pays well, and/or is with good people. In reality, those three things aren't necessarily incompatible as well, it usually is more along a spectrum. For instance you can have a job that pays pretty well, is interesting, and most of the people are great, but you also have to deal with raging arseholes from time to time. Honestly, that latter spectrum is one most women have to deal with in any career, so there's that to take into account as well.
I was one of those incredibly annoying students that was good at everything. What I really loved were math+physics+biology, literature, French, and music. So I went all-out in AP studies to rack up two years' worth of university credit and spent my first year as a piano performance major while also studying astronomy. No French. I quit piano due to sexual harassment and also decided music on the whole just was not going to be livable – twenty years later, I'm still glad I made that choice, but more because all the professional musicians I know, fantastic ones, are having a hell of a time. They've all had to take bill-paying jobs.
That left me with science and French; I picked French because I genuinely loved it. No idea what I was going to do with it. But I ended up being a translator/editor and writer. Since I had also grown up fiddling with computers and created websites starting in 1994, I kind of naturally got into a lot of technical translations. And that, in turn, got me in touch with IT consultancies, one of whom eventually hired me.
It keeps developing :) I started off as a tech writing project manager, but the consultancy lost their sole tech writing project. They really liked my work ethic though, and offered to train and certify me in software testing, which is a mix of writing, business analysis, relationship-building (you have to be a good negotiator when you test things that inevitably fail), and basic IT fluency. I frickin' loved it. That was ten years ago, and I now work in French companies (using my French language skills!) as a quality assurance project director, so, on the business side.
There is no way on earth that I could have predicted most of that. I was never one of those people who had a career plan. I still don't. I'm just like, "wheehee this is fun!" while also getting paid well and traveling between Paris and London. I mean, what the heck.
But it did fit with my overall values, which were to enjoy what I do and use a variety of my skills. I could have deep-dived into literature or music (and actually did, to an extent) but quickly discovered that my love of people was a clincher – consulting puts me in all sorts of different situations with very different people, and I love that, even though at times that variety includes some of the worst examples.
I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything. I still play music, read, and write, and my job lets me use a nice mix of math and sciency stuff too. So, maybe look at it more like, "what really, truly grabs me, at a level where I can't NOT live without it"? If that's the sort of person you are.
posted by fraula at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
I was one of those incredibly annoying students that was good at everything. What I really loved were math+physics+biology, literature, French, and music. So I went all-out in AP studies to rack up two years' worth of university credit and spent my first year as a piano performance major while also studying astronomy. No French. I quit piano due to sexual harassment and also decided music on the whole just was not going to be livable – twenty years later, I'm still glad I made that choice, but more because all the professional musicians I know, fantastic ones, are having a hell of a time. They've all had to take bill-paying jobs.
That left me with science and French; I picked French because I genuinely loved it. No idea what I was going to do with it. But I ended up being a translator/editor and writer. Since I had also grown up fiddling with computers and created websites starting in 1994, I kind of naturally got into a lot of technical translations. And that, in turn, got me in touch with IT consultancies, one of whom eventually hired me.
It keeps developing :) I started off as a tech writing project manager, but the consultancy lost their sole tech writing project. They really liked my work ethic though, and offered to train and certify me in software testing, which is a mix of writing, business analysis, relationship-building (you have to be a good negotiator when you test things that inevitably fail), and basic IT fluency. I frickin' loved it. That was ten years ago, and I now work in French companies (using my French language skills!) as a quality assurance project director, so, on the business side.
There is no way on earth that I could have predicted most of that. I was never one of those people who had a career plan. I still don't. I'm just like, "wheehee this is fun!" while also getting paid well and traveling between Paris and London. I mean, what the heck.
But it did fit with my overall values, which were to enjoy what I do and use a variety of my skills. I could have deep-dived into literature or music (and actually did, to an extent) but quickly discovered that my love of people was a clincher – consulting puts me in all sorts of different situations with very different people, and I love that, even though at times that variety includes some of the worst examples.
I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything. I still play music, read, and write, and my job lets me use a nice mix of math and sciency stuff too. So, maybe look at it more like, "what really, truly grabs me, at a level where I can't NOT live without it"? If that's the sort of person you are.
posted by fraula at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older Panicking about mysterious plasticky substance... | Metafilter, Wikipedia, Facebook, and... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
For me, I think I'm a mix of scanner and deep diver; my day job I'm definitely a deep diver. Out of work though, I enjoy learning a varied amount of things. So basically that's how I deal with it: What I survive on I do it well, and then I spend my free time and income from my job on pursuits that are totally random and have no relation to each other.
Re-reading your post, especially reading (I'm not really a fan of having hobbies; I tend to be very "all or nothing.") I have a feeling perhaps you may not fit into the scanner/deep diver concept and are looking for a different answer. Hopefully the other posts will be more illuminating!
posted by TrinsicWS at 11:26 AM on October 14, 2017 [2 favorites]