The author reflects on their educational journey, contrasting their deep passion for physics with their initial disinterest in biology. They recount how a shift in perspective, focusing on the intricate mechanisms and "physics-like" processes within biological systems, sparked a newfound appreciation for the subject. This realization came through exploring topics like protein folding and the Krebs cycle, revealing the elegant underlying order and logic of life. The author ultimately laments not embracing biology earlier, recognizing its interconnectedness with physics and the profound beauty of its complexity.
The blog post "Do you want to be doing this when you're 50? (2012)" argues that the demanding lifestyle often associated with software development—long hours, constant learning, and project-based work—might not be sustainable or desirable for everyone in the long term. It suggests that while passion can fuel a career in the beginning, developers should consider whether the inherent pressures and uncertainties of the field align with their long-term goals and desired lifestyle as they age. The author encourages introspection about alternative career paths or strategies to mitigate burnout and create a more balanced and fulfilling life beyond coding.
Hacker News users discuss the blog post's focus on the demanding and often unsustainable lifestyle associated with certain types of programming jobs, particularly those involving startups or intense "rockstar" developer roles. Many agree with the author's sentiment, sharing personal anecdotes about burnout and the desire for a more balanced work life as they get older. Some counter that the described lifestyle isn't representative of all programming careers, highlighting the existence of less demanding roles with better work-life balance. Others debate the importance of passion versus stability, and whether the intense early career grind is a necessary stepping stone to a more comfortable future. Several commenters offer advice for younger programmers on navigating career choices and prioritizing long-term well-being. The prevailing theme is a thoughtful consideration of the trade-offs between intense career focus and a sustainable, fulfilling life.
The original poster is deciding between Physics PhD programs at Stanford and UC Berkeley, having been accepted to both. They're leaning towards Stanford due to perceived stronger faculty in their specific research interest (quantum computing/AMO physics) and the potential for better industry connections post-graduation. However, they acknowledge Berkeley's prestigious physics department and are seeking further input from the Hacker News community to solidify their decision. Essentially, they are asking for perspectives on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program, particularly regarding career prospects in quantum computing.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Physics PhD at Stanford or Berkeley" post largely revolve around the nuances of choosing between the two prestigious programs. Commenters emphasize that both are excellent choices, and the decision should be based on individual factors like specific research interests, advisor fit, and departmental culture. Several commenters suggest visiting both departments and talking to current students to gauge the environment. Some highlight Stanford's stronger connections to industry and Silicon Valley, while others point to Berkeley's arguably stronger reputation in certain subfields of physics. The overall sentiment is that the OP can't go wrong with either choice, and the decision should be based on personal preference and research goals rather than perceived prestige. A few commenters also caution against overemphasizing the "prestige" factor in general, encouraging the OP to prioritize a supportive and stimulating research environment.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43764076
HN users largely agree with the author's sentiment that biology education often focuses too much on rote memorization, hindering genuine interest and exploration. Several commenters shared similar experiences, finding biology classes tedious and uninspiring due to the emphasis on memorizing facts rather than understanding underlying principles. Some suggested that introducing programming and computational approaches earlier could make the subject more engaging and accessible. Others pointed out the crucial role of passionate teachers in sparking curiosity and fostering a deeper appreciation for biology, contrasting their positive experiences with the author's. A few commenters challenged the premise, arguing that memorization is a necessary foundation in biology and that appreciation can develop later with further study and specialization. The discussion also touched upon the limitations of standardized testing and the need for more project-based learning in biology education.
The Hacker News post "I should have loved biology too" has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the author's experience with biology education and the perceived differences between biology and other scientific fields like physics.
Several commenters echo the author's sentiment about the rote memorization often emphasized in introductory biology courses. One commenter laments the lack of focus on fundamental principles and the overemphasis on specific examples, contrasting this with physics education which they feel builds up from basic principles. They express a desire for biology education to be more focused on underlying mechanisms and unifying theories, rather than just cataloging biological facts.
Another commenter points out the complexity and emergent behavior inherent in biological systems, suggesting that this might contribute to the difficulty in establishing simple, universal laws like those found in physics. They highlight the vastness and interconnectedness of biological systems, making it challenging to isolate and study individual components without considering the broader context.
There's discussion around the historical development of scientific fields, with one commenter suggesting that biology is a younger science compared to physics, and thus, is still in the process of developing its foundational theories. This commenter suggests that the future of biology might involve more mathematical and computational approaches to unravel the complexity of biological systems.
A different perspective is offered by a commenter who emphasizes the practical and experimental nature of biology, contrasting it with the more theoretical nature of physics. They argue that the hands-on, experimental aspect of biology is a crucial component of understanding the subject, and that a focus solely on theoretical principles would be insufficient.
Some comments delve into specific examples, such as the role of evolution in shaping biological systems. One commenter notes the importance of evolutionary context in understanding the apparent randomness and complexity of biological processes.
Overall, the comments reflect a range of perspectives on the nature of biology and biology education, with a common theme being the desire for a more principled and interconnected approach to understanding the complex world of living organisms. There is also an acknowledgment of the inherent challenges in simplifying biological systems due to their emergent properties and evolutionary history.