a conversation with ourselves

The last sentence of a recently-read article on the NYT Science pages reads:

"In fact, Dear Reader, you could consider this new study to be firm scientific evidence of your own awesomeness. And if you want to share that feeling with anyone, you know what to do next."

Indeed I do know what to do next, which is do what I always do and share.

Basically, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania compiled an awful lot of data regarding the habits of the NYT's readers (in how they pass on and share articles they read on the NYT) and found that people like to share:

a) good news: "Isn't this story about former teenage drug addicts turned urban gardeners uplifting?"
b) things that make them look awesome: �Perhaps this will amuse, although of course it�s a superficial treatment. Why can�t they use Schr�dinger�s full equation?�
c) long articles on intellectually challenging topics: see b above
and nicest of all
d) articles that inspired awe: "doesn't this amazing story about, like, the total vastness of the cosmos just make you feel part of some crazy, wicked, out there universe, dude?"

Anyway, it's an interesting story about how and why we share information online. Check it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/09tier.html?ref=science

the science of concentration

Just read this interesting Tierney article on the science of concentration over at the New York Times. Super short summary is that multi-tasking is a lie, our brains cannot fully process two things at once; attention is not really about attention, it is about selection.

It's why I'm now going to turn off my internet, put in some ear plugs (sexy!) - so that I can get some work done in this noisy Edinburgh coffee shop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/science/05tier.html?_r=1&global-home

hard times ahead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html?_r=1&em

This article is depressing, given that I'm a year away from completing my PhD.

I suppose I'm luckier than a lot of other doctoral students in that I have my fingers in a few other pies outside of academia. I also figured out rather quickly that getting bogged down in teaching undergrad classes (i.e. serving as cheap departmental labour) and organising seminars doesn't get you hired and competes with your primary goal: research and publication.

Getting something published during your doctoral years (at least in the Humanities) is what will set you apart from other applicants - not how many teaching hours you did or conferences you organised. Getting out there, meeting other academics, and making good connections is a good idea as well. For if you know other academics and they know you, they might be better placed to help you out when it comes time to job hunt.

Maybe it's because I'm optimistic by nature, but I refuse to believe that there won't be any jobs out there when I finish or that I'll have a problem finding one, if academia is indeed where I decide to stay. Why on Earth would anyone put themselves through a PhD otherwise?