Very interesting post, thank you. The slight comment I would add (in the context of professional academia and research) is also the role of luck (or right area, right time). I think no-one (with the possible exception of some areas of pure mathematics) gets to be an FRS before the age of 40 without the stars aligning in some way.
Also, in terms of research discoveries and the fact we don't know what nature will give us. One example is the Large Hadron Collider. We know now that the only new particle accessible to the LHC when it turned on was the Higgs boson of the Standard Model, but it was perfectly plausible that other stuff could also have been found (with consequent effects on careers).
As you have shared your experience; let me share mine. I graduated from Sheffield University in 1969 and was an average Physics student in those days (around the 2i/2ii boundary). In my class which had started at 40 in 1966 we had four Firsts; this was unusual, two would have been expected and there were two students who were obviously outstanding. I knew both the other two fairly well and while one was approaching the top standard, the other was a solid 2i who worked harder than almost anyone I knew (the only person I knew who worked as hard as him was doing a double Honours in Mathematics and Statistics). We met a long time later when I joined the Government establishment where he was already working and still working as hard as ever. I had tried working at that level myself after University and found that I could keep it up for about three months before I had to slow down. So there is definitely a factor there, but I don't know what name to give it. I also saw one senior person in my department in the establishment having to take medical retirement as a result of overwork, so I'm happy that I realised my limitations when I did.
I'm a year younger than you, I believe, and did the IMC maths camp in 2000, age 14 - which had about 25 us from that plus the Maths Olympiad team. I've only kept in contact with one person, and can't recall others' names, so it's interesting to see what your physics set went on to do.
'Good, but not exceptional, life success' is accurate for me too.
What's perhaps mildly interesting is that I didn't build a career in STEM at all, but rather studied social anthropology, wrote a book about environmental history & politics, and now work on the business side of journalism. Most people would say that qualitative and quantitative intelligences are quite separate abilities - but I managed to get the best final-year exam results in the LSE for much the same reasons I did well on the IMC maths exams: work ethic, study skills, very good prior education, structural privilege. (Actually, I didn't much work at the maths? Anyway.)
I find it curious that, on the one hand, there was that much skill transfer between subject domains. And yet I couldn't transfer it across to, say, getting shockingly good at office politics, strategic career planning, or general hustle.
My hunch is that just about everyone at maths or physics camp is heavily intrinsically motivated (by challenge, curiosity, autonomy etc) - whereas professional hyperachievers tend to have significant extrinsic drives (money, competition, recognition)? So your mathmos will do interesting things, and probably do them successfully - but there is by and large an ambition deficit.
Curious as to your take.
What drives Fields and Nobel medallists, I'm not sure :) Perhaps they're just intrinsically motivated deep workers who get very lucky? Or perhaps the recognition drive starts creeping back in, and they get strategic about what they work on and how.
I'm not sure I agree about the intrinsic vs extrinsic drives, or at least not completely. I think there were at least some of us (maybe a minority? But a decent number) who had reasonably strong extrinsic drives; even if not for money, some of us were certainly were very competitive.
I do though recognise what you say about skill transfer between subject domains - a bit like you, although I did all STEM A-Levels partly to avoid writing any essays, I've pursued a career which is very much about writing / where an arts background is more useful. I share your hunch that expertise between subject domains is highly correlated, but that expertise on the social side (office politics/management/hustle/etc.) is much more orthogonal to this.
Very interesting post, thank you. The slight comment I would add (in the context of professional academia and research) is also the role of luck (or right area, right time). I think no-one (with the possible exception of some areas of pure mathematics) gets to be an FRS before the age of 40 without the stars aligning in some way.
Also, in terms of research discoveries and the fact we don't know what nature will give us. One example is the Large Hadron Collider. We know now that the only new particle accessible to the LHC when it turned on was the Higgs boson of the Standard Model, but it was perfectly plausible that other stuff could also have been found (with consequent effects on careers).
That's a very good point!
Luck helps everywhere, of course, but choosing the 'right' field perhaps matters more in theoretical physics than, say, accountancy.
As you have shared your experience; let me share mine. I graduated from Sheffield University in 1969 and was an average Physics student in those days (around the 2i/2ii boundary). In my class which had started at 40 in 1966 we had four Firsts; this was unusual, two would have been expected and there were two students who were obviously outstanding. I knew both the other two fairly well and while one was approaching the top standard, the other was a solid 2i who worked harder than almost anyone I knew (the only person I knew who worked as hard as him was doing a double Honours in Mathematics and Statistics). We met a long time later when I joined the Government establishment where he was already working and still working as hard as ever. I had tried working at that level myself after University and found that I could keep it up for about three months before I had to slow down. So there is definitely a factor there, but I don't know what name to give it. I also saw one senior person in my department in the establishment having to take medical retirement as a result of overwork, so I'm happy that I realised my limitations when I did.
Thank you for sharing. :-)
As you say, I think a lot of people underestimate just how much work is required to reach the top in (almost) any profession.
I'm a year younger than you, I believe, and did the IMC maths camp in 2000, age 14 - which had about 25 us from that plus the Maths Olympiad team. I've only kept in contact with one person, and can't recall others' names, so it's interesting to see what your physics set went on to do.
'Good, but not exceptional, life success' is accurate for me too.
What's perhaps mildly interesting is that I didn't build a career in STEM at all, but rather studied social anthropology, wrote a book about environmental history & politics, and now work on the business side of journalism. Most people would say that qualitative and quantitative intelligences are quite separate abilities - but I managed to get the best final-year exam results in the LSE for much the same reasons I did well on the IMC maths exams: work ethic, study skills, very good prior education, structural privilege. (Actually, I didn't much work at the maths? Anyway.)
I find it curious that, on the one hand, there was that much skill transfer between subject domains. And yet I couldn't transfer it across to, say, getting shockingly good at office politics, strategic career planning, or general hustle.
My hunch is that just about everyone at maths or physics camp is heavily intrinsically motivated (by challenge, curiosity, autonomy etc) - whereas professional hyperachievers tend to have significant extrinsic drives (money, competition, recognition)? So your mathmos will do interesting things, and probably do them successfully - but there is by and large an ambition deficit.
Curious as to your take.
What drives Fields and Nobel medallists, I'm not sure :) Perhaps they're just intrinsically motivated deep workers who get very lucky? Or perhaps the recognition drive starts creeping back in, and they get strategic about what they work on and how.
Thank you for sharing - very interesting!
I'm not sure I agree about the intrinsic vs extrinsic drives, or at least not completely. I think there were at least some of us (maybe a minority? But a decent number) who had reasonably strong extrinsic drives; even if not for money, some of us were certainly were very competitive.
I do though recognise what you say about skill transfer between subject domains - a bit like you, although I did all STEM A-Levels partly to avoid writing any essays, I've pursued a career which is very much about writing / where an arts background is more useful. I share your hunch that expertise between subject domains is highly correlated, but that expertise on the social side (office politics/management/hustle/etc.) is much more orthogonal to this.