Semi-serious question about motivation

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Grades measure your ability and willingness to conform and follow directions.

They do not measure effort, knowledge of subject matter, or intelligence.

Your "motivation" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with any of this.

[kibble420]

[ QUOTE ]
Grades measure your ability and willingness to conform and follow directions.

They do not measure effort, knowledge of subject matter, or intelligence.

Your "motivation" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with this to some degree. Some of us are naturally talented and can get good grades with minimal effort, and some can study for hours on end and barely pass. Effort and subject matter are not always measured correctly with grades, and do some degree, intelligence.

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
Grades measure your ability and willingness to conform and follow directions.

They do not measure effort, knowledge of subject matter, or intelligence.

Your "motivation" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all stupid and your avatar is revolting.

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound too judgmental, but are you really sure that you'd find an academic career fulfilling considering the recent lethargy that has overcome your current academic circumstance?

Now, with that said, I overcame a relatively significant bout of lethargy in my Junior year of college and am now very excited about pursuing an academic career (intellectual history / history of science). But everyone I've ever talked to warns me about the potential pitfalls of academic careers, and the one universal seems to be that it can be a pretty brutal career path if you aren't really motivated by what you are studying (particularly considering how much self-motivation it requires to do well and how much money you are passing up by pursuing it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Deranged,

I don't take that as judgmental at all. I wouldn't have posted this if I weren't looking for advice and input.

The very problem is that I'm not sure whether I'd find an academic career fulfilling. When I'm working on my philosophy thesis (which I'm admittedly behind on) or doing work for some (mostly upper-level) philosophy courses--like my courses on American Pragmatism and Perception and Conceptual Activity--I feel really "in the zone." I'm engaged by what I'm doing, like talking and writing about it, and am able to focus fairly well.

But other times when doing things required for the major, like taking Ancient Greek philosophy, I feel bored out of my mind and have serious trouble making myself care about it.

I just don't really know at this point whether I would find an academic career fulfilling. Studying law appeals to me, too, and certainly has better job prospects than philosophy. Are you suggesting I'd be (theoretically) giving up too much (both financially and in terms of my own fulfillment) to go on in philosophy if I'm not really sure I want to do it?

Regarding overcoming lethargy: what did you do to get out of your slump? Were you able to the turn things around just through introspection or did it take some kind of external motivator? Please PM me if you'd rather not post about it.

Holla,
Doc

[W. Deranged]

Dr Modern,

My apologies for the slow reply.

Basically, what I have heard from professors is that one should really only consider an academic career if you are 95% confident that you won't be satisfied doing anything else. The major reasons are (some theirs, some mine):

1. People who can get Ph.D's and positions at universities generally have the skills to pursue a range of other opportunities which are significantly better compensated. (Right now, in fact, I probably make more my first year out of college than I will make for the next 10-15 years of my life once I enter academia).

2. The training necessary to get a Ph.D. in the humanities or most social sciences (economics being the exception) not only takes a long time but is not particularly applicable to other pursuits. Plenty of physics Ph.D. students decide to opt out and go work at hedge funds; it's a bit harder if you study sociology or English. Therefore, it is a big time risk if you are not going to be happy doing what you do once you have completed your training.

3. Being an academic involves a very high level of self-motivation and a willingness to work very intensely alone. One upside of being an academic is you basically don't have anyone to answer to on a day-to-day basis. The reverse side of that coin is that you basically rise or fall entirely on your own achievements, and while you don't have a boss, you have to answer to the entire academic community when it comes to job advancement, promotion, reputation, etc. If it's something you aren't really committed to, it's too easy to slack off, and this could cripple your career. (Whereas many other jobs you can find ample advancement by just going through the motions competently).

4. Academia is one of the toughest job markets anywhere, particularly at the elite level. Goldman Sachs and Skadden Arps have positions open up for 100s of newly-minted MBAs or JDs every single year. At Harvard or Stanford, or any other major state or private research university, a position in your specific speciality may open up once every 5-10 years. In other words, there might be a total of 5-10 positions at a top 50 school open in a given year. If you're looking to the very top places, you might get a shot at one of those positions only every few years or so; there's a lot of variance involved.




Now I say this all as someone who is 100% committed to leaving a high-paying, quick-advancing, booming industry to go to academia. The reason is quite simply that I know that's the only thing I can do that will really fulfill me, on both a day-to-day and long-term basis. I really learned this to be the case when I was working on my thesis my senior year. I had gotten sort of burned out by academic study largely because I felt that I wasn't going anywhere. I felt like I was repeating the same tasks and reshaping the same arguments and doing the same analysis over and over again, just on slightly different topics.

When I finally got to sink my teeth into some new material, of my own choosing, without a huge body of secondary literature, I really began to relive all the excitement that history had always provided for me. You may be experiencing just that. It's hard to tell. Is it that you get really excited by certain subjects and exercises because they are comparatively better than others? Or is it because you find yourself thinking about certain questions of your own volition, and not others? Reflect on that. You certainly don't have to like every aspect of your field to want to be an academic; many young historians I know, for example, don't like anything before 1800, and there are plenty of aspiring English Ph.D.s who could list a dozen jobs they'd rather commit to above reading Milton. It's just important to respect the whole field, know where you fit into it, and think very hard about how committed you are to the parts you really love.

If I can offer one piece of advice, it is simply to consider taking a "real job" for a year. That should help you know what you want to do. Experience the rhythms of a workday and how they compare to school. Think about how you like to interact with people you work with. Think about how important things like pay, control of your own time, and freedom to work on what you want matter to you.