Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    So much mother has told me the problem with going into academia long term is that the professor/professors take credit for your work and it's all corrupt.

    So hypothetically if I went into biology chemistry physics or maths and I came up with a revolutionary break through nobel price winning stuff or in the case of maths the fields medal. Apparently I wouldn't get credit the professor would have his name put in front of mine and he would always be known as he genius that had the breakthrough even though it was me?

    I mean previously I thought I could never do this because I only scored 144 on the official iq test which may seem high but it's not the iq of Nobel price winners etc.

    There were problems with the testbso I should have scored higher but even then I am only scoring at best 160 ish again high but not Nobel price winner stuff.

    However I have recently discovered a lot of weird things in the last year specifically in the last few months of last year and this really may be able to get me over 180. At which point I would be in the IQ range to do that.

    So I have to wonder is his actually true wouldni never get credit for my ideas should I choose that path etc?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Okay so with science you generally begin by working in a research group. If the group makes a discovery then the entire group is credited, however you will probably be working on a theory, and hence that theory (and the person who came up with it) will take a large chunk of the credit, because you are just validating it. As you get more experienced you may run your own research group, and hence you will be responsible for any major discoveries. I don't know how it works with maths (I'm a physicist)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well yeah if I'm just verifying someone else's idea then it's their idea and they should have the credit for it and I'm happy just to get my name mentioned.

    That's more then fair.

    I was referring to if I came up with my own discovery etc
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    So much mother has told me the problem with going into academia long term is that the professor/professors take credit for your work and it's all corrupt.

    So hypothetically if I went into biology chemistry physics or maths and I came up with a revolutionary break through nobel price winning stuff or in the case of maths the fields medal. Apparently I wouldn't get credit the professor would have his name put in front of mine and he would always be known as he genius that had the breakthrough even though it was me?

    I mean previously I thought I could never do this because I only scored 144 on the official iq test which may seem high but it's not the iq of Nobel price winners etc.

    There were problems with the testbso I should have scored higher but even then I am only scoring at best 160 ish again high but not Nobel price winner stuff.

    However I have recently discovered a lot of weird things in the last year specifically in the last few months of last year and this really may be able to get me over 180. At which point I would be in the IQ range to do that.

    So I have to wonder is his actually true wouldni never get credit for my ideas should I choose that path etc?
    Most areas of science these days are so complex and resource-intensive that the days of "lone geniuses" is over. I think you've got a fairly romantic view of science in your head which might have had some kind of resemblance to reality a century ago, but these days science is intensely collaborative. Whilst there are exceptions to this (since some fields are more collaborative than others), it is likely that you would be working in a research group and papers would be published as the research group. In that case, the principal investigator would generally be the person who has their name first in the reference. And yes, the principal investigator is generally a more senior academic. But you've got to understand that an awful lot of academia is just hard, repetitive grinding in a lab or in front of a computer, it's not a young prodigy dressed in tweed sitting in an armchair and shouting "Eureka!". You go into academia because you're intensely interested in your subject and are willing to suffer low pay, poor job security and a terrible work-life balance for the ability to study a field of knowledge that you love, not because you want to become famous and win the Nobel Prize.

    Also, please stop talking about your IQ, you are just embarrassing yourself. There is no minimum IQ required to get a Nobel Prize.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Most areas of science these days are so complex and resource-intensive that the days of "lone geniuses" is over. I think you've got a fairly romantic view of science in your head which might have had some kind of resemblance to reality a century ago, but these days science is intensely collaborative. Whilst there are exceptions to this (since some fields are more collaborative than others), it is likely that you would be working in a research group and papers would be published as the research group. In that case, the principal investigator would generally be the person who has their name first in the reference. And yes, the principal investigator is generally a more senior academic. But you've got to understand that an awful lot of academia is just hard, repetitive grinding in a lab or in front of a computer, it's not a young prodigy dressed in tweed sitting in an armchair and shouting "Eureka!". You go into academia because you're intensely interested in your subject and are willing to suffer low pay, poor job security and a terrible work-life balance for the ability to study a field of knowledge that you love, not because you want to become famous and win the Nobel Prize.

    Also, please stop talking about your IQ, you are just embarrassing yourself. There is no minimum IQ required to get a Nobel Prize.
    I know their is no minimum standard of IQ required for a Nobel prize In theory someone with an IQ of 80 could get a nobel prize if they came up with a brilliant idea. However the harsh reality is that people with an IQ of below 170 are just not smart enough to grasp and come up with the really complicated ideas that would win those prizes.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    However the harsh reality is that people with an IQ of below 170 are just not smart enough to grasp and come up with the really complicated ideas that would win those prizes.
    A key part of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. So as someone who's ambition it is to win a Nobel Prize in science, I hope you have some evidence to back up this claim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by notnek)
    A key part of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. So as someone who's ambition it is to win a Nobel Prize in science, I hope you have some evidence to back up this claim.
    Actually I want to pursue maths I was just mentioning the other things as examples. I thought maths was about proofs
    • TSR Support Team
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    Actually I want to pursue maths I was just mentioning the other things as examples. I thought maths was about proofs
    So you want to get a Fields Medal, which on average is won by 1 person per year. Don't you feel like the odds of getting one are so low that it's not worth even considering the chance that a professor will "take credit" for your work? Just keep doing what you're doing and enjoy the maths!

    Having said all this, I admire your ambition. What level of maths are you at? Have you entered any mathematical competitions?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by notnek)
    So you want to get a Fields Medal, which on average is won by 1 person per year. Don't you feel like the odds of getting one are so low that it's not worth even considering the chance that a professor will "take credit" for your work? Just keep doing what you're doing and enjoy the maths!

    Having said all this, I admire your ambition. What level of maths are you at? Have you entered any mathematical competitions?
    I'm doing a levels with the plan to do a degree then PhD etc

    I guess the whole thing comes from early life experiences due to been autistic I was predicted to be retarded and end up in an institution etc. My whole life people have always thought me stupid and it was a boost when I scored high on the iq test etc. For a little while.

    But then I realised this is nothing special and been merely brainy doesn't count for much. I mean I have a weak figure poor social skills and am kind of plane looking. I'm not ugly but I'm hardly drawing in lines to date me. Been above average intelligence when it is your only redeeming trait is not enough if it's all you got been good is unacceptable that still makes you inferior. You need to be brilliant beyond brilliant etc. Maybe winning a fields medal is slightly unrealistic I guess if I can get a first class degree Honors from one of the big four for maths then a PhD again from one of the big four that's big boast just not sure if it's enough.

    I guess there are other ways to establish myself.
    I'm always eager to point out my iq because many people thinks due to been autistic that I am regarded.

    However it the grand scheme of things it's not that high I have brain pills coming in the post on Monday And I am also trying meditation on top of this I am now drinking tumeric and green teas.

    Contrary to popular opinion you really can boost IQ even in adulthood Burbank nothing seems to add a lot its all a few points here or there etc.

    I guess the question is whether you can stack all those points or they just all cover the same ground. If the former 4 points here 5 points there and 6 elsewhere soon really starts to add up. If the later well I guess maybe I'm kind of stuck.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    I know their is no minimum standard of IQ required for a Nobel prize In theory someone with an IQ of 80 could get a nobel prize if they came up with a brilliant idea. However the harsh reality is that people with an IQ of below 170 are just not smart enough to grasp and come up with the really complicated ideas that would win those prizes.
    That's just absolute nonsense. I don't want to sound rude but I don't think you have the slightest grasp of what IQ actually is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    That's just absolute nonsense. I don't want to sound rude but I don't think you have the slightest grasp of what IQ actually is.
    Okay I am aware their is the odd exception such as Feymen etc but then I had a lower iq when I was younger that's quite common in autism it seems for iq to change significantly in life. Just not sure if it changes much after 31.

    Feynman may have scored a low 125 when he was younger but I I am pretty sure if he was tested again after he won that Nobel price he would exceed 160 min.

    I don't count Nobel peace prices because that's just politics and anyone could get that etc. I'm talking about for the sciences etc.

    Even if Feynman was tested again and still scored below 130 he'd be the exception not the norm.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    Okay I am aware their is the odd exception such as Feymen etc but then I had a lower iq when I was younger that's quite common in autism it seems for iq to change significantly in life. Just not sure if it changes much after 31.

    Feynman may have scored a low 125 when he was younger but I I am pretty sure if he was tested again after he won that Nobel price he would exceed 160 min.

    I don't count Nobel peace prices because that's just politics and anyone could get that etc. I'm talking about for the sciences etc.

    Even if Feynman was tested again and still scored below 130 he'd be the exception not the norm.
    Stop obsessing about IQ. It is just a test that measures a very particular kind of non-verbal reasoning and nobody takes it particularly seriously anymore as a comprehensive way of measuring intelligence. The only people who seem to care about their IQ are people with no other particular achievements of note or meaning to talk about.

    I've already written this, but I'll repeat it again. If you want to be successful in maths or the sciences, follow your passion and be willing to dedicate yourself to your subject, not out of aspirations for fame or recognition but because you enjoy your subject and it makes you happy. That is the story that practically every successful person will have. This obsession that you seem to have with IQ is just a waste of your own time and it really doesn't give a very good impression of you.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.