During my PhD at MIT my girlfriend asked me how I thought I would feel about those years in the future. I said relieved that it was over, as, although I loved everything about the place, I felt constant pressure. She knew me better than I knew myself, it seems, as it was obvious to her that I would in fact long to be able to return to that time. I'm sure part of the longing is just due to the fact that I was in my 20s, living in my own nice on-campus apartment, and was hopeful that I had a bright future. Many people probably have a longing to be 23 again for similar reasons. However I think that what makes the feeling especially strong for me is that being at MIT added a feeling of privilege to every day. It created a sense of fulfilment, that I had done everything right and had succeeded.
I don't think I could bear to visit now. The smell of the Infinite Corridor, the tunnels, Vassar Street, the Eastman Court trees in Autumn, or a warm summer evening by the Charles, would bring back memories that would be overwhelming.
My wife and I go back to Clemson every 1 or 2 months since we graduated 20+ years ago. Sometimes just for dinner, to take a walk. Sports helps of course because there's never a bad time to go to a football/soccer/basketball/baseball game. Even went to a club team rugby match one time.
We take our kids there, show them around, tell them stories and get ice cream from the agricultural center.
It's a beautiful place that we both love.
Strongly encourage you to return as often as you can. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. It's going to be a part of you for the rest of your life.
Just a heads up that the YouTube link at the bottom of [1] is pointing to the wrong place. It seems it should be youtube.com/@CodesCarolina instead of youtube.com/@CarolinaCodeConference
There are two kinds of MIT students: those who spend their time at MIT feeling they're not working enough, and those who spend their time after MIT feeling they haven't worked enough back at MIT.
The intellectual atmosphere is really something -- I don't know any other place in the world where so many interesting ideas will be whooshing past you, vying for your time. If you get too used to it, wherever you go next will feel like a backwater.
I wish this was explained more thoroughly at the age where "prestige" is a driving factor of applying to institutions. My college experience was devoid of obvious/visible/present intellectual stimulation, as a data point.
>'m sure part of the longing is just due to the fact that I was in my 20s, living in my own nice on-campus apartment, and was hopeful that I had a bright future. Many people probably have a longing to be 23 again for similar reasons. However I think that what makes the feeling especially strong for me is that being at MIT added a feeling of privilege to every day. It created a sense of fulfillment, that I had done everything right and had succeeded.
I feel literally the same about my 20s (not at MIT, but thereabouts).
It's the same reason why replaying the start of a video game feels satisfying.
> hopeful that I had a bright future
Life is full of choices—some small, like how to spend a day, and some large, like where to live or work. In youth, options feel endless, and many decisions are reversible. But as time passes, choices accumulate, obligations set in, and the future becomes more constrained.
At some point, we realize that paths we once considered are now closed —backpacking across Europe in your 20s, starting a family before 60, or pursuing a dream we always deferred. The surplus of time and energy fades, and life starts to become... predictable.
That's why the fantasy is alluring. It lets us revisit a time when anything felt possible.
Before 60, the max age to start a family is debatable. I used a number most would agree is inadvisable due to the likelihood you would see your children to their 18th birthday.
Most would set a maximum age where they would want to start a family as something significantly earlier.
Yeah I hope so. Anything above roughly 40 is only an option for men and if you have a kid at 60 then you’re going to be almost 80 (or worse- statistically speaking dead) when the kid leaves home. Not at all ideal.
I've stayed pretty involved though go into Cambridge less than I used to; the traffic is just so bad. Even volunteer at an annual reunion event now even if I don't go to my own:-) It was good for me and, while my relationship has changed over time, don't really regret a lot.
Definitely gave me a good start on a lot of things--not all academic.
"I was young, naive, and plagued by impostor syndrome. I held back instead of exploring more, engaging more deeply, and seeking out more challenges. I allowed myself to be carried along by the current, rather than actively charting my own course. Youth is wasted on the young."
This quote really captures how I felt during that time. I wasn't smart enough to get into MIT, but I spent a lot of time sitting in on the open lectures during 2004-2005. I remember meeting a few of their undergrads who wanted to start tech companies and always feeling like I didn't belong. And I may be misremembering things but it seemed like every pitch had to do with P2P.
Also, the first time I walked past those Frank Gehry buildings, I was awestruck. I just stood there for maybe 10 minutes looking up and down.
There was a period when P2P was the latest hotness. Pat Gelsinger who was CTO of Intel at the time said something like, as I recall, P2P was going to be as big as the internet at an Intel Developer Forum keynote.
Stata grew on me over time architecturally. Still not sure how practical they were, especially for the cost, and I've heard very mixed reviews from people working in them.
Stata was a great building to take a walk in. I discovered new rooms, and new coffee machines, every few months, and even started making a Minecraft model of it (got only as far as the elevator shafts).
The people in various "fish tank" sections of the building did not like the Frank Gehry style as much, due to the lack of privacy, water leaks, drafts, and such. But some of us were lucky to have offices in the one part of the building that had 90-degree corners and regular brick walls. We got the best of both worlds... a regular office with a door and a window, and the fun architectural madness right outside.
One of the admins recalled an opening reception for the building in the Kiva conference room. "I call this the nauseatorium", she had remarked. A man in a black turtleneck had turned around, wine glass in hand: "There's a reason why I designed it like that..."
Stata was visually fantastic - great light, most places you'd look were interesting and nice to look at.
Acoustically it was bad -- the echoes in the open plan areas were terrible. Too many big, hard surfaces that reflected sounds everywhere.
It leaked and tried to kill people with shedding ice. That was a bit of a drawback.
My office would get cooked by reflected light off of the big shiny silver thing (being grumpy twenty somethings, we called it the Gehry crack pipe). They finally added more HVAC vents to my office right before I left, so that's probably fixed. Of course, it took me adding an extra resistor to the thermistor in the wall temperature sensor to finally get them to address the problem. That didn't go over too well.
I've seen many other CS buildings that are about 90% as visually interesting as the Stata center with 20% of its drawbacks, so my primary conclusion is that they let Gehry have just a smidgeon too much free rein and didn't listen enough to the contractors and engineers.
But it's the most visually impressive building I've worked in, inside and out.
I had a GF who worked for an HVAC sub on Stata and she said it was a nightmare to work on as they were pretty much working off a model rather than prints.
I don't necessarily buy the fetishism of Building 20 (old "temporary" WW2 era structure--for everyone) whose footprint was largely replaced by Stata which, for a lot of reasons, seemed an architectural indulgence. I like Gehry in general. Really liked the Guggenheim in Bilbao which I was at a couple of years ago and it was a really big factor in revitalizing the city. But I'm not sure MIT got a great return from that particular structure.
There are several Gehry buildings that I like from a visual perspective, but I've never worked in them so I always wonder what hidden flaws they harbor. :) The thing I found most annoying about my office getting heated by reflections is that it's the exact same problem he created with the Disney Concert Hall in LA, just on a smaller scale.
Building 20 was kinda old and gross. Good riddance. The Rad Lab deserves its place in history, but just because people did great work in a shack doesn't add much magic to the shack. I really liked my office in NE43 (tech square) and it holds really good emotions and memories for me, but that doesn't take away that it was an ugly building. :)
> My office would get cooked by reflected light off of the big shiny silver thing
I knew someone in a Biology lab across from that. The light was blinding at times, and they had to cover the windows.
I later worked in Stata, but experienced mostly only minor quirks of architecture. And there were some good architectural elements too: the healthy and popular "main street" rather than sterile lobby, some of the common spaces where people would linger and impromptu encounter, the plywood fixtures (I suppose a nod to the malleable "plywood palace" Building 20 previously on the site).
I've only ever been on the ground floor which was "fine" but obviously doesn't expose you to a lot of the various quirks. Well, other than the outside features they had to redo.
One thing that does annoy me is that a lot of the expense was justified as it being a new landmark Northeast entrance to campus but that's really been overshadowed by some of the new massive construction like Koch.
P2P should be the future but IPv6 is not really taking us anywhere, NATs are everywhere plus centralization makes trillions and decentralization goes against every power system we have so...
I spent my undergrad at MIT and I completely felt this way! I wish so dearly that I delayed my undergrad by at least a year and spent some time maturing. So many interesting and wonderful things I've missed out on from that place, simply because I was not mature enough to appreciate it.
If my child wants to go to MIT, I would strongly advise them to take a gap year.
> If my child wants to go to MIT, I would strongly advise them to take a gap year.
Interesting. My daughter right now is HS junior. I'm struggling with trying to decide whether the top schools are worth it or send to the local in-state. I feel that for undergrad it really doesn't matter, but its hard to fight the mob mentality of our area.
Honest answer: as an MIT computer science grad, my life has been infinitely easier thanks to the label. But my time at MIT was very hard, and it is a difficult place for a young person to be.
It really depends on the child. I don't recommend MIT in particular to just anyone. Not sure if this lack of recommendation affects other top schools -- I don't have personal, intimate experience with them.
I can echo the parent. I still remember my time at MIT like it was yesterday, and it helped me immensely in life, especially having grown up poor.
But it was the people I met and the stuff I worked on with them, and the relationships that forged, that stuck. The classes were useful and interesting but I’m very glad I made them the “side quest,” so to speak, and made “do interesting stuff with interesting people” the main quest.
You should support your kid, in the best way you know how. :) That’s all.
MIT is not for everyone. I saw many students completely fold under the pressure, both from the expectations of being told they were “gifted” their whole lives, and from the sudden realization that they might be in the top 1% but might still be in the bottom third at MIT; that is a new experience for many. Also, many students just never learned how to study, since public school was easy for them, so that’s a whole ‘nother thing.
The point is: MIT is amazing, and there are countless students who would do incredibly well there. From any given year’s applications, MIT could form dozens of full-sized classes and all would do very well. If your kid doesn’t get in, that doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy or good enough; they might just be in one of those other dozens of other-timeline also-great classes.
But there are people for whom MIT does not work well; ultimately, it’s the student that knows themselves best. Do they thrive under pressure? Is curiosity essentially their top value? For me, the moment I visited MIT I knew it was the place I wanted to be. These were my people. Now it was just a question of whether or not I won the lottery of getting in.
It very much depends on what your kid wants to do after college. Having the imprimatur of a top 25 college is definitely an advantage for certain endeavors that value brand names. Plus there's a genuine networking advantage if your kid has the personality and social skills to take advantage of it. On the other hand, if they just want to get an MD and practice medicine, for example, I'm not sure it would be worth it. That is unless they want to do cutting edge research or aim to be some kind of upper management eventually, then the brand name and network could again confer an advantage. Also some top schools are better for certain career paths than others, So it really depends on your kid's specific situation.
I believe you are making a big assumption that you would spend a gap year at 18 similarly to a gap year at 22 or older.
A college environment is like a strong wind. Equipment, professors, and students follow and create winds of their own. Those that come in as undergrads will naturally have a different experience than those who come in as PhDs.
After leaving a college environment, a person has changed. In particular, they are better-adapted for interacting with certain types of people, in certain types of (work) environments.
> When you approach work with humility and curiosity, you learn more and participate more fully. Good collaborators value these qualities. A beginner’s mind is an asset. Staying close to your authentic self helps you find your true calling.
In my experience good collaboration is the best for the team but an absolute dagger for your career. If you collaborate people who pretend to contribute take over. Theirs a reason this guy is writing blogs
Thankyou for the correction, but the singular 'they' has been used in gender-unknown or gender-irrelevant cases for centuries. I was not aware this person was male -- but it did not matter to me. Ie, it matches both points.
My personal feeling is using a more widely applicable pronoun is more respectful, in general, so I use 'they' frequently, especially referring to people I don't know and so where I don't know their identity.
My experience has been that in a healthy working environment, it’s clear who contributed what (I do make sure to communicate clearly what I achieve towards the team and above), and lifting the entire team up does not jeopardize one’s own position in that team.
Maybe the key here is a good work / team culture? I can also imagine some places or contexts in which the work might be more invisible / harder to attribute to specific individuals.
What’s the saying? Twice the work, half the credit?
In all seriousness tho, I don’t buy it. It’s pretty hard to solo-achieve things in most complicated work environments. Saying you’re part of a group effort means more to those more interested in collaboration, good groups know to select on that criteria.
I do feel nostalgic about my college, but realistically, I'd never be able to do it all over again. Once I looked at two pics of myself: full afro before college, and almost completely bald after college, and I immediately felt that this is the right way to describe that time.
But I have to say that I do miss interacting with people much smarter than myself. And the general atmosphere that great things await. I think it was very challenging time, but the belief in bright future allowed to push through. Now that I'm stuck in a pointless corporate job and it's dawning upon me that "this is it" and most of my life aspirations are not coming true, I can't help but feel helplessly pointless.
I don’t know what pointless corporation you’re in, but when I got in to Google at age 37 it did in several ways feel like college again, with the obvious geniuses and ‘we can do anything, if they don’t lay us off first’ vibe.
We construct meaning, one way or the other. From one point of view, we are grains of sand to the universe. From another, we are friends, family, colleagues, and more.
I know what it is like to not achieve what you want in the timeframe you want. But with effort you can renegotiate what matters most and adjust your aim.
> Eric Demaine was on the same floor too. Once, I accidentally sent a long print job (a PhD thesis) to his office printer, and he was angry because of the wasted paper.
Because those sheets of paper could've been origami instead? :)
Our time there overlapped—I was a student of TimBL from 2004 to 2006, researching the Semantic Web initiative. CSAIL was, and still is, a truly magical place. I had the privilege of working alongside some of the greatest minds of our time: David Karger, Manolis Kellis, Regina Barzilay, et al an incredible assembly of brilliance.
I was there around that time, too, as an undergrad doing a UROP with Karger. It was truly a wonderful time.
That said, my favorite memory of the time is a little more low brow. One time I was waiting outside one of the single occupancy bathrooms in CSAIL for my turn to do my business. After a minute, who should come out but Tim Berners Lee himself. We carefully avoided looking at each other, as one does in this situation, and I went in and sat down.
The seat was warm! I remember sitting there grinning like an idiot thinking that my cheeks were being comforted by the residual heat of those of the creator of the world wide web.
In a similar low brow vein, I once took a wizz next to RMS in the old LCS building. When we were washing hands he tried to talk me into contributing to OpenJDK because we had previously talk a bit about a Java project I was working on for my UROP.
Karger's Randomized Algorithms class remains the only class I ever dropped at MIT. Still have PTSD from the psets for that class. Although I might have made it if it weren't for the fact that I was taking Compilers that semester, and 2 out of the 4 people in my group dropped the class. So my friend Dave and I basically had to do double the work for the final compiler implementation project.
Huh. I suppose I should see if I can join Manolis Kellis' lab; I got invited to one of the salons he hosts at his house on the quantum basis of reality and it was really fun! He also demoed a tool his lab is building for genomics knowledge graphing, and I was struck by how incredibly well-designed and empirical the whole project was.
I did not go to MIT but spent my entire career in Boston startups and tech. It is impossible to overstate how influential CSAIL was (and is?) in addition to it sounding here like a wonderful place.
I long for a space like this that I could spend some drop-in time at now (in my thirties and not looking to attend another full college degree program). If I could do one thing to reorganize society it would be to create a bunch of places like this with rich cultures of learning and collaboration that anyone could drop in on.
There was a decent technology meetup culture in the bay area pre-covid, but so many of the groups I enjoyed stopped around that time and never started back up again.
I started my affiliation with MIT in 1997 as a lecturer on eCommerce Architecture—a topic that felt both exciting and exotic back then, as the internet was just beginning to transform the world. Walking through those doors for the first time, I was immediately struck by the brilliance of the people around me. Virtually everyone I met seemed like the smartest person I’d ever encountered, and I couldn’t help but feel like an imposter at times. But that feeling also came with the thrill of being part of a community that constantly challenged and elevated me.
In 2007, I moved over to the Media Lab to focus on computational law, a field that thrives on MIT’s interdisciplinary ethos. Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with CSAIL researchers from time to time. These experiences were always a blast—not just because of the cutting-edge research, but also because navigating the Frank Gehry-designed Stata Center was its own adventure. I loved spelunking through its quirky passageways, stumbling across obscure treasures like tucked-away whiteboards filled with half-finished equations or discovering yet another coffee machine in a corner I hadn’t visited before.
Since the pandemic, I’ve been living back in the Bay Area, so much of my MIT involvement is now remote. Yet even from a distance, I remain in awe of the people, ideas, and unrelenting creativity that define the Institute. Reading this reflection brought back so many memories—and a wave of nostalgia. It’s inspiring to see how others have experienced their time at MIT, and it makes me want to book a visit back to the campus just to soak it all in again. There’s something about MIT that stays with you, no matter how far away you are.
There are other places at MIT with a similar vibe. Media Lab springs to mind.
I took a class co-taught by TBL called Linked Data Ventures (6.898). There was an effort to seed a Semantic Web startup ecosystem with project teams formed in the class. IIRC one of the groups did get funded and was eventually acquired, but not using Semantic Web/Linked Data.
Regardless, it was an amazing experience having TBL review our little demo app.
I have mixed feelings about Media Lab. They were the cool thing at one point but, even with their expansion, they just don't seem to be much in the conversation any longer. That's not necessarily a bad thing--a lot of academic matters aren't--but they certainly aren't the focus of conversation they were at one point.
I wrote a blog about some of my experiences at the then-new MIT Media Lab in 1985. Unlike the experience of the author, I was more of a lone late-night hacker (in the old sense of the word).
> Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why fake it until you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated?
Found this beautifully-phrased gem in the conclusion.
Be it in research or otherwise I'm sure so many can relate to this in their younger years.
> Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why claim it before you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated?
I wish this were true, and I do think this mindset would be optimal if everyone adopted it. Unfortunately, real workplaces are filled with people who are confident and wrong. As a leader, if your intuition is more accurate than your peers and you care about objective success, it’s important to assert yourself.
There's sort of an interesting tension (not necessarily a contradiction though) in this piece between focus / prioritization and curiosity exploration. Both are valid, but I wonder how the author balances them today and how it's changed since their postdoc.
E.g. on the great example set by Nancy Lynch: "The way she worked with students was that she would dedicate herself solely on a student/paper for the duration of an entire week. That week, she would avoid thinking or listening other works/students, even when she wanted to participate."
Compared to their lessons learned: "Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why claim it before you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated? In research and academia, success often goes not to the one who understands first, but to the one who understands best. Even when speed matters, the real advantage comes from the deep, foundational insights that lead there.
When you approach work with humility and curiosity, you learn more and participate more fully. Good collaborators value these qualities. A beginner’s mind is an asset."
>The way she worked with students was that she would dedicate herself solely on a student/paper for the duration of an entire week. That week, she would avoid thinking or listening other works/students, even when she wanted to participate.
Now we hear of academics (with their names on the papers) denying that they had anything to do with the work published, and at the same time the total fraud of academics with their names on 20+ papers a year.
Something has to give - and I think we all know what....
> the total fraud of academics with their names on 20+ papers a year
What fraud? It’s normal for academic advisors to at least be last author, and everyone knows that. And why shouldn’t they, if they helped fund the research, guided the topic, pointed at references, contributed to the research, edited the paper and presentation, etc., etc.? I was more than happy to put my advisor on my first paper after only the first couple of hours of his work, as he did more to make it acceptable for publication than I did in a month. And he did a lot more than that.
Also, some people are legitimately prolific enough to write a paper every 2-3 weeks. Not me, but I’ve seen it.
Publication rate alone doesn’t reflect on quality nor suggest fraud.
I am afraid that there is, likely, a correlation between publication rate and fraud. I agree that a very high publication rate doesn't necessarily mean fraud, but I am afraid that it does cast suspicion, in my mind, on the totality of the output of the author.
In my field I do know some legitimately high output authors. I know a lot of authors who think that they are legitimately high output, when in fact they are simply gaming the system. The sad thing is that they don't know better. I know a lot of people who believe that they have no option but to go with the flow as well - but know perfectly well that they are acting badly.
This is not just a question of academic morals. There are children who today will receive medicines that have no value, and may harm them, because of this practice. There are lines of research that will lead no where and produce no value that are being funded because of this practice. There are lines of research that would provide significant societal benefit that are not being funded because of this practice.
You’re jumping to some pretty big and possibly unsupported conclusions about citation gaming, which is what that blog post is about. People gaming citations are likely trying to fly under the radar and don’t want to draw public attention. Maybe also pay attention to what fields these are in too; gaming in social science might be less impactful than gaming in medicine. One of the examples in the blog post you cited was ghost authors in medical journals which means people who contributed but were not listed; this is almost the opposite problem of what you’re worrying about and it does not amount to bad science.
Medicines aren’t created from the results of a single paper, especially an obscure one with unexplained obscure citations. There are checks and balances. Medicines go through trials which don’t depend on citations. We’ve had ineffective medicines in the past, and it’s happened for other reasons. Notably, consider that the portion of ineffective and actively harmful medications were dramatically higher 50 and 100 years ago than today. If you’re worried about the effectiveness of medicines, then spend your limited time worrying about the anti-vax crowd. They are doing far more damage than people gaming academic citations.
There will always be lines of research that lead nowhere, that’s an inherent feature of the system. Experimental research into unknown topics carries risk, and it should, otherwise it’s not research. If we knew the answer, then we wouldn’t need research.
For the same reason, there will also always be lines of research that don’t get funded. Citation gaming might have a small effect, but there are dozens of other ways human behavior affects what gets funded. And things that work tend to attract people that feel strongly and tend to attract research, so citation gaming doesn’t necessarily lead to strong research getting pushed out.
Gaming of papers is definitely a problem for academics and their careers, and it’s a problem that does need to be fixed, but it’s premature to think the sky is falling. Good science isn’t ending just because some people do bad or mediocre science.
This is the problem with "common knowledge" and "everybody knows" and "gut feelings".
Unless you work in an industry (such as academia, or farming, or auto manufacturing, or any of the other thousands of industries), what you know is superficial.
You think you know, because how complicated could something be?
The public could learn a thing or two by asking questions from people who make these pursuits their lives.
For instance, did you ever stop to think that Professors advise students who write papers, and are therefore listed as co-authors?
Another knee-jerk would be: look at these professors only putting out 20 papers a year; they are so inefficient- they should be mentoring far more students for the money we pay them.
I have actually worked in academia, and in industrial research. I've served on many program committees and participated in peer review actively for many years.
I am sorry to say, I am one of the people who should be asked.
The system is corrupt, coercive, exploitative, and delivers poor results.
Things were much better when academics wrote 20 papers in a career.
I think GP's point is that academics who have 20+ papers are basically running a paper mill; there is no way they are participating meaningfully in the papers their names appear in
I think that the way that authorship is currently practiced has a lot to do with this fraud. Academics with ethics and goodwill can no longer effectively police the system. A large number of academics do not even want the system to be policed.
During my PhD at MIT my girlfriend asked me how I thought I would feel about those years in the future. I said relieved that it was over, as, although I loved everything about the place, I felt constant pressure. She knew me better than I knew myself, it seems, as it was obvious to her that I would in fact long to be able to return to that time. I'm sure part of the longing is just due to the fact that I was in my 20s, living in my own nice on-campus apartment, and was hopeful that I had a bright future. Many people probably have a longing to be 23 again for similar reasons. However I think that what makes the feeling especially strong for me is that being at MIT added a feeling of privilege to every day. It created a sense of fulfilment, that I had done everything right and had succeeded.
I don't think I could bear to visit now. The smell of the Infinite Corridor, the tunnels, Vassar Street, the Eastman Court trees in Autumn, or a warm summer evening by the Charles, would bring back memories that would be overwhelming.
My wife and I go back to Clemson every 1 or 2 months since we graduated 20+ years ago. Sometimes just for dinner, to take a walk. Sports helps of course because there's never a bad time to go to a football/soccer/basketball/baseball game. Even went to a club team rugby match one time.
We take our kids there, show them around, tell them stories and get ice cream from the agricultural center.
It's a beautiful place that we both love.
Strongly encourage you to return as often as you can. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. It's going to be a part of you for the rest of your life.
Hey! Ive worked for Clemson for about 8 years…it’s a wonderful place! I think I saw your Carolina codes mentioned at a PHPUpstate meetup.
Awesome!
Call for Speakers is currently open too.
https://carolina.codes
Nice!
Just a heads up that the YouTube link at the bottom of [1] is pointing to the wrong place. It seems it should be youtube.com/@CodesCarolina instead of youtube.com/@CarolinaCodeConference
[1] https://blog.carolina.codes/p/call-for-speakers-2025-is-open
Thanks! I rebranded all of the social links to be uniformly @CodesCarolina and I thought I got them all. Good catch.
There are two kinds of MIT students: those who spend their time at MIT feeling they're not working enough, and those who spend their time after MIT feeling they haven't worked enough back at MIT.
The intellectual atmosphere is really something -- I don't know any other place in the world where so many interesting ideas will be whooshing past you, vying for your time. If you get too used to it, wherever you go next will feel like a backwater.
I wish this was explained more thoroughly at the age where "prestige" is a driving factor of applying to institutions. My college experience was devoid of obvious/visible/present intellectual stimulation, as a data point.
Somehow I was/am both of those students at the same time!
Somehow I feel neither!
>'m sure part of the longing is just due to the fact that I was in my 20s, living in my own nice on-campus apartment, and was hopeful that I had a bright future. Many people probably have a longing to be 23 again for similar reasons. However I think that what makes the feeling especially strong for me is that being at MIT added a feeling of privilege to every day. It created a sense of fulfillment, that I had done everything right and had succeeded.
I feel literally the same about my 20s (not at MIT, but thereabouts).
It's the same reason why replaying the start of a video game feels satisfying.
> hopeful that I had a bright future
Life is full of choices—some small, like how to spend a day, and some large, like where to live or work. In youth, options feel endless, and many decisions are reversible. But as time passes, choices accumulate, obligations set in, and the future becomes more constrained.
At some point, we realize that paths we once considered are now closed —backpacking across Europe in your 20s, starting a family before 60, or pursuing a dream we always deferred. The surplus of time and energy fades, and life starts to become... predictable.
That's why the fantasy is alluring. It lets us revisit a time when anything felt possible.
Starting a family at… 60?
Before 60, the max age to start a family is debatable. I used a number most would agree is inadvisable due to the likelihood you would see your children to their 18th birthday.
Most would set a maximum age where they would want to start a family as something significantly earlier.
Yeah I hope so. Anything above roughly 40 is only an option for men and if you have a kid at 60 then you’re going to be almost 80 (or worse- statistically speaking dead) when the kid leaves home. Not at all ideal.
I've stayed pretty involved though go into Cambridge less than I used to; the traffic is just so bad. Even volunteer at an annual reunion event now even if I don't go to my own:-) It was good for me and, while my relationship has changed over time, don't really regret a lot.
Definitely gave me a good start on a lot of things--not all academic.
"I was young, naive, and plagued by impostor syndrome. I held back instead of exploring more, engaging more deeply, and seeking out more challenges. I allowed myself to be carried along by the current, rather than actively charting my own course. Youth is wasted on the young."
This quote really captures how I felt during that time. I wasn't smart enough to get into MIT, but I spent a lot of time sitting in on the open lectures during 2004-2005. I remember meeting a few of their undergrads who wanted to start tech companies and always feeling like I didn't belong. And I may be misremembering things but it seemed like every pitch had to do with P2P.
Also, the first time I walked past those Frank Gehry buildings, I was awestruck. I just stood there for maybe 10 minutes looking up and down.
There was a period when P2P was the latest hotness. Pat Gelsinger who was CTO of Intel at the time said something like, as I recall, P2P was going to be as big as the internet at an Intel Developer Forum keynote.
Stata grew on me over time architecturally. Still not sure how practical they were, especially for the cost, and I've heard very mixed reviews from people working in them.
Stata was a great building to take a walk in. I discovered new rooms, and new coffee machines, every few months, and even started making a Minecraft model of it (got only as far as the elevator shafts).
The people in various "fish tank" sections of the building did not like the Frank Gehry style as much, due to the lack of privacy, water leaks, drafts, and such. But some of us were lucky to have offices in the one part of the building that had 90-degree corners and regular brick walls. We got the best of both worlds... a regular office with a door and a window, and the fun architectural madness right outside.
One of the admins recalled an opening reception for the building in the Kiva conference room. "I call this the nauseatorium", she had remarked. A man in a black turtleneck had turned around, wine glass in hand: "There's a reason why I designed it like that..."
Stata was visually fantastic - great light, most places you'd look were interesting and nice to look at.
Acoustically it was bad -- the echoes in the open plan areas were terrible. Too many big, hard surfaces that reflected sounds everywhere.
It leaked and tried to kill people with shedding ice. That was a bit of a drawback.
My office would get cooked by reflected light off of the big shiny silver thing (being grumpy twenty somethings, we called it the Gehry crack pipe). They finally added more HVAC vents to my office right before I left, so that's probably fixed. Of course, it took me adding an extra resistor to the thermistor in the wall temperature sensor to finally get them to address the problem. That didn't go over too well.
I've seen many other CS buildings that are about 90% as visually interesting as the Stata center with 20% of its drawbacks, so my primary conclusion is that they let Gehry have just a smidgeon too much free rein and didn't listen enough to the contractors and engineers.
But it's the most visually impressive building I've worked in, inside and out.
I had a GF who worked for an HVAC sub on Stata and she said it was a nightmare to work on as they were pretty much working off a model rather than prints.
I don't necessarily buy the fetishism of Building 20 (old "temporary" WW2 era structure--for everyone) whose footprint was largely replaced by Stata which, for a lot of reasons, seemed an architectural indulgence. I like Gehry in general. Really liked the Guggenheim in Bilbao which I was at a couple of years ago and it was a really big factor in revitalizing the city. But I'm not sure MIT got a great return from that particular structure.
There are several Gehry buildings that I like from a visual perspective, but I've never worked in them so I always wonder what hidden flaws they harbor. :) The thing I found most annoying about my office getting heated by reflections is that it's the exact same problem he created with the Disney Concert Hall in LA, just on a smaller scale.
Building 20 was kinda old and gross. Good riddance. The Rad Lab deserves its place in history, but just because people did great work in a shack doesn't add much magic to the shack. I really liked my office in NE43 (tech square) and it holds really good emotions and memories for me, but that doesn't take away that it was an ugly building. :)
> My office would get cooked by reflected light off of the big shiny silver thing
I knew someone in a Biology lab across from that. The light was blinding at times, and they had to cover the windows.
I later worked in Stata, but experienced mostly only minor quirks of architecture. And there were some good architectural elements too: the healthy and popular "main street" rather than sterile lobby, some of the common spaces where people would linger and impromptu encounter, the plywood fixtures (I suppose a nod to the malleable "plywood palace" Building 20 previously on the site).
I've only ever been on the ground floor which was "fine" but obviously doesn't expose you to a lot of the various quirks. Well, other than the outside features they had to redo.
One thing that does annoy me is that a lot of the expense was justified as it being a new landmark Northeast entrance to campus but that's really been overshadowed by some of the new massive construction like Koch.
P2P should be the future but IPv6 is not really taking us anywhere, NATs are everywhere plus centralization makes trillions and decentralization goes against every power system we have so...
I spent my undergrad at MIT and I completely felt this way! I wish so dearly that I delayed my undergrad by at least a year and spent some time maturing. So many interesting and wonderful things I've missed out on from that place, simply because I was not mature enough to appreciate it.
If my child wants to go to MIT, I would strongly advise them to take a gap year.
> If my child wants to go to MIT, I would strongly advise them to take a gap year.
Interesting. My daughter right now is HS junior. I'm struggling with trying to decide whether the top schools are worth it or send to the local in-state. I feel that for undergrad it really doesn't matter, but its hard to fight the mob mentality of our area.
Honest answer: as an MIT computer science grad, my life has been infinitely easier thanks to the label. But my time at MIT was very hard, and it is a difficult place for a young person to be.
It really depends on the child. I don't recommend MIT in particular to just anyone. Not sure if this lack of recommendation affects other top schools -- I don't have personal, intimate experience with them.
Thanks for talking your experience! Honestly at this stage I hope she doesn't get in and we wont have to make the choice.
I can echo the parent. I still remember my time at MIT like it was yesterday, and it helped me immensely in life, especially having grown up poor.
But it was the people I met and the stuff I worked on with them, and the relationships that forged, that stuck. The classes were useful and interesting but I’m very glad I made them the “side quest,” so to speak, and made “do interesting stuff with interesting people” the main quest.
> it helped me immensely in life
you're making me question what I should do lol.
You should support your kid, in the best way you know how. :) That’s all.
MIT is not for everyone. I saw many students completely fold under the pressure, both from the expectations of being told they were “gifted” their whole lives, and from the sudden realization that they might be in the top 1% but might still be in the bottom third at MIT; that is a new experience for many. Also, many students just never learned how to study, since public school was easy for them, so that’s a whole ‘nother thing.
The point is: MIT is amazing, and there are countless students who would do incredibly well there. From any given year’s applications, MIT could form dozens of full-sized classes and all would do very well. If your kid doesn’t get in, that doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy or good enough; they might just be in one of those other dozens of other-timeline also-great classes.
But there are people for whom MIT does not work well; ultimately, it’s the student that knows themselves best. Do they thrive under pressure? Is curiosity essentially their top value? For me, the moment I visited MIT I knew it was the place I wanted to be. These were my people. Now it was just a question of whether or not I won the lottery of getting in.
It very much depends on what your kid wants to do after college. Having the imprimatur of a top 25 college is definitely an advantage for certain endeavors that value brand names. Plus there's a genuine networking advantage if your kid has the personality and social skills to take advantage of it. On the other hand, if they just want to get an MD and practice medicine, for example, I'm not sure it would be worth it. That is unless they want to do cutting edge research or aim to be some kind of upper management eventually, then the brand name and network could again confer an advantage. Also some top schools are better for certain career paths than others, So it really depends on your kid's specific situation.
I believe you are making a big assumption that you would spend a gap year at 18 similarly to a gap year at 22 or older.
A college environment is like a strong wind. Equipment, professors, and students follow and create winds of their own. Those that come in as undergrads will naturally have a different experience than those who come in as PhDs.
After leaving a college environment, a person has changed. In particular, they are better-adapted for interacting with certain types of people, in certain types of (work) environments.
A gap year at that age would make no difference from that perspective. You’re not going to mature all that much between 18 and 19.
> When you approach work with humility and curiosity, you learn more and participate more fully. Good collaborators value these qualities. A beginner’s mind is an asset. Staying close to your authentic self helps you find your true calling.
Love this.
In my experience good collaboration is the best for the team but an absolute dagger for your career. If you collaborate people who pretend to contribute take over. Theirs a reason this guy is writing blogs
> Theirs a reason this guy is writing blogs
They seem very successful:
> I am a principal research scientist at MongoDB Research. Ex-AWS. On leave as a computer science and engineering professor at SUNY Buffalo.
It’s a man. He seems very successful.
Thankyou for the correction, but the singular 'they' has been used in gender-unknown or gender-irrelevant cases for centuries. I was not aware this person was male -- but it did not matter to me. Ie, it matches both points.
My personal feeling is using a more widely applicable pronoun is more respectful, in general, so I use 'they' frequently, especially referring to people I don't know and so where I don't know their identity.
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-the... is interesting reading.
My experience has been that in a healthy working environment, it’s clear who contributed what (I do make sure to communicate clearly what I achieve towards the team and above), and lifting the entire team up does not jeopardize one’s own position in that team.
Maybe the key here is a good work / team culture? I can also imagine some places or contexts in which the work might be more invisible / harder to attribute to specific individuals.
What’s the saying? Twice the work, half the credit?
In all seriousness tho, I don’t buy it. It’s pretty hard to solo-achieve things in most complicated work environments. Saying you’re part of a group effort means more to those more interested in collaboration, good groups know to select on that criteria.
Make sure to put "I do not collaborate" in your resume.
I do feel nostalgic about my college, but realistically, I'd never be able to do it all over again. Once I looked at two pics of myself: full afro before college, and almost completely bald after college, and I immediately felt that this is the right way to describe that time.
But I have to say that I do miss interacting with people much smarter than myself. And the general atmosphere that great things await. I think it was very challenging time, but the belief in bright future allowed to push through. Now that I'm stuck in a pointless corporate job and it's dawning upon me that "this is it" and most of my life aspirations are not coming true, I can't help but feel helplessly pointless.
I don’t know what pointless corporation you’re in, but when I got in to Google at age 37 it did in several ways feel like college again, with the obvious geniuses and ‘we can do anything, if they don’t lay us off first’ vibe.
Maybe you can change companies?
We construct meaning, one way or the other. From one point of view, we are grains of sand to the universe. From another, we are friends, family, colleagues, and more.
I know what it is like to not achieve what you want in the timeframe you want. But with effort you can renegotiate what matters most and adjust your aim.
You're right, but there are some things that are difficult to accept. Some dreams that hurt when they don't get to come true.
> Eric Demaine was on the same floor too. Once, I accidentally sent a long print job (a PhD thesis) to his office printer, and he was angry because of the wasted paper.
Because those sheets of paper could've been origami instead? :)
Our time there overlapped—I was a student of TimBL from 2004 to 2006, researching the Semantic Web initiative. CSAIL was, and still is, a truly magical place. I had the privilege of working alongside some of the greatest minds of our time: David Karger, Manolis Kellis, Regina Barzilay, et al an incredible assembly of brilliance.
I was there around that time, too, as an undergrad doing a UROP with Karger. It was truly a wonderful time.
That said, my favorite memory of the time is a little more low brow. One time I was waiting outside one of the single occupancy bathrooms in CSAIL for my turn to do my business. After a minute, who should come out but Tim Berners Lee himself. We carefully avoided looking at each other, as one does in this situation, and I went in and sat down.
The seat was warm! I remember sitting there grinning like an idiot thinking that my cheeks were being comforted by the residual heat of those of the creator of the world wide web.
Ah, MIT, what a magical place.
In a similar low brow vein, I once took a wizz next to RMS in the old LCS building. When we were washing hands he tried to talk me into contributing to OpenJDK because we had previously talk a bit about a Java project I was working on for my UROP.
Karger's Randomized Algorithms class remains the only class I ever dropped at MIT. Still have PTSD from the psets for that class. Although I might have made it if it weren't for the fact that I was taking Compilers that semester, and 2 out of the 4 people in my group dropped the class. So my friend Dave and I basically had to do double the work for the final compiler implementation project.
Huh. I suppose I should see if I can join Manolis Kellis' lab; I got invited to one of the salons he hosts at his house on the quantum basis of reality and it was really fun! He also demoed a tool his lab is building for genomics knowledge graphing, and I was struck by how incredibly well-designed and empirical the whole project was.
I did not go to MIT but spent my entire career in Boston startups and tech. It is impossible to overstate how influential CSAIL was (and is?) in addition to it sounding here like a wonderful place.
I long for a space like this that I could spend some drop-in time at now (in my thirties and not looking to attend another full college degree program). If I could do one thing to reorganize society it would be to create a bunch of places like this with rich cultures of learning and collaboration that anyone could drop in on.
There was a decent technology meetup culture in the bay area pre-covid, but so many of the groups I enjoyed stopped around that time and never started back up again.
I feel similarly about my time at art school.
(It's the people. There is a deep humility in artists. A tolerance for uncertainty. A respect for mystery. It's rare.)
My naive self could have gotten more out of it.
I started my affiliation with MIT in 1997 as a lecturer on eCommerce Architecture—a topic that felt both exciting and exotic back then, as the internet was just beginning to transform the world. Walking through those doors for the first time, I was immediately struck by the brilliance of the people around me. Virtually everyone I met seemed like the smartest person I’d ever encountered, and I couldn’t help but feel like an imposter at times. But that feeling also came with the thrill of being part of a community that constantly challenged and elevated me.
In 2007, I moved over to the Media Lab to focus on computational law, a field that thrives on MIT’s interdisciplinary ethos. Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with CSAIL researchers from time to time. These experiences were always a blast—not just because of the cutting-edge research, but also because navigating the Frank Gehry-designed Stata Center was its own adventure. I loved spelunking through its quirky passageways, stumbling across obscure treasures like tucked-away whiteboards filled with half-finished equations or discovering yet another coffee machine in a corner I hadn’t visited before.
Since the pandemic, I’ve been living back in the Bay Area, so much of my MIT involvement is now remote. Yet even from a distance, I remain in awe of the people, ideas, and unrelenting creativity that define the Institute. Reading this reflection brought back so many memories—and a wave of nostalgia. It’s inspiring to see how others have experienced their time at MIT, and it makes me want to book a visit back to the campus just to soak it all in again. There’s something about MIT that stays with you, no matter how far away you are.
There are other places at MIT with a similar vibe. Media Lab springs to mind.
I took a class co-taught by TBL called Linked Data Ventures (6.898). There was an effort to seed a Semantic Web startup ecosystem with project teams formed in the class. IIRC one of the groups did get funded and was eventually acquired, but not using Semantic Web/Linked Data.
Regardless, it was an amazing experience having TBL review our little demo app.
I have mixed feelings about Media Lab. They were the cool thing at one point but, even with their expansion, they just don't seem to be much in the conversation any longer. That's not necessarily a bad thing--a lot of academic matters aren't--but they certainly aren't the focus of conversation they were at one point.
Locu. Acquired by GoDaddy. Morphed into a Yext competitor called GetFound.
I wrote a blog about some of my experiences at the then-new MIT Media Lab in 1985. Unlike the experience of the author, I was more of a lone late-night hacker (in the old sense of the word).
Thread starts here:
https://kaveh808.medium.com/from-arcmac-to-the-media-lab-229...
Link seems to point to something else.
Actual link: https://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2025/02/my-time-at-mit.htm...
> Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why fake it until you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated?
Found this beautifully-phrased gem in the conclusion.
Be it in research or otherwise I'm sure so many can relate to this in their younger years.
I agree! Real "Fear is the mind killer vibes"
> Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why claim it before you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated?
I wish this were true, and I do think this mindset would be optimal if everyone adopted it. Unfortunately, real workplaces are filled with people who are confident and wrong. As a leader, if your intuition is more accurate than your peers and you care about objective success, it’s important to assert yourself.
There's sort of an interesting tension (not necessarily a contradiction though) in this piece between focus / prioritization and curiosity exploration. Both are valid, but I wonder how the author balances them today and how it's changed since their postdoc.
E.g. on the great example set by Nancy Lynch: "The way she worked with students was that she would dedicate herself solely on a student/paper for the duration of an entire week. That week, she would avoid thinking or listening other works/students, even when she wanted to participate."
Compared to their lessons learned: "Why pretend to be smart and play it safe? True understanding is rare and hard-won, so why claim it before you are sure of it? Isn't it more advantageous to embrace your stupidity/ignorance and be underestimated? In research and academia, success often goes not to the one who understands first, but to the one who understands best. Even when speed matters, the real advantage comes from the deep, foundational insights that lead there.
When you approach work with humility and curiosity, you learn more and participate more fully. Good collaborators value these qualities. A beginner’s mind is an asset."
I had exactly the same experience during my postdoc there.
One year is very short for a postdoc. I think the author is a bit unrealistic in what he wish he could've done differently.
>The way she worked with students was that she would dedicate herself solely on a student/paper for the duration of an entire week. That week, she would avoid thinking or listening other works/students, even when she wanted to participate.
Now we hear of academics (with their names on the papers) denying that they had anything to do with the work published, and at the same time the total fraud of academics with their names on 20+ papers a year.
Something has to give - and I think we all know what....
> the total fraud of academics with their names on 20+ papers a year
What fraud? It’s normal for academic advisors to at least be last author, and everyone knows that. And why shouldn’t they, if they helped fund the research, guided the topic, pointed at references, contributed to the research, edited the paper and presentation, etc., etc.? I was more than happy to put my advisor on my first paper after only the first couple of hours of his work, as he did more to make it acceptable for publication than I did in a month. And he did a lot more than that.
Also, some people are legitimately prolific enough to write a paper every 2-3 weeks. Not me, but I’ve seen it.
Publication rate alone doesn’t reflect on quality nor suggest fraud.
I wrote a series of long replies, but then read this blog that says things that I think quite well.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/02/17/do...
I am afraid that there is, likely, a correlation between publication rate and fraud. I agree that a very high publication rate doesn't necessarily mean fraud, but I am afraid that it does cast suspicion, in my mind, on the totality of the output of the author.
In my field I do know some legitimately high output authors. I know a lot of authors who think that they are legitimately high output, when in fact they are simply gaming the system. The sad thing is that they don't know better. I know a lot of people who believe that they have no option but to go with the flow as well - but know perfectly well that they are acting badly.
This is not just a question of academic morals. There are children who today will receive medicines that have no value, and may harm them, because of this practice. There are lines of research that will lead no where and produce no value that are being funded because of this practice. There are lines of research that would provide significant societal benefit that are not being funded because of this practice.
You’re jumping to some pretty big and possibly unsupported conclusions about citation gaming, which is what that blog post is about. People gaming citations are likely trying to fly under the radar and don’t want to draw public attention. Maybe also pay attention to what fields these are in too; gaming in social science might be less impactful than gaming in medicine. One of the examples in the blog post you cited was ghost authors in medical journals which means people who contributed but were not listed; this is almost the opposite problem of what you’re worrying about and it does not amount to bad science.
Medicines aren’t created from the results of a single paper, especially an obscure one with unexplained obscure citations. There are checks and balances. Medicines go through trials which don’t depend on citations. We’ve had ineffective medicines in the past, and it’s happened for other reasons. Notably, consider that the portion of ineffective and actively harmful medications were dramatically higher 50 and 100 years ago than today. If you’re worried about the effectiveness of medicines, then spend your limited time worrying about the anti-vax crowd. They are doing far more damage than people gaming academic citations.
There will always be lines of research that lead nowhere, that’s an inherent feature of the system. Experimental research into unknown topics carries risk, and it should, otherwise it’s not research. If we knew the answer, then we wouldn’t need research.
For the same reason, there will also always be lines of research that don’t get funded. Citation gaming might have a small effect, but there are dozens of other ways human behavior affects what gets funded. And things that work tend to attract people that feel strongly and tend to attract research, so citation gaming doesn’t necessarily lead to strong research getting pushed out.
Gaming of papers is definitely a problem for academics and their careers, and it’s a problem that does need to be fixed, but it’s premature to think the sky is falling. Good science isn’t ending just because some people do bad or mediocre science.
This is the problem with "common knowledge" and "everybody knows" and "gut feelings".
Unless you work in an industry (such as academia, or farming, or auto manufacturing, or any of the other thousands of industries), what you know is superficial.
You think you know, because how complicated could something be?
The public could learn a thing or two by asking questions from people who make these pursuits their lives.
For instance, did you ever stop to think that Professors advise students who write papers, and are therefore listed as co-authors?
Another knee-jerk would be: look at these professors only putting out 20 papers a year; they are so inefficient- they should be mentoring far more students for the money we pay them.
It cuts every way until you talk to people.
This is a good thing to read. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/02/17/do...
I have actually worked in academia, and in industrial research. I've served on many program committees and participated in peer review actively for many years.
I am sorry to say, I am one of the people who should be asked.
The system is corrupt, coercive, exploitative, and delivers poor results.
Things were much better when academics wrote 20 papers in a career.
Dedicating a week to a paper doesn't seem incongruent with 20 papers a year, but I'm not in academia, IDK.
> and I think we all know what....
No, I haven’t got a clue.
I think GP's point is that academics who have 20+ papers are basically running a paper mill; there is no way they are participating meaningfully in the papers their names appear in
But they don't say, so how can we tell? I'm not going to be vague with my comment: best thing to do in this sort of case is not to engage.
The person says some of what I think much better than me:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/02/17/do...
I am afraid that there is massive and systematic and harmful fraud in research: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio... as only one example. There are many many others. Very little work in entire fields is actually valid.
I think that the way that authorship is currently practiced has a lot to do with this fraud. Academics with ethics and goodwill can no longer effectively police the system. A large number of academics do not even want the system to be policed.