I could have gone academic, in fact I could toss it all away and go academic right now. However ... I would never voluntarily make my wife and kids suffer like that. Maybe after I retire it would be safe to go academic.
It boils down to you might be able to fire me up enough to eat ramen and live in a cardboard box because of topic X, but I'd have a hard time looking my kids in the eye and telling them they'll never eat anything better than ramen because dad likes topic X more than them.
That's the screwed up nature of the system. "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to advance science". Oh really, and why is that? Why isn't it "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to stamp license plates, but if you wanna be rich go into academia..."
Well, no point in word games but obviously I read "personal satisfaction" and hear "me" as in personal, and you don't. That's OK, but without a common definition there's going to be confusion.
Can't have it both ways. The article says they're not doing as well financially compared to the non-academic path. Well, if you really loved science you'd do it anyway, and its not all about the money, and scientists are supposed to be poor because thats how its always been. OK whatever I'm not doing that to my kids. Oh OK well it turns out that despite the article, the ones I know are doing great. Um nope, its one or the other.
You might have selection bias. All the pro athletes I know of, appear to be financially healthy. That doesn't mean pro basketball is a great plan for kids, given the evidence that 99.99% of kids who want to be pro basketball players end up doing something else, something much less profitable than NBA star... I would theorize this is directly analogous to going into academics.
The winners win. Turns out that winning is, in fact, pretty fun. The losers, well..., that's most of the them, but we're not going to talk about them.
