[cyrus_]

In any competitive field, from computer science to ballet, there are those who practice for hours and hours per day.

The author does not want to be a competitive computer scientist, and is happy being a casual one -- skilled enough to make a 40 hour-per-week living with it, to be sure, but not obsessed enough to advance the field itself. She made a great choice going to a liberal arts school.

When she compares herself to students at engineering schools, or references a study of students at CMU, home to some of the top computer science students in the world, she is doing herself a terrible disservice. She sounds a bit like a casual runner upset by the fact that Usain Bolt exists.

Elite computer scientists, like elite athletes, live in a different world. If you want to join that world, the rules are pretty gender-neutral -- work 80 hour weeks, write great software, publish papers, dream in code (or math, really). If you don't want to do that, you aren't a lesser person. Just don't compare yourself to those who do make that choice.

[wyclif]

I was with you until you advocated the 80-hour work week. That's a sure recipe for burnout, not necessarily excellence.

[roel_v]

No it isn't, there are plenty of people working hours late that and slugging through it. And it's true that 80 hour weeks don't 'necessarily' lead to excellence; actually it's quite obvious. However, there aren't many people who do achieve excellence without extreme dedication. So working 80 hours will add to the results you will achieve.

It's not for everyone, fine. Not everybody can be top 1%. By definition, 99% can't, obviously. But let's stop pretending that we're all equal and everybody is the best. We're not, and only the brightest who work the hardest and smartest, and have some luck, will be the best.

[wyclif]

Where did I "pretend that we're all equal and everybody is the best?" Please don't set up a straw man. And my argument was not that there aren't "plenty" of people working those kinds of hours. I am simply not convinced that working 80 per week = excellence.

You're equating hours put in with working harder and smarter. If someone plays the drums for 80 hours a week but has no natural sense of rhythm, they'll never excel as a drummer. If you want to make Gladwell's "Law of the Few" argument, then make it (or cite it) and leave off the false analogies.

[roel_v]

"Where did I "pretend that we're all equal and everybody is the best?""

You didn't, that was a generalization, an additional message or thought, on top of the reply to your post which was in the 1st paragraph.

"And my argument was not that there aren't "plenty" of people working those kinds of hours"

You said that it was a "sure recipe for burnout", implying (more than that, 'positing' even) that everybody who works those hours will at some point burn out. I disagree. Some will burn out, some (I'd even say the majority but have no numbers to back that up) won't.

"I am simply not convinced that working 80 per week = excellence."

Right, neither am I; actually I'm convinced of the opposite, that 80 hours/week != automatically excellence. I said so, in those words, in my post.

"You're equating hours put in with working harder and smarter."

I explicitly did no such thing. Putting in many hours is just part of it, in addition to working harder and smarter. If somebody wants to excel as a drummer, they'll have to have rhythm, study hard, and practice a lot. Just the first two won't cut it, because there will be somebody out there who will do anything it takes to be the best. When there is a large group of people competing, you cannot let anything slack if you want to be the best, because others will do what you won't. (not you personally, of course, I mean 'someone who wants to be the best).

[cyrus_]

80-hour weeks amount to less than 12 hours per day if you work every day. That leaves you 4 hours to do whatever else you need/want to do, and you can still get a nice 8 hours of sleep per night.

You'd be surprised how manageable that is, especially for introverts for whom social interaction is more of a chore than a joy.

[grammaton]

You'd be surprised how often those two things go together. I hate to break it to you, but truly excelling in a field - where excelling is defined as being one of the best at it - takes tremendous amounts of hard work, long hours, and more than a little luck.