Starting a Career in Science at Age 38?

A Science Nostalgic writes "I'm 38, have a successful career as a software developer but feel the all-too-similar enterprise apps are boring my brains out, and I'm intensely missing the world of science, which I didn't pursue in favor of programming when I got my engineering degree. Now, I'm contemplating a job in research, but fear the age and the lack of 'exercise' with math and physics would pose an understandable handicap. If I study math seriously, I can realistically shed the 'rust' in a year, maybe two, but I still fear I'll be considered too old for research. I graduated abroad so I don't have any old contacts at the local universities (there are a few in my city). I checked their job boards, and they have no positions for research, just the usual ones in software development that I could use as an entry point. Do you have any experience with such a career change? Is it feasible at all to get into science once you approach 40? I feel my brain is still alive and kicking, and years of debugging have taught me a few things about investigating causes and correlations, which are useful skills in research."

no

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

Do you have any experience with such a career change?
 
no - it's weird you would even ask.
 
  Is it feasible at all to get into science once you approach 40?
 
like i said, i'm probably not the best to ask but my guess would be no - it's not. i've never found taking risks or pushing for change to be worthwhile.

Physics

[trip11 (160832)]

In my field of high energy physics, there is a large need for good programmers who know some science. Almost all of my work involves writing code to try to solve a specific physics problem. You're experience in this would probably give you a nice advantage over a lot of us who are learning to code as we go. And even though it is just writing code, there is something satisfying about writing code to solve your own problems that you are interested in, not just writing code to make a buck.

Also, I know when I was taking my classes in physics as an undergrad, there were several people in your situation. People who wanted to get into a new field at 30 or 40 and picked physics. I would say try to find a field that your coding skills will shine in, but where you can use them in a way that doesn't bore you to tears. You're experience should serve you well.

Of course you may be taking a pay cut starting in a new field and all....

Re:Physics

[chandar (713362)]

I would second this opinion. I am a Biologist with, as I sometimes say, "a penchant for the virtual". I have spent much of the last 8 years writing programs, sometimes rather clumsily, to answer questions or demonstrate complex concepts. I have often wished I had a programmer to help me. I cannot pay one now, but I do write $$ into grant applications for someone with more programming chops than me. Your age would not affect my willingness to hire you.

My suggestion would be to look at Bioinformatics. There is more money in that field now and a huge need for programmers. Also check http://www.nescent.org/ [nescent.org] for an example of a broader effort to develop software to deal with rapidly growing large sequence and gene expression datasets to answer evolutionary questions. The hire people like you fairly often.

Scientific visualization/supercomputer programming

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

If you're OK with just working with physics as opposed to doing research yourself, there are other places where software is a research tool and the people who write it get to learn about the physics.

The national supercomputer centers sometimes have ultimately cool projects like simulating galaxies colliding and rendering images of the result. That gets you the fun of programming big iron, some really challenging numerical problems, shock wave physics, and the chance to watch science being made from the insi

Re:

[gatzke (2977)]

I assume you want to get an advanced degree if you want to do research. I have heard BS level people get looked down upon at research labs, but YMMV, so you need a PhD.

Going to grad school now could be problematic just because of the coursework requirements. In engineering, you generally would have to complete a few core classes (plus some specialty courses) to get a PhD. There are some softer engineering majors (less math and science) but you still need the basics which could hurt.

As for basic sciences,

Re:

[bcrowell (177657)]

IAAP. The OP didn't tell us what education she had, so I'm assuming she doesn't have even a BS in physics. So the first thing she needs to do is go back to school and earn a bachelor's, which she may be able to do fairly quickly; typically schools have special programs for people getting a second BA. After that, she needs to go to grad school and get a PhD. That typically takes 4-6 years in theory, or 6-9 years as an experimentalist. Then needs to see if she can get a good postdoc position, and realisticall

Re:

[munpfazy (694689)]

Looking for a programming job within a research group is certainly the approach which is safest and most likely to succeed. There are plenty of positions for programmers in medium sized physical science projects. Unfortunately, at least in my experience (US academic astrophysics), a rather large number of jobs are already filled long before they are advertised publicly. Trying to get your first science job may take a long time without any insider contacts. But, getting your *second* science job will be

Sure, why not

[metlin (258108)]

You might just end up with the, "Body is willing but the mind is not" thing though.

Old people tend to have the opposite kinda problem, but hey. Mid-life crisis and all that.

(Kidding, kidding)

On a serious note, I know several people who decided to take up alternative careers or go for a PhD much later in life. When I was in grad school, there was this guy who had graduated from MIT in the 80s and came back in his 40s to go to grad school.

He had his own company, so that was helping him support himself. And I've seen several people who decide later on in life that they want to specialize in something different because they felt that they weren't using their head enough at their current job.

I think at the end of the day, anyone can do it - you just have to like it enough. Goodluck!

Giver!

[Pizentios (772582)]

Change is good. The human mind is a wonderful thing, it allows you to learn how to do new things no matter how old you are.

Bottom line, do it if you want a new challange and it interests you. I recently changed jobs (my last day at my current job is actually today), my new job hold alot of challange and requires skills that i both have and haven't developed ~yet~.

If humans were happy doing the same thing all the time, we would have never moved out of caves. It's human nature to want to be challanged and ins

Age may be benefit

[daeg (828071)]

Your age may be a benefit, actually, if you play your cards right. You may not have the knowledge that someone fresh out of graduate school would have, but you have maturity and (hopefully) stability.

Have you considered keeping your job but getting into teaching? Your company may like it and let you do both--it's good PR and a great opportunity to get quality employees. From their perspective you're basically giving your students a 4 month interview process. Teaching can be a great challenge and may be more fulfilling than trying to advance yourself enough to do research. Good teaching will also advance your own skillsets, too.

Climate science needs researchers

[fotoguzzi (230256)]

I hear there is good money in debunking these scurrilous theories about man's effect on climate.

Re:

[DogDude (805747)]

Yeah, but those are all US government jobs, and I don't know how well those pay. But who knows? Shoot down enough real science, and maybe you'll get a job as head of FEMA!

You're going to be fine; youth is over rated

[andy314159pi (787550)]

I'm a theoretician in a physical science and my learning capacity, memory, and math abilities have not diminished with age; to the contrary I feel like they've gotten stronger and ... wait, what were we talking about?

Math skills may not be essential

[caesar-auf-nihil (513828)]

What field of science you want to enter determines what level of math prowess you must have. If you're going to be a physicist, then you need to be strong in math. Chemist or biochemist - that depends upon what type of chemistry you're going to do. Simple algebra could be enough if you're thinking about organic chemistry or molecular biology.

I'm an organic chemist who practices material science and fire safety engineering - and I haven't had to use calculus since I took it for grade in undergrad. Algebra is about as difficult as I encounter in my field, and to some extent (and I know this will cause howls of disbelief and screams of being a lame scientist), there are many programs that do the complex math for you. It is more important to understand the concepts and design good experiments in many of the physical sciences than to be actually good at the underlying math in the equation behind measurements in that experiment. The exception to this is if you're actually measuring the measurements or determining new ways of measuring physical phenomena...but now you're moving back into the realm of physics which does require good math skills.

I would look at what you want to do and then figure out if you've got the math chops to do it before worrying about this too much.

Go At It Sideways

[mpapet (761907)]

Don't do a wholesale switch where you abandon your skill set for whatever Science you prefer.

The way I did it was literally cold-calling people in the field I wanted to be in, eventually got some feedback on the skills I had versus the skills I needed to be desirable in that field and figured out ways to get those skills in a professional environment.

It won't happen overnight and it requires constantly thinking about where you want to be versus where you are but it will happen.

Advanced Degrees

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

Most people working as scientists have gone through a process that includes MS, PhD and post-doctoral studies that take 7-10 years after completion of their BS level degrees. Some people manage to do it by starting at a lower level and gaining the equivalent in experience and study as they work. You are seriously missing this background. With an engineering BS you would be starting as a low level technician. To go and try to get this science background would take you years of additional study, if even you could find a program that would accept you at your age. By the time you completed this you would be near age 50.

I am not saying it is impossible, my father went for his PhD when he was about your age - but his circumstances were rather different - he had already been working in an R&D role for many years, and was able to get funding from a prestigious scholarship to pay both a salary and his college tuition because he had built up a strong reputation as a scientist without the PhD degree. People who can do this are pretty rare.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[kebes (861706)]

As someone involved in academic research, I have to agree with the parent comments.

Basically, science nowadays is very much an "advanced degree" field. From your post I'm guessing you have a B.Eng. Unfortunately even with a B.Eng. and lots of years in software development, you do not yet have the qualifications to be hired as a research scientist.

It also depends, however, on whether you want to be "involved in science" (as a technician, programmer, etc.) or whether you want to be "a research scientist" (planning experiments, interpreting results, etc.). If you want to be involved, then I'd say with your current qualifications you should certainly be able to find a neat job at some university or research institute. Your programming skills will be quite valuable, in fact. Yes, you will take a pay cut, but the environment may be much more stimulating. In this kind of post, you'll end up being connected to a wide range of different science projects, which can be really rewarding. (You may end up in a job where every day a Grad Student comes up to you and says "would it be possible to program something to do..." which could be alot of fun.)

If you want to really "be a scientist" then I'm afraid your only option is to get another degree. The upside is that while getting such a Masters of Ph.D. you'll be "doing science" which can be alot of fun. This will also let you know, immediately, whether this is something you want to do for many years to come. The downside, of course, is that you will be spending another 5 years on education, and receiving a rather small stipend while doing it. (Also, keep in mind that many of your fellow grad students will be about 20 years old.)

I wish you the best of luck. Personally I love science, and getting an advanced degree has been "worth it" for me. But given your situation, it might make more sense to try and find a job, with your current qualifications, that is closely tied to science.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Otter (3800)]

The two above comments are dead-on. Note that the average age of a new professor in biomedical research is 37 for MDs and 38 for PhDs [nap.edu]! You'll be living off ramen until you're 50 -- and universities aren't exactly rolling out the red carpet for 50-year-old new hires.

At the same time, the scientific programming positions the parent mentions would probably be a great fit for you, if you don't mind trading some income for interesting work and a less-regimented pace.

Re:

[flawedconceptions (1000049)]

There seem to be a number of "go for it!" posts, so I'll suggest something different. I know a few people (in astrophysics) who signed on to a certain research institution in a sysadmin type role, but since these sorts of places are pretty free, they were able to pick up the science on the side and join in with active research groups on projects. Since the field is so computer-driven, there's a fair bit of crossover (both ways, incidentally). It is probably the fastest way to doing research, it won't com

A tiny bit of advice I got

[Red Flayer (890720)]

The biggest problem with mid-life career change is avoiding getting in at the bottom rung in your new career. As an established professional, you'll want to demand more money, and be willing to work fewer hours, than your typical early-career employee in your new field.

I would advise you (as I've been advised) to search for a company that has both roles, your current one and your desired one -- and explicitly state during the interview process that you're looking to change to the new career. If you find the right company, they may even pay for refresher courses.

Once you establish with your target company that you're extremely enthusiastic about them and the roles (as well as being a go-getter and a good worker) you'll be in good shape. At a bare minimum, make sure you've read the latest journals in the particular field, so you can dmeonstrate your interest.

One other note -- taking the initiative to better your situation is a Good Thing(tm), both for yourself, and to prospective employers. Many good employers will consider that a huge advantage over a candidate who is just beginning a career and can't be sure if that's where they really want to be.

National Labs

[mdsolar (1045926)]

The national labs generally support training on the job, so if you come in as a programer, you can get a second degree and move over to a science position. Look at the National Academies website http://www.national-academies.org/ [national-academies.org] to find mentor contacts in a field that interests you. Career Links is down and to the right.
--
Or, convert everyone to solar http://www.powur.com/mdsolar [powur.com]

Indirectly, age is a factor.

[xplenumx (703804)]

To some extent age will be a factor. I've served on the admissions committee for a number of years at a major university for the biological sciences (not computer sciences), and to some extent, indirectly at least, age is taken into account. While experience trumps all (except letters of recommendation), when someone in their late 30s / early 40s applies (and they do) we have to wonder why. What is the applicant trying to gain by applying now? Do they know what they're getting themselves into? Will graduate school really benefit this candidate?

In the case of the biological sciences, if you want to run a lab, you need to put five years into your graduate career and have a ~five year successful post-doc. If the applicant is 40, that means they won't be able to even apply for a faculty position until they're 50. If the applicant is looking at industry, then five years of experience is equivalent to a PhD (in order to get top industry job you still need that successful post-doc position) and graduate school won't help them. If the applicant "simply wants to learn", they they appear to have no focus. We have picked up older applicants, though they all had very good reasons for seeking an advanced degree (for example, in two cases they wanted to teach at the community college level). If you apply to graduate school, you must address these issues in your essay. Also, when you write your essay, focus on your work/research experience (this goes for all applicants) as we don't care about 'how you've dreamed of being a scientist since you were two'.

One other piece of advice, if you want a job in research, don't look at the job boards. Find a lab that interests you, and contact the PI directly. People come and go all the time and if I don't have a position open, I typically know of someone who does. I've never hired someone through HR, but only hire people who are interested in my research as I don't have enough time to focus on someone who 'simply wants a job'. Best of luck to you.

What do you want is the question.

[east coast (590680)]

I'm 33 and working on my CS degree and planning to work on a engineering degree soon. I'll probably be in my early 40s by the time I get done with my masters. Will I ever get anywhere with this degree? My guess is probably not as far as if I'd leave school altogether with a CS degree.

The thing is that I want to take on this engineering education for myself. It's not really a career move. If I'm fortunate enough I may have the option to turn it into a career but I still don't see myself getting the educatio

Most of these people are high

[solussolus (1059046)]

I guess I'm the guy designated to piss on your parade.

You're vague in your post, but to me "doing research in science" means either academia or working in an industrial research lab. What "science" means is harder to say, but I'll assume it's one of the traditional sciences, and not computer science, for which your prospects might be better depending on the flavor of CS you want to do.

All that said, the truth is that you're in for an uphill battle, and you will have to REALLY want it. I'm in the CSCI PhD program at a top 10 university and can tell you unreservedly not to bother with any of this unless you want your quest to be the principle thing in your life. One might debate whether this need be true for a person who's gone the traditional route, but PhDs are hard, and you need one to do what I've described above as "science research."

Let's assume you're a passionate guy, you work sixty hours a week anyway, and this is a well thought-out dream you're on the cusp of pursuing. Here's what I'd recommend:

0: Buy a bunch of Schaum's outlines in pre-calculus, calculus, differential equations, probability, and statistics. Beginning working through them. Somebody posted on here that he's a scientist and rarely uses anything above algebra. That's probably true, but irrelevent. You don't have that luxury; you have to be better than everyone else or nobody's gonna bother with you. Regaining the math chops will be easier than you imagine if you're diligent, by which I mean you work on it everyday for a couple of hours, as if you were taking a class. If you're not diligent you're fucked anyway.

1: Enroll in a decent public institution. Not necessarily in grad school; I took some classes post-BS w/ my status as "Adult special" which is for people who just want to learn stuff, not worry about a degree.

2: Take classes in your area of interest. You'll probably have to start w/ undergrad classes. Prepare to feel weird among all the 18 year old hotties.

3: MAKE CONNECTIONS. Be the guy who asks questions in class, and make them good questions. Get to know the teachers, and make them like you. This is a critical step. Make them know your name, and know you do excellent work and are a smart guy.

4: When you know some profs who are doing research things that you're interested in, ask them if you can help. Researchers love this; that's how our group gets new people. You get involved, you do whatever they tell you to, you PRODUCE. After a history of successes you can make inquiries about whether this person would support your attempt at admission.

5: Apply for admission. You will need to have taken the GRE by this point, and probably a topic test, which your studies should have prepared you for. You'll need letters of admission, which your schmoozing, ass-kicking performance in class, and volunteering should make easy.

Like I said before, all of this stuff will consume your life. If you're the sort of guy whose life is consumed already, then this might be OK. If you expect to dick around for a little bit, and then somehow get everything you want, well, it's not going to work.

If you REALLY want it it can be done, but if you don't REALLY want it then you should find some way to get the satisfaction you're looking for from less drastic changes. I went back to school at 32, so I want to support the underdog. Good luck.

Odd

[AutopsyReport (856852)]

Are you the same guy who recently was contemplating a CS degree at age 39? [slashdot.org] on Wednesday. Both have a history of programming business applications, both a year's difference in age, and both seeking advice from Slashdot. I thought it was a little odd to see such a similar post two days after the first :)

Never too late

[Venner (59051)]

I don't think it's ever too late to do something new. One of my professors related a story about a student of his that just died at age 94. The man worked a full career, retired at age 60, and decided to go to law school. He got a job as an attorney for a nearby city and worked literally until the day he died, because he enjoyed it and didn't like being idle. The man worked *a whole second 30 year career* after putting in 38 years in his first career.

As an engineer currently in law school, I'm something of the reverse (although I feel I'm 'adding law' rather than 'leaving science'). They're just different mindsets.

follow your bliss (if you can afford to)

[theonewho (686963)]

hi,

after abandoning careers in market/advertising/PR and computing consulting, i returned to college and, starting from the bottom, obtained a physics BS at age 35, a master's at 37 and a Ph.D. in experimental high-energy physics at 44 -- i'm currently a post-doc and will start searching for a real job either in academia or national labs (not necessarily in the US) starting this summer -- moreover, it seems reasonably realistic to believe that i can obtain such a permanent position

however, that said, there is an age bias built into the system and you additionally must be willing to accept drastically reduced earnings expectations over the (hopefully long!) time span of the rest of your life

however, my life is infinitely richer now than it might have ever been had i stayed in the business of business

good luck!

no standard career

[oohshiny (998054)]

You can do good science; research labs are always looking for good software developers, and if you join one in that capacity, you can start contributing to research, co-author papers, and move up.

But don't expect a regular scientific career--competition is extremely tough, accomplishments are cumulative and carefully cataloged, and scientific careers span 50 years and never stabilize. You can become a doctor at 40 and catch up with your peers, but you can't do it in the sciences.

Go for it

[plopez (54068)]

I am. I am in the midst of going back to grad school after about 15 years of IT/Software work. Most of the people I spoke with said older students are really not at a disadvantage as thier experience and work ethic usually pull them through.

There are also fileds like geology where the stereotype is that older people in the field make the most important discoveries.

You should maybe take a few classes in math, chemistry or whatever you may need to brush up. Statistics is never wasted.

Also, being in software and if you know a little math, you can probably get a job as a modeler to pay for school (assistantship).

So I say, 'go for it'

One of my friends...

[Secret Rabbit (914973)]

... started back at university at around 34 and just graduated this past academic year at 39 (I believe) with a Math Honours degree. This academic year he started his grad program. He's similar to your situation as he worked for about a decade as a programmer/sys admin/etc.

But, how he got into doing research was to excel in his classes and get introduced (by me) to the instructor that I was marking for who happened to be doing research and needed someone with his skills. This turned into a summer job and

I'm really glad I did

[mhackarbie (593426)]

I was 37 with a BSEE and 10 years experience in software development when I went back to school. After taking some undergrad courses in molecular biology, I received some wonderful encouragement from a professor who became my mentor, and so went to grad school. Got my PhD in biochemistry last year, at 43! It was hard work, but I loved every bit of the intellectual stimulation and opportunity for creativity. Since then my scientific career has been on hold somewhat, as I haven't been willing to leave town fo

I've sort-of done this

[Michael Woodhams (112247)]

I started a research career at age 37 in evolutionary molecular biology, having not studied any biology since I was about 14. However, I had two advantages over you: I do have a science PhD (in astronomy) and my employer was an old friend of the family. I'm sure he didn't hire me just because of that, but it did at least get me an opportunity to be seriously considered.

I'd spent the time between my PhD and the new job as a commercial programmer.

Getting an academic job is likely to be very difficult. Working

Work to be Exceptional

[fygment (444210)]

I entered grad studies (MSc) in computer science at age 39. As a mechanical & electrical engineer, my lack of background in math and computer science made it a huge challenge. But what got me an opportunity to take the program was bull-headed hard work in my work years before that. With that work ethic, plus the maturity fitting my age, I made top student beating out younger, and often brighter, students fresh out of their undergrad programmes. My point, and the lesson I took away, is that it's not really about your brain. It's mostly about how hard you're willing to work.

Re:Age Irrelevent

[NewWorldDan (899800)]

Wow, like my horoscope this morning totally said like the exact same thing. Are you a Taurus?

Re:

[An ominous Cow art (320322)]

I'm a Corvette. Vroom!

Re:

[ggKimmieGal (982958)]

Neurologically speaking, that's not true. Most scientists do their most progressive work / research when they are under 30 years old. This is because of the differences between fluid and crystallized intelligence. People who are 40 years or older tend to rely heavily on crystallized intelligence, whereas people under 30 tend to rely heavily upon fluid intelligence.

Fluid intelligence relates to our ability to solve novel problems and is intrinsic to the functioning of Working Memory. Crystallized intelli

Re:

[geekwithsoul (860466)]

Actually, that is not regarded as true anymore. As put forward in the book "Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity" by David W. Galenson, he notes that there are two classes of "genius." There are those who create at a very young age and don't do anything but revise those creations as they get older, and those who spend a lifetime building up experiences until finally in their later years they produce "masterworks." In terms of applicability to the original post, scientif

Re:

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

ggKimmieGal,

I think that the old canard about scientists doing their best work under the age of 30 is mainly something that research assistants throw around in the hope that they'll get tenure. I've been around scientists all my life and I can tell you it's baloney, invented by scientists under 30.

Someone very close to me is in the process of getting her second PhD at the age of 50, in an area of mathematics that's about as "out there" as it gets. A reviewer at one of the prestigious journals wrote, about

Re:

[eln (21727)]

unless you like working for overpaid incompetents, slaving your ass off for pennies, meaningless work and zero job satisfaction.

Obviously he wouldn't go into science if he liked these things...he would just stay in software development.

Re:

[Cougar1 (256626)]

Sadly, I'd have to agree with the parent post. Corporate research in the U.S. is in serious decline with way too much focus on the next quarter's bottom line. Most companies are really only focused on short-term development and doing little if any mid- to long- term research. Ten years ago, when I started my current job (with a top US semiconductor company), there were many projects with a five-to-ten year time horizon and significant links to Universities, government labs, and industry-funded research c

Re:

[John Miles (108215)]

What I mean by this is that most of the important work a Physicist will do will have been done by age 35.

Yeah, and by white men of European descent.

Re:

[Vireo (190514)]

I think the parent is actually correct. "Research" jobs are mostly development, and the horizon is most often quite short. I know companies where "research" refers to upgrades of existing products, deliverable in two months. Very few corporations nowadays do medium-to-long-term research. And if they do, I guess not everybody can be accepted in the select research team.

Looking toward academic research is probably a good thing if you are interested in fundamental or exploratory research. However, if you want

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

It is often possible to get a job as a Research Assistant without a PhD (although you get paid less), if you have the right skills. If you are a programmer, then you may well have the required skills for a lot of jobs of this kind; even outside computer science a lot of big projects need a good programmer or two.

Once you are an RA, you can typically study for a PhD part time (which is a lot of effort, but if you're motivated enough it's possible) without having to pay any tuition fees.

Re:

[Intron (870560)]

I've seen positions with the title "researcher" advertised at universities. Obviously, a PhD gives your resume more loft, but it may not be a requirement.

Re:

[jayayeem (247877)]

37 year old System Admin that figured out last year that I really wanted to be a Doctor. We should start a club.

"Old" College Student Club

[Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968)]

Sign me up...

37, escaped a 15-year career in IT, back to college to finish my Microbiology B.S. (emphasis on applied environmental and industrial microbiology). If my local institution can be convinced to accept my second semester of English as a second semester of English and my semester of Calculus as a semester of Calculus (this place is evidently notorious for refusal to accept transfer credits) I should hopefully graduate this summer.

I'm working even harder now than I was in IT, but now at least I f

Re:

[silentounce (1004459)]

"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so."
        - Albert Einstein

But Einstein said that after he was 30, which means it is utter nonsense.

Re:

[sholden (12227)]

Read the quite again, try and remember that basic logic you must have learnt at some point about A -> B.

Let A be "hasn't made a contribution before age 30"

Let B be "will never make a contrubution"

Then the quote is claiming that A -> B.

In Einsteins case B is false, Einstein clearly made a contribution to science. But A is also false, since he was 26 when he published the work that won him a novel prize - and really deserved two if not three. And A -> B is satisified by A=false and B=false so Einstei

Re:

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

Einstein would also tell you that he was quite often wrong. My master's advisor [wikipedia.org] won a piece of a Nobel Prize for work he started at age 70.

Re:

[sholden (12227)]

Yes, it was clearly more of a probability statement, but those are less quotable.

See your sig and my user number :)