搬运一下~纯图方便。
我已经像挖坟一样挖过好几次这个推荐了~索性ctrl+c+v
学术职业道路的现实——给学术女们打个预防针
2010-11-06 02:23:47 来自: 子风(肥得像只猫)
背景科普：
英国生物学术职业道路：
本科毕业-〉大部分离开科学，小部分进入研究生教育或者从事科学相关职业（包括公务员类） （英国高教统计局数据）
博士生毕业-〉半数离开科学（具体数字看你怎么定义科学，我把science media之类都算没完全离开科学），仅三分之一留在科研（包括工业） （Vitae最近统计数据，之前有的数据是半数留在科研）
如果想继续学术科研： 2-3个博士后，申请fellowship，竞争残酷，一般要求博士后历程不超过十年，有非常好的publication，能展示独立于PI做研究的能力。如果成功，大半能转为教职，大致等于美国的tenure。生物博士毕业后留在科研的人，大概仅有一成到一成半能成功拿到教职（包括大学以外研究所的PI）。（Vitae数据，此外Wellcome Trust等作过的类似跟踪调查结果也相似）
没有拿到教职的人，可以一个接一个的继续作万年博后，没有工作稳定性，可能需要三年换一个城市，越老越不好找工作（因为对于用人单位来说老博后性价比不好）。也可能运气较好，找到大学以外研究所研究员的工作，相当于永久博后，比较有工作稳定性，但此类职位非常少，几乎可忽略不计。绝大多数的人，为家庭和个人考虑，离开学术科研，或转入工业，或尝试公务员，或改作高教辅助工作（比如学生中心职员），很多彻底离开科学。
总体而言，博士毕业十年后，大部分人离开科研，其中相当部分离开科学或者高教领域。离开科学的生物毕业生中，大概三分之一选择商业或相关职业。（我读大学的时候系主任给的数字，来源应该也是高教统计局）
其它理工科目和生物比较类似，虽然有些没有生物竞争这么惨酷。
文科相对拿教职容易很多，但总体研究职业也并不多，经费少，入行也不容易。
有兴趣的人可以看看这个：
http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/WDRD_3_%20years_%20on_soft%20copy.pdf
一句话归纳中心思想：学术这碗饭不好吃，僧多粥少，竞争异常激烈，劳动强度偏大，收入相对偏低，对于女性来说还是相当的不family-friendly。觉得读博了就要做学术研究的同学，请三思，或者至少调查一下职业市场，有个后备方案。觉得别人读博了没打算献身学术就是浪费资源的同学，请实际一点宽容一点。
=============
顺便附送我们关于职业培训询问系内职员得到的一些反馈。我个人觉得如果大学不打算少培养一点博士生的话，就应该对这些博士生负责一点，一开始明白告诉他们没事不要淌学术研究这滩浑水。科研出资机构也应该对博士后负责一点，不要雇那么多博后……这种千军万马挤独木桥的恶性厮杀才是对学术资源最大的浪费……
系主任回信，调子最灰：
Thanks for including academics. I’m sure you’ll bear in mind that although we were indeed postgrads and postdocs once ourselves, some considerable time ago, we are not representative: we’re the people who ended up as PIs/academics. This makes us exactly the people to ask for insight along that line, but perhaps exactly the wrong people to comment on other paths that PhDs and postdocs take.
My main comment would be a blend of points 1 and 2, and I hope you won’t mind me being blunt in the interests of clarity. I think it’s important that among the advice PhD students and postdocs get is what their realistic prospects are along different career paths. For those aiming towards an academic post, that includes some serious and constructive criticism of where they have got to, and a reality-check on where their past output and future prospects stand in competition with others. I fear that too many postdocs have no serious idea of what their CV has to look like to be in the frame for a prestigious fellowship, and may be in danger of thinking that producing a paper every now and again will do the trick. If they are either not inclined, or have not been able, to produce at a competitive level, they need some clear advice about what their other options might be. I think that while that kind of insight into the way things are does exist out there among our postdocs, it’s probably not as widespread or as deep as we would like it to be. I’m not being gloomy gratuitously: it may be a little uncomfortable to confront those realities, but it’s a whole lot more constructive than hiding from them in the hope that everything will somehow be all right.
部门主任回信，一样悲观：
The issue to do with career research training for postdocs (your question 2) is probably the most important question in the whole of postdoctoral training, and, indeed, postgraduate science training. A problem is that now, as throughout the whole of my career in science, the number of people who become employed as post-docs and who wish to subsequently become PIs of their own groups, is much greater than the number of posts for PIs that are available. So most post-docs do not subsequently become PIs, and even most of those post-docs who wish to become PIs don't go on to become PIs. This therefore raises a difficult issue to do with training. The question is whether training for post-docs should involve training that increases their chances of becoming PIs, or should it be training which will enhance their career prospects in careers other than being PIs. The reason why the issue is difficult is that it is very hard to do both these things simultaneously. The BBSRC, I know, is keen for post-docs and PhD students to end up trained in generic skills which will enhance their employability in a range of professions. The skills needed for being a PI are probably a more restricted set, and closely tied to the particular research programme that the individual is undertaking. So while it is true that "Many postdocs work on short-term contracts and may not always receive relevant training and career development opportunities that they need to progress in their careers" the appropriate training for post-docs depends crucially on what is meant by "their careers".
某非常有才能，经历多次career break，明知希望渺茫还要争取fellowship的 “高龄” 女性博后的建设性意见：
As far as issue 1 goes I don’t really have any experience other than to say my other job, which is working as a science and technology consultant has certainly given me an insight into the real world outside academia. Our clients are global companies that you have heard of (but that I can’t name or I would have to kill you!!). It has certainly given me a perspective on what is cushy about academia and what is not. My other comment is that I do think non-research experience would be immensely valuable and that if it was intended to last for more than say a week or so then there would need to be some way of building credit into the system – say a recognised qualification that resulted from it that would be worth a publication on one’s CV in terms of justifying the time not producing data/publications and so the people who did it would not be disadvantaged. I think seeing how grant funding bodies work would be a very helpful insight – even being allowed to sit in on panels or something. Is that the sort of thing they are talking about?
My major suggestion for issue 2 is to enable postdocs to move out of the eternal postdoc phase and the suggestion to facilitate this is that postdocs should be allowed to apply for research funding in their own right. The problem many postdocs have is taking that step from being someone else’s researcher to being independent. A big part of this issue is that other than a limited number of highly competitive fellowships there is almost no way to obtain funding for your own salary other than by being named on someone else’s grant. And the problem with that is that you aren’t demonstrating your independence. The way I envisage it would work is that a postdoc could apply for their own salary as well as research costs and that they would be compared with named postdocs on applications with a ‘established’ PI. So it obviously wouldn’t be fair to compare the CV of un-established postdocs with established group leaders. However they should compare favourably with people named. The project has to be assessed on its merit, and compared with other applications but if the project is good enough then perhaps simply with support from a head of school (and perhaps a named mentor) this would be a way to take that first step.
一只天真小博对体制的反对：
I have the following two suggestions. With regard to 1. Non-academic experience for postgrads and postdocs: Experience days, where researchers would go directly into non-academic environments to get first hand information, impressions and experience of alternative careers/jobs.
With regard to 2. The “eternal postdoc”: To abolish the age and number of post-doc years limit on fellowship and funding schemes. It seems archaic and besides in other careers, like the medical profession, even at age 50 one can start a medical career and gets somewhere with it. In Bioscience there is no way of climbing the career ladder past a certain age which is particularly negative for late starters or people with career brakes for family reasons that do not make it into the higher academic ranks before the funding door closes because of these restrictions.
我的总结：
Actually I think all their feedbacks are quite valuable, and (unfortunately?) not anything new – this is a tough path. ：（
** & ** (两位大老板) are right that there are far too many postgrads and postdocs (I seriously think one of the best solutions should be to cut the numbers, but BBSRC and David Cameron probably won’t listen) and the competition is even more cruel than we’d like to believe (all uni admission pages paint an unbelievably rosy picture of academia and job prospectus). ：（ This is the base of the problem and there isn’t really a solution.
REALISTIC career-focused training should be emphasised. The ‘transferable skills’ we currently got offered, e.g. IT, communication, writing etc. don’t prepare us enough for a career outside academia. BBSRC runs a career training camp which is really good, but places are limited. Universities should somehow improve on this front. And we need them earlier – any 1st PhD should already know what their CV need to look like by the end of first postdoc to have any chance in academia, or industry.
I know you agree with the suggestion that age and experience limit should be lifted on fellowship applications, but it’s unlikely to happen. They’re there to prevent hundred-year-postdocs robbing the opportunities of fresh talents. But it does need to be more fair. That’s why ** （资深博后）suggested the postdoc-lead grant application. Actually it is quite difficult to think how to make it more fair, esp. for women. ：（
Ok now I feel even gloomier… and I’m still writing my first EVER first-author paper… ：（
我如果有时间会来翻译，或者哪位善良的同学有闲……
国姑娘，你在慌什么？【转】（在国内可不可能不慌？...
2011-05-08 18:26:44 来自: Miyano(f&a)
标题：中国姑娘，你在慌什么？【转】（在国内可不可能不慌？）
听说Helen拿到Yale的fellowship，我受了震动。她是我的老师，教了我一年mathematical techniques和modeling，03年从OSU毕业，今年40岁。这样的年龄和这样的身份再去念书，在我看来，很需要勇气。虽然有传言她是没有tenure上迫不得已，但是从behavioral economics转向Neuroscience，我相信她是发掘了自己的新兴趣，做出了人生的新选择。好恭喜她，又努力又负责任又美丽的好老师。
无独有偶。我的室友也是东欧女人，一年前入学的时候就听小米在跟她说转PhD的事。前段时间我问她，下学期是不是要转PhD了，她说还不，她再修一年master的课程，打好基础，反正不着急。我听完心里也是抽了一口气的。她是84年的天秤座，这个年龄在我们中国人看来好像不上不下、正尴尬着。可她完全不急不慌，笃定地念着书，不介意一个学位念六七年，完全不担心年纪大了不好就业，三十未婚是不是悲哀等等我们都会忧心的问题。
我认识的中国女生，好像很少有这样的底气。
从小我爸爸就一直在跟我说，要一鼓作气，要马不停蹄。我至今记得坐在我家的阳台上，那时我才念小学，我家周围都没有太高的建筑物，视野很开阔，他跟我算着如果大学毕业直博、比三年硕士三年博士还能节省一年时间，一遍又一遍。后来我的确走得步步跟进，于是遇到越来越多的朋友在互相念叨，机会先到先得，竞争的就是时间，要抓紧毕业抓紧赚钱抓紧恋爱结婚等等等等等。
这样想好像也没什么错。只是在看见别人的悠然态度时会有一点疑惑，为什么我们选不了这样的洒脱？抓紧，抓紧，念着这两个字，手都会不自觉地握成拳头，眉角也轻轻地皱起来。
在北京待久了，人会变得很欲望。大家都在往前冲，匆匆的步伐把你的节奏也带得飞快。离开十个月以后，接触了很不一样的人群，我开始渐渐会质疑我这些年来形成的牢固理念。
谁说了女人结婚生子以后、就很难再有机会实现事业上的突破？谁说了一定要在当妈妈之前把该念的学位都念完？谁说了一定要事业奠定了基础才可以放心相爱自由结婚？谁说了女生必须在30岁以前把自己嫁掉？谁说了……？？？
我分明看到了另外的可能。
Helen18岁就生下第一个孩子，如今一个儿子一个女儿分别在UCLA与UC. Berkeley；结过两次婚，学业并没落下，事业发展也算合意。她的人生轨迹和我们的理想预设完全不一样，可是难道不好吗？
我的同学，很多是拖家带口的。他们并不像我从前以为的那样，会因为家庭琐事的烦扰而影响功课。相反，我想，有了家室的人，更加成熟、更有自控力、也更有一份对自己和对家人的责任感在激励努力。尤其在我们社科专业，其实多一些年岁的积累会对学科也有更深刻的认识。年纪太轻，经历太单薄，见识太浅，有什么底蕴阐释好万千变化的经济学呢？
走得太急，未必会走得最好最远最稳当。
人生没有那么多不能。我们总可以做自己喜欢做的事，而不仅仅是别人告诉你必须这么做的。所以何妨在很年轻的时候生下最聪明漂亮的小孩、然后和儿女一起成长？所以何妨在最心无旁骛的时候一心学习把自己好好武装？所以何妨在青春澎湃正有激情的时候抛下名利担忧去某一些偏僻的地方奉献力量？所以何妨一个人环游世界也有美丽心情不去理会有些人怎么想？
喘一口气，做自己。怎样都可以。
我不担心书念到尽头会是人老珠黄。花的每一个季节都有它的意义，等与不等，并无分别。
我愿生命是一个从容的过程。宁静相待，了然欢欣。
转自人人：http://blog.renren.com/blog/222054326/725454829
哎，身边木有这样的人...........
学术职业道路的现实——给学术女们打个预防针
2010-11-06 02:23:47 来自: 子风(肥得像只猫)
背景科普：
英国生物学术职业道路：
本科毕业-〉大部分离开科学，小部分进入研究生教育或者从事科学相关职业（包括公务员类） （英国高教统计局数据）
博士生毕业-〉半数离开科学（具体数字看你怎么定义科学，我把science media之类都算没完全离开科学），仅三分之一留在科研（包括工业） （Vitae最近统计数据，之前有的数据是半数留在科研）
如果想继续学术科研： 2-3个博士后，申请fellowship，竞争残酷，一般要求博士后历程不超过十年，有非常好的publication，能展示独立于PI做研究的能力。如果成功，大半能转为教职，大致等于美国的tenure。生物博士毕业后留在科研的人，大概仅有一成到一成半能成功拿到教职（包括大学以外研究所的PI）。（Vitae数据，此外Wellcome Trust等作过的类似跟踪调查结果也相似）
没有拿到教职的人，可以一个接一个的继续作万年博后，没有工作稳定性，可能需要三年换一个城市，越老越不好找工作（因为对于用人单位来说老博后性价比不好）。也可能运气较好，找到大学以外研究所研究员的工作，相当于永久博后，比较有工作稳定性，但此类职位非常少，几乎可忽略不计。绝大多数的人，为家庭和个人考虑，离开学术科研，或转入工业，或尝试公务员，或改作高教辅助工作（比如学生中心职员），很多彻底离开科学。
总体而言，博士毕业十年后，大部分人离开科研，其中相当部分离开科学或者高教领域。离开科学的生物毕业生中，大概三分之一选择商业或相关职业。（我读大学的时候系主任给的数字，来源应该也是高教统计局）
其它理工科目和生物比较类似，虽然有些没有生物竞争这么惨酷。
文科相对拿教职容易很多，但总体研究职业也并不多，经费少，入行也不容易。
有兴趣的人可以看看这个：
http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/WDRD_3_%20years_%20on_soft%20copy.pdf
一句话归纳中心思想：学术这碗饭不好吃，僧多粥少，竞争异常激烈，劳动强度偏大，收入相对偏低，对于女性来说还是相当的不family-friendly。觉得读博了就要做学术研究的同学，请三思，或者至少调查一下职业市场，有个后备方案。觉得别人读博了没打算献身学术就是浪费资源的同学，请实际一点宽容一点。
=============
顺便附送我们关于职业培训询问系内职员得到的一些反馈。我个人觉得如果大学不打算少培养一点博士生的话，就应该对这些博士生负责一点，一开始明白告诉他们没事不要淌学术研究这滩浑水。科研出资机构也应该对博士后负责一点，不要雇那么多博后……这种千军万马挤独木桥的恶性厮杀才是对学术资源最大的浪费……
系主任回信，调子最灰：
Thanks for including academics. I’m sure you’ll bear in mind that although we were indeed postgrads and postdocs once ourselves, some considerable time ago, we are not representative: we’re the people who ended up as PIs/academics. This makes us exactly the people to ask for insight along that line, but perhaps exactly the wrong people to comment on other paths that PhDs and postdocs take.
My main comment would be a blend of points 1 and 2, and I hope you won’t mind me being blunt in the interests of clarity. I think it’s important that among the advice PhD students and postdocs get is what their realistic prospects are along different career paths. For those aiming towards an academic post, that includes some serious and constructive criticism of where they have got to, and a reality-check on where their past output and future prospects stand in competition with others. I fear that too many postdocs have no serious idea of what their CV has to look like to be in the frame for a prestigious fellowship, and may be in danger of thinking that producing a paper every now and again will do the trick. If they are either not inclined, or have not been able, to produce at a competitive level, they need some clear advice about what their other options might be. I think that while that kind of insight into the way things are does exist out there among our postdocs, it’s probably not as widespread or as deep as we would like it to be. I’m not being gloomy gratuitously: it may be a little uncomfortable to confront those realities, but it’s a whole lot more constructive than hiding from them in the hope that everything will somehow be all right.
部门主任回信，一样悲观：
The issue to do with career research training for postdocs (your question 2) is probably the most important question in the whole of postdoctoral training, and, indeed, postgraduate science training. A problem is that now, as throughout the whole of my career in science, the number of people who become employed as post-docs and who wish to subsequently become PIs of their own groups, is much greater than the number of posts for PIs that are available. So most post-docs do not subsequently become PIs, and even most of those post-docs who wish to become PIs don't go on to become PIs. This therefore raises a difficult issue to do with training. The question is whether training for post-docs should involve training that increases their chances of becoming PIs, or should it be training which will enhance their career prospects in careers other than being PIs. The reason why the issue is difficult is that it is very hard to do both these things simultaneously. The BBSRC, I know, is keen for post-docs and PhD students to end up trained in generic skills which will enhance their employability in a range of professions. The skills needed for being a PI are probably a more restricted set, and closely tied to the particular research programme that the individual is undertaking. So while it is true that "Many postdocs work on short-term contracts and may not always receive relevant training and career development opportunities that they need to progress in their careers" the appropriate training for post-docs depends crucially on what is meant by "their careers".
某非常有才能，经历多次career break，明知希望渺茫还要争取fellowship的 “高龄” 女性博后的建设性意见：
As far as issue 1 goes I don’t really have any experience other than to say my other job, which is working as a science and technology consultant has certainly given me an insight into the real world outside academia. Our clients are global companies that you have heard of (but that I can’t name or I would have to kill you!!). It has certainly given me a perspective on what is cushy about academia and what is not. My other comment is that I do think non-research experience would be immensely valuable and that if it was intended to last for more than say a week or so then there would need to be some way of building credit into the system – say a recognised qualification that resulted from it that would be worth a publication on one’s CV in terms of justifying the time not producing data/publications and so the people who did it would not be disadvantaged. I think seeing how grant funding bodies work would be a very helpful insight – even being allowed to sit in on panels or something. Is that the sort of thing they are talking about?
My major suggestion for issue 2 is to enable postdocs to move out of the eternal postdoc phase and the suggestion to facilitate this is that postdocs should be allowed to apply for research funding in their own right. The problem many postdocs have is taking that step from being someone else’s researcher to being independent. A big part of this issue is that other than a limited number of highly competitive fellowships there is almost no way to obtain funding for your own salary other than by being named on someone else’s grant. And the problem with that is that you aren’t demonstrating your independence. The way I envisage it would work is that a postdoc could apply for their own salary as well as research costs and that they would be compared with named postdocs on applications with a ‘established’ PI. So it obviously wouldn’t be fair to compare the CV of un-established postdocs with established group leaders. However they should compare favourably with people named. The project has to be assessed on its merit, and compared with other applications but if the project is good enough then perhaps simply with support from a head of school (and perhaps a named mentor) this would be a way to take that first step.
一只天真小博对体制的反对：
I have the following two suggestions. With regard to 1. Non-academic experience for postgrads and postdocs: Experience days, where researchers would go directly into non-academic environments to get first hand information, impressions and experience of alternative careers/jobs.
With regard to 2. The “eternal postdoc”: To abolish the age and number of post-doc years limit on fellowship and funding schemes. It seems archaic and besides in other careers, like the medical profession, even at age 50 one can start a medical career and gets somewhere with it. In Bioscience there is no way of climbing the career ladder past a certain age which is particularly negative for late starters or people with career brakes for family reasons that do not make it into the higher academic ranks before the funding door closes because of these restrictions.
我的总结：
Actually I think all their feedbacks are quite valuable, and (unfortunately?) not anything new – this is a tough path. ：（
** & ** (两位大老板) are right that there are far too many postgrads and postdocs (I seriously think one of the best solutions should be to cut the numbers, but BBSRC and David Cameron probably won’t listen) and the competition is even more cruel than we’d like to believe (all uni admission pages paint an unbelievably rosy picture of academia and job prospectus). ：（ This is the base of the problem and there isn’t really a solution.
REALISTIC career-focused training should be emphasised. The ‘transferable skills’ we currently got offered, e.g. IT, communication, writing etc. don’t prepare us enough for a career outside academia. BBSRC runs a career training camp which is really good, but places are limited. Universities should somehow improve on this front. And we need them earlier – any 1st PhD should already know what their CV need to look like by the end of first postdoc to have any chance in academia, or industry.
I know you agree with the suggestion that age and experience limit should be lifted on fellowship applications, but it’s unlikely to happen. They’re there to prevent hundred-year-postdocs robbing the opportunities of fresh talents. But it does need to be more fair. That’s why ** （资深博后）suggested the postdoc-lead grant application. Actually it is quite difficult to think how to make it more fair, esp. for women. ：（
Ok now I feel even gloomier… and I’m still writing my first EVER first-author paper… ：（
我如果有时间会来翻译，或者哪位善良的同学有闲……
国姑娘，你在慌什么？【转】（在国内可不可能不慌？...
2011-05-08 18:26:44 来自: Miyano(f&a)
标题：中国姑娘，你在慌什么？【转】（在国内可不可能不慌？）
听说Helen拿到Yale的fellowship，我受了震动。她是我的老师，教了我一年mathematical techniques和modeling，03年从OSU毕业，今年40岁。这样的年龄和这样的身份再去念书，在我看来，很需要勇气。虽然有传言她是没有tenure上迫不得已，但是从behavioral economics转向Neuroscience，我相信她是发掘了自己的新兴趣，做出了人生的新选择。好恭喜她，又努力又负责任又美丽的好老师。
无独有偶。我的室友也是东欧女人，一年前入学的时候就听小米在跟她说转PhD的事。前段时间我问她，下学期是不是要转PhD了，她说还不，她再修一年master的课程，打好基础，反正不着急。我听完心里也是抽了一口气的。她是84年的天秤座，这个年龄在我们中国人看来好像不上不下、正尴尬着。可她完全不急不慌，笃定地念着书，不介意一个学位念六七年，完全不担心年纪大了不好就业，三十未婚是不是悲哀等等我们都会忧心的问题。
我认识的中国女生，好像很少有这样的底气。
从小我爸爸就一直在跟我说，要一鼓作气，要马不停蹄。我至今记得坐在我家的阳台上，那时我才念小学，我家周围都没有太高的建筑物，视野很开阔，他跟我算着如果大学毕业直博、比三年硕士三年博士还能节省一年时间，一遍又一遍。后来我的确走得步步跟进，于是遇到越来越多的朋友在互相念叨，机会先到先得，竞争的就是时间，要抓紧毕业抓紧赚钱抓紧恋爱结婚等等等等等。
这样想好像也没什么错。只是在看见别人的悠然态度时会有一点疑惑，为什么我们选不了这样的洒脱？抓紧，抓紧，念着这两个字，手都会不自觉地握成拳头，眉角也轻轻地皱起来。
在北京待久了，人会变得很欲望。大家都在往前冲，匆匆的步伐把你的节奏也带得飞快。离开十个月以后，接触了很不一样的人群，我开始渐渐会质疑我这些年来形成的牢固理念。
谁说了女人结婚生子以后、就很难再有机会实现事业上的突破？谁说了一定要在当妈妈之前把该念的学位都念完？谁说了一定要事业奠定了基础才可以放心相爱自由结婚？谁说了女生必须在30岁以前把自己嫁掉？谁说了……？？？
我分明看到了另外的可能。
Helen18岁就生下第一个孩子，如今一个儿子一个女儿分别在UCLA与UC. Berkeley；结过两次婚，学业并没落下，事业发展也算合意。她的人生轨迹和我们的理想预设完全不一样，可是难道不好吗？
我的同学，很多是拖家带口的。他们并不像我从前以为的那样，会因为家庭琐事的烦扰而影响功课。相反，我想，有了家室的人，更加成熟、更有自控力、也更有一份对自己和对家人的责任感在激励努力。尤其在我们社科专业，其实多一些年岁的积累会对学科也有更深刻的认识。年纪太轻，经历太单薄，见识太浅，有什么底蕴阐释好万千变化的经济学呢？
走得太急，未必会走得最好最远最稳当。
人生没有那么多不能。我们总可以做自己喜欢做的事，而不仅仅是别人告诉你必须这么做的。所以何妨在很年轻的时候生下最聪明漂亮的小孩、然后和儿女一起成长？所以何妨在最心无旁骛的时候一心学习把自己好好武装？所以何妨在青春澎湃正有激情的时候抛下名利担忧去某一些偏僻的地方奉献力量？所以何妨一个人环游世界也有美丽心情不去理会有些人怎么想？
喘一口气，做自己。怎样都可以。
我不担心书念到尽头会是人老珠黄。花的每一个季节都有它的意义，等与不等，并无分别。
我愿生命是一个从容的过程。宁静相待，了然欢欣。
转自人人：http://blog.renren.com/blog/222054326/725454829
哎，身边木有这样的人...........
还没人赞这篇日记
