Notes on additional comments, ACL2 Seminar 9/13/07, on what it takes to be a successful academic: J said that for tenure at UT, it's important to have been on PCs of good conferences. Being in charge of local arrangements or a general chair is of course also desirable, and such things are critical for promotion to full professor. This is all about giving evidence of the high regard you're held in, rather than evidence of service per se. Matt gave his view that it's helpful for Ph.D. research to pick tractable problems -- if you're stuck with a fuzzy feeling then maybe you need a narrower scope. He added that, paradoxically, even with a nice crisp problem one is bound to get stuck sometimes -- if you never find the going tough then it probably isn't research! J agreed, and added that when he's stuck on a problem for a few weeks, he puts the problem aside, then later sometimes a solution just comes to him when he's not thinking about the problem. He said that for this to happen, it's critical that he's already fully absorbed the problem -- without the intense thought and deep understanding already gained, the solution would not have come. Interestingly, the brief discussion above was almost all that was said about the research process per se. Most of the focus was generally on picking problems that interest you, serving on committees, finding satisfaction in teaching and mentoring, getting a mentor, and such topics, all critical issues for faculty. At one point Matt asked Warren and J their opinion on how many hours per week a faculty member might typically work, since it sounded like there's lots to do. J suggested that it could be at least 60 hours per week. He drew an analogy to other professions, like law and medicine -- it's not about just putting in a workweek.