Comment by PakG1
Perhaps the impressive thing is that it wasn't found for so long and finally was. Not that it was a student.
Perhaps the impressive thing is that it wasn't found for so long and finally was. Not that it was a student.
wasn't found for so long and finally was
Now I'm not saying that a student shouldn't be able to find it. But in conventional wisdom it seems quite clear why one sounds more impressive than the other if you ask me.
A student is still learning. Not at the peak of knowledge/ability. While an "expert" or in the context of academia, a professor, would seem more knowledgeable. In that context, the wording seems expected / understandable.
Of course in reality in some real life contexts a professor might be more "stagnant" than a student that's trying to get a big discovery in order to earn a doctorate/professorship or course. But that's not "conventional wisdom" for the masses.
> (…) sounds more impressive (…) sounds more impressive (…)
You keep saying that, but my question was why they considered it to be more impressive. I understand an article might want anything to sound more impressive for clicks.
> If this is the case, isn't it quite clear
And no, I don’t agree that taking so long immediately makes it more impressive that a student did it. How many experts are actively searching? And how many students? There are always more of the latter than the former. After long, fortuitous encounters (which anyone can have) become more common.
Perhaps, but that was not how it was worded. Like I said, I’m genuinely asking. If the original author wants to say “oh, I don’t think the student part is relay relevant”, then it’s all good. Otherwise it’s still all good but I want to understand their choice of mentioning the student.