"The Big Bang Theory" and Academic Reality

And trying to figure out their job titles.

The “The Gyroscopic Collapse” Season 10 Episode 23 of the long-running sitcom “The Big Bang Theory” (2007-2019).

Spoiler Alert for major plot points in “The Big Bang Theory” and “Young Sheldon” below!

There are very few movies or television shows that portray day-to-day scientific research in academia. Shows like The Big Bang Theory (2007-2019) provide some glimpse into day-to-day of an academic scientist. The show initially follows the lives of three physicists— Leonard (Johnny Galecki), Sheldon (Jim Parsons), and Raj (Kunal Nayyar)— and an engineer Howard (Simon Helberg) working at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), an extremely prestigious academic institution in the United States. Leslie Winkle (Sara Gilbert) is a recurring female physicist in Seasons 1 and 2 but primarily serves as a love interest of Howard and Leonard. Later, the female scientists of Bernadette (Melissa Rauch), Amy (Mayim Bialik) are added as main characters, who work in microbiology, and neurobiology, respectively. Only Bernadette leaves academia to work in the Pharmeceutical industry.

The series has been lauded for its great pains to portray the scientific terms, equipment, and equations on the white boards correctly through hiring a regular science consultant (David Saltzberg, professor at UCLA). If only, they had taken the pains to actually portray academia (and lab safety) in a more accurate way. The Big Bang Theory has an incredibly unrealistic portrayal of academia, in literally every sense. Raj, Leonard, Sheldon, and Howard are perpetually employed at the same university for over 12 years (Amy joins Caltech in Season 7). They seem to have almost no commitments outside of research, almost unlimited lab funds, and generous enough salaries to afford owning vehicles, eating out frequently, purchasing pricey collectable items, and going to comic book conventions. The characters are never penalized for publishing erroneous information, misappropriating funds, lab safety violations, or harassment of coworkers. They have active social lives, hobbies, and stable friend groups. They never have to worry about the two-body problem and get published easily. Their academia is an idealized misconception of what outsiders think academia is.

What is Their Position Anyway?

The most unrealistic aspect is that Leonard, Raj, Howard, and Sheldon all work at the same university (Caltech) for over 12 years in some sort of unclear postdoc/research associate position in which they have literally no responsibilities except doing research day in and day out. At some point funding/contracts would have run out and they would have applied for other jobs which most likely would have necessitated a move. The hierarchy in the department is never shown. At one point, Raj slacks off for over 6 months (he is apparently not accountable to anyone) and watches movies on his laptop all day (The Pirate Solution). Somehow, he is hired by Sheldon, who is not even a faculty member or running a research group. More confusingly, Amy appears to run a lab at Caltech and publish frequently but her PI (who would be a faculty member) is never shown. Is she a one-woman show? Typically, I have to report my progress and turn in certain deliverables about my current research project on a weekly basis to my faculty leader, and this has been similar to other research groups I have worked in. Often, I work with and mentor graduate students below me, who also assist me in my work. A research-intense institution like Caltech would have strong pressure to publish and is unlikely to let non-faculty members have free-reign over research projects and funds. This tight system of mentorship and goal setting results in frequent academic publications for a department.

Typically, a graduate student obtains their Ph.D. and then pursues a postdoc at another university. Then, they apply for tenure-track jobs typically ending up at another university. Sometimes, they get roles as research associates, which seems like the job these guys have. However, research associates are typically 1-to-3-year contracts that may be renewed based on funding or performance. Often funds for a project run out, or research groups change directions. Perhaps the characters are applying for grants and obtaining independent funding somehow. However, it is highly unlikely that they would remain in the same role for over a decade.

The route (“pipeline”) of an academic in STEM is from undergrad, graduate school, postdoc, to faculty position and eventually tenure.

Season 6’s “The Tenure Turbulence” is one of the most unrealistic episodes in regard to academic promotion. In this episode, Raj, Leonard, and Sheldon vie for tenure by engaging in juvenile stunts to impress the tenure committee. First, they are not assistant or associate faculty members. Tenure is awarded to an already established faculty member (who underwent a very rigorous hiring process usually involving 2 interviews and multiple written statements) usually around their 7th year at the university. Tenure decisions are often based on the candidate’s performance in the areas of research, teaching, and service. None of them are shown teaching a regular class before this episode. They don’t mentor other students. They don’t serve on a university committee. Their one attempt at outreach to middle school girls goes poorly and is apparently abandoned. They have stellar research records, but this would not be enough to get tenure even if they were faculty members. It’s unsurprising, then, that none of them apparently got promoted.

Academic Publishing is Not Easy

Publishing is not the easy process as shown in the TV series. The characters often rush papers to publication without getting feedback from colleagues or other faculty members, which is a time-consuming process that can take years. In Season 7, a plot point is how Sheldon publishes an erroneous paper he rushed to publication and didn’t double check the numbers on; he’s humiliated when it’s retracted.

In Season 12, Amy and Sheldon work on their “Super Asymmetry” manuscript. First, they progress fairly quickly, which may not be surprising since they have no other demands on their time outside of work. By episode 9 (“The Citation Negation”) their paper is close to publication. However, they failed to do a thorough literature review, which they should have done earlier in the project. However, they were looking for an obscure, Russian paper from the 1970s so I’ll give them a pass on that one. Then, they uncharacteristically fall into a mental pit of despair because the paper from the 1970s that Howard hastily translated from Russian “disproves” “Super Asymmetry”. This made no sense to me at the time and still makes no sense. Other non-scientist commentators even remarked on the lack of realism in this plotline. First, the characters never even thoroughly read the paper in question, or even had it professionally translated; they never considered changes in technology over 40 years; plus, science works to either confirm or negate previous findings all the time. Isn’t that Sheldon’s thing? Poking holes in other people’s work? Once they rally themselves (in a touching moment involving a VCR recording), they realize a way to re-write the paper, and it’s published incredibly quickly, without the inevitable wrangling with peer reviewers one must usually do.

In “The Citation Negation” Amy and Sheldon are depressed that an old Russian paper supposedly “disproved” their theory without actually investigating the paper’s methodology.

Season 3 of Young Sheldon (2017-2024), which is a prequel series about Sheldon’s childhood in Texas, depicts Sheldon making a significant intellectual contribution to his mentor’s (Dr. Sturgis’s) paper. In turn, the professor completely rewrites the paper in a mere few days based on Sheldon’s math and their discussions. Sheldon is upset that he is not given co-authorship since he identified a significant flaw in part of the paper. Though Sheldon did not technically write the text of the manuscript, Sturgis could have included him in editing and revising the final draft of the manuscript which could have merited co-authorship. The question of co-authorship is a legitimate struggle in academic publishing and is often politicized. Historically, women or contributors with less influence have been cut out of authorship. Instead of going along with the unstated norms that one should not burn academic bridges as many have been forced to do before him, Sheldon launches an attack against Sturgis that severs their relationship. In fact, Sturgis should have been clear about acknowledgment and authorship before asking for Sheldon’s feedback. Recently, authorship guidelines have been established to help facilitate this (more about this plotline in the last section).

Who gets a PhD that young anyway?

What was most notable to me was that Leonard, Raj, and Sheldon get their doctorates incredibly young. They are roughly 23 (“The Staircase Implementation”) when they all meet, 26, when the series begins, and 38 around the finale. For myself, I graduated high school, spent 4 years in college, 2 years on a masters, and another 4 on a PhD graduating at 28. In fact, this is younger than the median age of doctorate attainment in the US which is 35 years old. Getting a PhD is a very long process, requires not only a lot of classes, but also conducting several original research projects and learning whatever skills you need to complete those projects. Many people also wait a few years and work before going to graduate school, in order to get some experience and figure out their commitment to a particular field of study. Raj, Leonard, Bernadette, and Amy are indeed unusually young to have obtained PhDs.

Sheldon’s backstory is explained more in Young Sheldon, but at minimum Leonard and Raj probably skipped several grades and completed their PhD quickly, likely skipping a master’s degree. This reinforces the “genius” myth that giftedness and exceptional scientific aptitude is discovered young and is “pre-determined” by innate talent. The TV series Young Sheldon perpetuates this, since Sheldon is so brilliant and gifted, that his success seems inevitable (differences in the extreme right tail distribution is used to problematically justify sex differences in STEM aptitude and representation.) Despite support from professors, school, and his parents who buy him a computer, he naturally learns quite easily and doesn’t need extensive mentoring or tutoring for advanced academic concepts. Amy’s educational journey, which is portrayed as equally brilliant as Sheldon’s, is barely discussed. While the series gives us multiple anecdotes of him performing detailed scientific and math calculations without prompting as a child, we don’t know how Amy learned or much about her educational journey or her age of degree obtainment. Only Bernadette appears to have been slightly older (mid to late 20s) when obtaining her PhD. Penny, on the other hand, never even obtained a degree after high school. Disappointingly, her academic journey at community college was abandoned for her unrealistic rise as a pharmaceutical representative. This was a missed opportunity to show a non-traditional or older student navigating academic spaces and developing strategies to succeed.

Science as a Haven

I dislike the earlier seasons of the show, since the main male characters were so socially stunted and perpetrated stereotypes that academics are just “clueless” about how to operate in the real world. The initial episodes of the series very much also portray STEM as a male space, almost a “haven” from the struggles of dating and the real world. The show also premiered around the rise of Elon Musk (who appeared in “The Platonic Permutation”), Mark Zuckerberg, and other popular interest in technology was taking off, reinforcing this male stereotype.

Given the transitory nature of academia, nurturing relationships and friendships is actually difficult. In fact, Mayim Bialik, who has a PhD in neuroscience, notes she left academia to pursue acting since it allowed her more flexibility and paid better. Over 12 seasons, we see the characters live in a sort of “extended college life”, having roommates, going to Comic Cons, having childish interesting in the early seasons. As the years progress, they do get married, have children, and Howard and Bernadette own a home. We see Bernadette in particular struggling with taking care of the domestic household, her kids, Howard’s expensive spending habits, Stewart their roommate, who along with Howard, don’t often pull his weight when it comes to chores. Amy, once she moves in with Sheldon, soon has to shoulder a huge mental load to deal with maintaining Sheldon’s environment. I imagine this became far more difficult once they had children (in the Young Sheldon finale he’s writing alone in his study while Amy is doing all the childcare and coordination). Sheldon and Howard don’t have to do the same mental calculus that the women do and can completely absorb themselves in their work, often working long hours on special projects, while the women pick up the slack in their lives.

Season 7’s episode The Friendship Turbulence shows Amy completing mundane lab tasks like labeling test tubes.

Finally, their day-to-day lab work is often “glamorous”. They build parts for the international space station, develop quantum gyroscopes for the military, use 3D printers, robots, and other high-tech equipment. Most lab work is in reality, tedious, boring, and repetitive. Mayim Bialik suggested the addition of more realistic scientific procedures and laboratory work to the show. Bialik routinely shows Amy doing more mundane tasks in the lab like logging data or storing test tubes. There is an episode where Sheldon joins Amy’s lab for a day (“The Vacation Solution”) expecting to do “cool” biological experiments and spends most of the time washing test tubes. Sheldon deeply resents this, revealing his arrogance and entitlement to the tasks “he should” be doing. In fact, much of science is divided into different tasks, the less glamorous ones, like washing test tubes or making media or chemicals, are often performed by the least-paid members.

Perpetuating Academic Myths

Todd C. Ream in an Inside Higher Ed article, argued that The Big Bang Theory, in particular “The Tenure Turbulence” contributes to negative stereotypes that the public held against tenured professors as “indoctrinators” or “lazy”. In fact, the way some characters on this show behave, might convince a casual viewer that colleges are some sort of “playground” for “super smart” people who have no real-world groundings. Worse yet, the show seems to idealize STEM fields (Physics in particular) and shows almost no humanities research, faculty, or events at the university. Only Amy’s character shows an interest in reading classical literature or attending local arts and literary events. This was concerning, as federal and state funding were declining for the humanities during the show’s run.

Movies and television are very influential on American cultural perceptions. Often, highly intelligent characters are portrayed in media as awkward or unlikable compared to the other “street smart” characters, a writing move that can promote anti-intellectualism. While The Big Bang Theory does a slightly better job depicting scientists as more personable and well-rounded, Young Sheldon often reverts to portraying Sheldon as blunt, anxious, dismissive, and egotistical compared to the “street smart” and hence more “likable” characters. Sheldon’s behavior is usually framed as comedic, and only rarely investigates the emotional and psychological turmoil a highly gifted child might experience navigating an adult world with heavy expectations put upon him. A rare exception is the Season 2 finale, where Sheldon eagerly tries to gather friends to listen to a broadcast of the Nobel prize announcements, and nobody shows up, and he is genuinely upset. More often, the series fails to investigate that Sheldon’s bluntness might be a mask he adopted to navigate the complex, adult world of academia, and his family’s often irresponsible and illegal behavior. As a child, Sheldon does not receive the therapy, assistance, boundaries, or guidance he truly needs to navigate the world and human relationships and thus develops very problematic behavior as an adult. As a child, he is bullied and mocked by most or humored and excused by a few and thus struggles to accept any sort of critique about his work in academic spaces. The show attempts to have us "side” with the “street-smart” characters or to dismiss Sheldon’s struggles as comedic or his treatment as somehow “deserved”. Regarding the co-authorship debate, most viewers immediately discounted Sheldon as being “wrong”. In fact, it was Dr. Sturgis who should have navigated and mentored Sheldon more thoughtfully. While the episode doesn’t delve too much into the math of the paper, making a significant intellectual contribution as Sheldon does to the manuscript (which would have been unpublishable otherwise) at least merits a discussion of possible co-authorship. As an adult in The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon, in turn reflecting Dr. Sturgis’s behavior, often denies or minimizes the credit and contributions of others to his work.

An upset Sheldon (Iain Armitage) at the Season 2 finale of “Young Sheldon”.

Instead of accomplishing very good work through long hours, such shows can suggest that academics are goofing off most the time or working on obscure topics nobody cares about. In fact, the American research university had a long history of extension and consulting work, and a strong focus on applied research. Even if this were not the case, scholarship that works to advance human knowledge, is inherently valuable and worthy of respect. Moreover, the majority of academics do not have “life-time jobs”. Tenure is granted to a very small percentage of academic scientists. Most academics are very underpaid for their skillset, long hours, and hard work. Many struggle to meet basic financial necessities with their paycheck. Often, it is women, and students of color who have the least pay and job stability in STEM academic spaces. International scholars, like Raj, are in an extremely vulnerable position as their visa depends on their job, making them more vulnerable to exploitation.

Would universities benefit by nurturing talent with job stability, decent pay, and work hours, rather than kicking them out and expecting them to perform just as well in a different university? I believe so.

More to come about The Big Bang Theory!