Why are there so many academic/scientist climbers?

I'm a newer and in the couples years I've been climbing outdoors I've noticed a bevy of climbers who are engineers, academics, and scientists.

At places like at Tahquitz and at my local climbing club, I've run into CalTech postdocs, JPL engineers, retired researchers and professors. Even among the luminaries of the Golden Age, John Gill was a Mathematician, Chuck Wilts was a physicists, Don Wilson was a biologist.

This thread, of course, will be speculative but I'm curious to get your take: why are there so many academics, scientists, and technical peeps in climbing? What of climbing draws this particular breed of peoples? 

For every “academic etc” I’ll show you a below average   everyday climber and even throw in a possible addiction.

A more satisfying answer might be: climbing isn’t cheap. Time is money. Not just any type of profile has the time and money to go trad climbing at a destination likely over an hour away from home.

Cesar Cardenaswrote:

For every “academic etc” I’ll show you a below average   everyday climber and even throw in a possible addiction.

A more satisfying answer might be: climbing isn’t cheap. Time is money. Not just any type of profile has the time and money to go trad climbing at a destination likely over an hour away from home.

For modern recreational climbing-- sure. Entry criteria for the sport include time and disposable income. But these people still choose climbing out off the entire array of other leisure activity. They're not pursuing horseback riding or yachting. There's a measure of deliberate choice in this.

Also, lets look back, before climbing became mainstream and accessible-- when the barrier of entry to climbing was more than just time and money. Both John Gill -- father of the forerunner to the V-grading system-- and John Wilts-- father of the Yosemite Grading System-- both became professors as universities. University professors are a pretty darn thin slice of the general population.

Being a good climber is as much about strength as it is about being analytical. Climbing is a physical form of puzzle solving. I think that is why it attracts so many highly educated persons. Why that balance seems to be stacked towards number crunchers is unclear to me but it is something I definitely recognize. 

I’ve definitely noticed a lot of people in STEM who climb but this could be a sort of confirmation bias thing (probably not the right word) where since I’m in STEM I tend to latch onto it which makes them slightly more memorable, everything else being equal.

I will say though, the problem solving aspect of climbing definitely draws a lot of these kinds of people in. Obviously other sports and hobbies have that problem solving aspect as well but climbing presents more of a puzzle to be solved with dynamic or delicate body movement which is pretty unique.

Additionally, I think that a lot of people in college get into climbing since there’s usually an on campus gym which is included with your tuition so that can definitely have an impact. Also climbing is just plain fun!

I think this is a Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Like if I  meet a climber that's a writer, all of a sudden it's like, oh wow Pat Ament is a writer! John Long is a writer! Jon Krakauer is a writer! Mark Twight is a writer! What is up with all these climbers, that are also writers!?

Or I wonder why so many climbers here in Boulder have PhDs. Maybe a little different, but it could be that they moved to Boulder to get their PhDs ya know. Why would climbers that live near San Jose also be into startups? It's certainly a mystery, right?

Plus, climbing is not specifically more or less expensive than other hobbies. One can spend a shit ton of money on literally anything, or get by with hand me downs/second hand stuff and invest only in the most important (safety) items. 

Especially gym climbing or bouldering is relatively cheap. 

It’s because we feel dead inside otherwise, so we have to pick some gnarly activity where we’re likely to die, to feel alive. 

- Me, an academic (biology PhD)

Climbing provides the ideal opportunity for PhD'ers to spray about how important their niche research is, since you're literally tied to them and can't escape. My experience at least?

my crew is split 2-4 so you need to work on your hypothesis.  

Early on, I’ll bet it was the due to the more international nature of academics and the academy. Having a greater exchange with ideas and people from Europe was one way climbing spread, especially to places in the USA that were unexpected.

Later, I think people who haven’t been there would have a difficult time understanding how much unstructured time a PhD candidate and post doc has. It’s still a lot of work… but very little of it is time bound, so time intensive activities are more possible. This is changing as academic research becomes more grant dependent and folks more and more have to fill their days adjuncting at multiple institutions to make rent. 

Because they are awesome, just like us!  

Plus when we climb with them, we don't let slip with dumbass comments like "school smart with no common sense" because, well, we see them climb.

1) your location has something to do with it

2) selective association— you are more likely to strike up conversation with someone who is like you in some way

3) selective memory — you are more likely to remember interacting with some people

4) these are people who have disposable income for gear and travel, and schedule allowing them to go climbing regularly 

Another set of puzzles!  Minds need exercise as well as bodies do.

I once had a student who thought he would become a professor so that he could have plenty of time to open and run his dojo.  I just shook my head.  It sure looks like we have time, and there is a certain degree of flexibility -- but not nearly as much as it appears, and your climbing resume can take a back seat to your CV, for sure.

I noticed a lot of golfers are Executive Officers. What’s up with that?

It's not that we want to do these things, it's just that no other fields or sports would have us.

I'm a college dropout... I quit while I was writing my dissertation.

It used to be the case that I thought climbing to be a sport that catered to obsessive nerds like me.

Over the years, I've climbed with plenty of dumb bros or folks who just don't give a damn about details who are all fine folks in their own rights and who climb just as good as anyone.  

I don't generally stick around with folks who don't care enough about this stuff to nerd out on the details, just as a matter of concern for my own personal safety.

And, often, being an obsessive nerd is a character trait that expresses itself in other areas of life. 

So, now I think I just select partners who are also obsessive nerds.  

Finally getting recognized for my intelligence thanks James! 

As a quasi-academic myself, I would suggest a few reasons why you might see a fair number of academics in climbing. #1 is free time. Having a relatively open schedule is hugely helpful to progress in climbing. Based on the number of grad students who are climbing quite hard, it's pretty clear that a lot of grad schools aren't placing too many onerous time demands on students. That can change should you actually get a job as faculty but still.  #2 is money. To be an academic doesn't mean you're super well paid but it's usually enough to afford pursuing climbing, especially if coupled with #1. Also many professors and grad students have (usually unmentioned) family backgrounds that facilitate access to resources (financial and otherwise) that enable climbing.

However #1 also varies by institution (also linked with location) and discipline. Lots of time spent in labs and libraries away from climbing locales equals better career prospects but worse climbing ability. It's very rare to see truly good climbers working at elite-level universities anymore. The jobs are too competitive and work demands are very high. I think that humanities disciplines rarely produce high end climbers either owing to lack of free time in grad school and then lack of money as humanities faculty positions are often adjunct and don't pay well. There's also the problem of location. Most academic jobs are not portable and if you get offered a tenure-track position anywhere, you will likely take it and stay put.

This pattern is repeated in a number of other high-end professions in America as well. The key is a self-directed schedule and ability to select living location.

I wouldn't be surprised if the situation in Europe is far more favorable to academics pursuing high-end climbing.

A delicate combination of time, money, ambition, image.

They're not pursuing horseback riding or yachting.

Uh, average science geeks don't have that much money :-) Also see the last factor above. With climbing you can pretend you're not a typical yuppie (admittedly it's getting harder).