It seems that many branches of science are heading towards a situation where it is better to have 1,000 mediocre scientists working on a problem than one or two brilliant scientists (as was the case in the old days).

Take ITER for example. It's the most significant effort at generating economic fusion power today and yet the identities of nearly all of the scientists and engineers working on the project are unknown (compare this to the Manhattan project).

Companies like Google and Facebook are revolutionizing the field of artificial intelligence. But can you name a single Google scientist? Or an Intel engineer? A CERN physicist?

Dear GOD/GODS and/or anyone else who can HELP ME (e.g. MEMBERS OF SUPER-INTELLIGENT ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS): The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD and keep it that way FOREVER. I am so sick of this chubby Asian man body! Thank you! - CHAUL JHIN KIM (a.k.a. A DESPERATE SOUL)

This trend even applies to the highest echelons of the academic world as well. Increasingly, Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine are being awarded to teams of people (three being the maximum allowed under the Nobel Prize rules), as opposed to the early days when prizes overwhelmingly went to single individuals. In fact, there have been calls for the rules to be relaxed to accomodate much larger teams since many researchers feel that the existing rules are no longer applicable for 21st century science.

The whole point of getting your degree and/or doing your postdoc at a top college was to stand out from the competition. But when it comes to Big Science, it seems mediocrity is a good (or at least neutral) thing. Why then would a hopeful scientist choose to attend MIT, Stanford, or Caltech when a degree from the University of Alabama or Arizona State can do the exact same thing?