Emerging
May 28, 20261
50%
Engineer Discovers Writing and Research Share Same Iterative Process
MIT engineer Rachel Yang describes overcoming her lifelong aversion to writing by recognizing that the iterative process of scientific research mirrors the revision-based process of good writing, transforming her perspective from viewing writing as a chaotic struggle to embracing it as a structured, learnable skill.
Quick Facts
Who
Rachel Yang
What
Joined engineering research lab as undergraduate
When
High school (English class struggles)
Where
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
- Joined engineering research lab as undergraduate
- Worked on improving efficiency of magnetic inductors
- Completed research design after iterating through dozens of designs
- Wrote research paper documenting project results
- Received feedback-based revisions on draft paper
Rachel Yang, an engineering researcher at MIT, describes how her initial aversion to writing transformed when she recognized that the scientific research process she loved shared fundamental similarities with the writing process she dreaded. Yang's journey began during her undergraduate years when she joined a research lab to work on improving the efficiency of magnetic components called inductors. After spending a year iterating through dozens of designs to achieve a solution that cut energy losses in half, she faced an unexpected challenge: writing a research paper about her work.
Yang's struggle with writing had deep roots. Throughout her high school years, she found writing assignments confusing and subjective, with no clear right answers like those found in mathematics and science. Red marks from teachers on her essays frustrated her, leading her to believe she simply wasn't suited for writing and to gravitate toward engineering and science instead. However, when her professor assigned her to document her inductor research, she realized avoidance was no longer an option if she wanted to pursue an academic career.
The turning point came when a graduate student in her lab offered guidance on her research paper. Despite finding her first draft covered in corrections, the graduate student explained that revision is fundamental to good writing—not a sign of failure. This insight sparked a critical realization for Yang: the iterative process of trial and error that had defined her successful inductor research was identical to the process required for effective writing. Both require multiple attempts, feedback from collaborators, refinement of initial ideas, and gradual improvement toward a polished final product.
With this new understanding, Yang approached her writing with renewed perspective. She developed an outline, revised it based on feedback, and gradually transformed it into coherent paragraphs. Though her initial draft had issues—including buried key takeaways and missing context in the introduction—the iterative revision process proved effective. This experience fundamentally changed Yang's relationship with writing, eventually making it one of her favorite aspects of research.
Why This Matters
Yang's discovery offers a powerful reframing for anyone struggling with writing: recognizing that iteration—not innate talent—drives both scientific breakthroughs and clear communication. By connecting the familiar iterative loop of experimentation to the revision process, she demonstrates that writing skill is learnable and achievable for technical professionals who might otherwise dismiss it as outside their strengths. This insight has immediate practical value for engineers, scientists, and other technical professionals seeking to improve their communication without abandoning their analytical mindsets.