The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Pursuit of the PhD
Ninja Snarl P
My helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
My helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
So here's the deal: I'm currently exploring the idea of pursuing a PhD in biochemistry, but this thread isn't expressly about that, entirely. While it would be great for me to hear about what people have to say about their experiences in pursuing a PhD, and especially in a field related to my own, I think it would also be good to have a general discussion of the topic of PhD programs in general. Just to be clear, I'm putting this thread up to hear from other people for my own benefit, but this thread is in no way expressly for that; if you aren't really interested in suggesting anything to me, then just skip to the list below for the sort of things I feel like should be discussed in this thread (obviously I'm not mandating anything, just making suggestions to keep things focused). And don't think I'm asking for anybody to convince to try or not try to get a PhD; I'm interested in personal experiences here, not guidance.
For myself, I'm currently pursuing a master's and bachelor's degree in biotech (effectively a masters program for biochemistry) and a minor in physical chemistry, and I've got just over a year and half left to go on that front; I'll also be spending extensive time doing lab work during that period. Ultimately, my current goal is a PhD in biochemistry and eventually research, most likely in the private sector (long story short, I've spent too much time in school as it is). Here's the twist, though: I just recently turned 31, which means I'm probably going to be at least 36-37 by the time I finish just the PhD. I'll also have potentially have a post-doc to worry about, though I'm not very concerned about spending too much time on one since I have no intention of pursuing a professorship (which is the position that tends to need a lengthy postdoc of multiple years).
If I'm fortunate enough to get the program I'm looking into, I'm looking at a stipend that, while isn't much, would be enough to keep me from having to do things like choosing between eating or having electricity while also allowing me a bit of leisure (if I ever find the time). I'm fairly accustomed to getting by on a pretty meager income and the area where I'll be living in interests me more than having a big place to live anyway; neither does the idea of being a low-paid researcher bother me, as I enjoy lab work and the field of biochemistry. And at the end of the PhD road, I'll end up with an advanced degree that will allow me to make a very strong salary, depending on what I prioritize, in a challenging discipline which I would be able to pursue for effectively my entire life (or until I go old-crazy).
For myself, and the topic in general, these are the major questions I have:
1. The popular presentation of grad school is grinding misery where you are basically abused by the university and professors. I'm sure a fair amount of this is exaggeration and/or HUGELY related to your field (for instance, biochemistry is a massively open field where the things that are known are a fraction of what is yet to be learned, and have yet to hear a biochem professor go "yeah, grad school was horrible, but that's how it is!"), but what personal experiences do people have with this sort of thing? Was a grad program miserable, or did you enjoy it? It would probably help to mention your field as well.
2. If anybody has completed a PhD, particularly a science PhD, do you feel like it was worth it? In other words, did getting a PhD enable you to do more of what you wanted to do?
3. Cost? Med and law school cost a fortune, but there are many PhD programs which actually waive tuition costs and/or provide a stipend for the course of the program. What sort of cost did pursuing a PhD incur on yourself, financially?
4. Putting aside the concerns of raising a family and whatnot, does anyone have experience in trying this course as an older student like myself? So far, being older has been nothing but an advantage for me, since I have far more in-depth and wide-reaching experience in life and personal skills than effectively anyone but my professors. I also don't get distracted by the petty Highschool 2.0 bullshit that often plagues that 18-22 age range, because, clearly, I'm old enough to focus on what matters now. But has anyone had their age work against them for something like grad school?
5. What was it like going into the work force with a PhD, assuming you did so?
Hopefully, this thread won't fizzle fast and die quietly (because then I don't get any info), but even if you don't have something for me personally, I think any personal experiences would be good to relate here. A PhD is a pretty serious commitment and there is a lot of information, a lot of probably bad, floating around out there about PhD programs, but I think it would benefit anybody pursuing a university education to hear real facts from people about the actual experience.
For myself, I'm currently pursuing a master's and bachelor's degree in biotech (effectively a masters program for biochemistry) and a minor in physical chemistry, and I've got just over a year and half left to go on that front; I'll also be spending extensive time doing lab work during that period. Ultimately, my current goal is a PhD in biochemistry and eventually research, most likely in the private sector (long story short, I've spent too much time in school as it is). Here's the twist, though: I just recently turned 31, which means I'm probably going to be at least 36-37 by the time I finish just the PhD. I'll also have potentially have a post-doc to worry about, though I'm not very concerned about spending too much time on one since I have no intention of pursuing a professorship (which is the position that tends to need a lengthy postdoc of multiple years).
If I'm fortunate enough to get the program I'm looking into, I'm looking at a stipend that, while isn't much, would be enough to keep me from having to do things like choosing between eating or having electricity while also allowing me a bit of leisure (if I ever find the time). I'm fairly accustomed to getting by on a pretty meager income and the area where I'll be living in interests me more than having a big place to live anyway; neither does the idea of being a low-paid researcher bother me, as I enjoy lab work and the field of biochemistry. And at the end of the PhD road, I'll end up with an advanced degree that will allow me to make a very strong salary, depending on what I prioritize, in a challenging discipline which I would be able to pursue for effectively my entire life (or until I go old-crazy).
For myself, and the topic in general, these are the major questions I have:
1. The popular presentation of grad school is grinding misery where you are basically abused by the university and professors. I'm sure a fair amount of this is exaggeration and/or HUGELY related to your field (for instance, biochemistry is a massively open field where the things that are known are a fraction of what is yet to be learned, and have yet to hear a biochem professor go "yeah, grad school was horrible, but that's how it is!"), but what personal experiences do people have with this sort of thing? Was a grad program miserable, or did you enjoy it? It would probably help to mention your field as well.
2. If anybody has completed a PhD, particularly a science PhD, do you feel like it was worth it? In other words, did getting a PhD enable you to do more of what you wanted to do?
3. Cost? Med and law school cost a fortune, but there are many PhD programs which actually waive tuition costs and/or provide a stipend for the course of the program. What sort of cost did pursuing a PhD incur on yourself, financially?
4. Putting aside the concerns of raising a family and whatnot, does anyone have experience in trying this course as an older student like myself? So far, being older has been nothing but an advantage for me, since I have far more in-depth and wide-reaching experience in life and personal skills than effectively anyone but my professors. I also don't get distracted by the petty Highschool 2.0 bullshit that often plagues that 18-22 age range, because, clearly, I'm old enough to focus on what matters now. But has anyone had their age work against them for something like grad school?
5. What was it like going into the work force with a PhD, assuming you did so?
Hopefully, this thread won't fizzle fast and die quietly (because then I don't get any info), but even if you don't have something for me personally, I think any personal experiences would be good to relate here. A PhD is a pretty serious commitment and there is a lot of information, a lot of probably bad, floating around out there about PhD programs, but I think it would benefit anybody pursuing a university education to hear real facts from people about the actual experience.
0
Posts
1. Whether your PhD is abusive grinding misery or the best years of your life really depends on two things: your relationship with your prof and your interest in your topic. The second one is clear: you'll be spending the next four years working and thinking day and night about the topic of your thesis, so if the topic is uninteresting to you, that's going to be a very long four years. The first one is a bit harder to figure out, but your prof will be one part your boss and one part your closest colleague for those four years. Things like conflicts of personality can get in the way easily.
Storytime! I suffered of both problems in my MSc. My topic bored me, and my prof was a very passionate and hands-on person (in this topic that bored me), so things did not go well. Fortunately it was only a two-year program, so I plowed through (and it took me a full year after graduation before I could stomach my own thesis enough to go back and draft a publication from it). For my PhD, I had the opposite setup, a topic that fascinated me and a distant and hands-off prof. Those four years flew by.
2. I wanted to be a university prof, so my PhD enabled me to do that, yes. Would it today though? Looking at my CV and comparing to the CV of people applying for openings in my department... no, probably not.
3. I had a good stipend, I lived in residence and ate mostly in cafeterias, pay domestic student fees, didn't own a car, and am cheap to entertain. So, not much costs.
4. Sorry, can't help you there.
5. Never tried. I like campus life too much to venture into this "real world" people keep talking about.
He doesn't regret it, but note the following rules he noted:
1. Your life belongs to the lab until the Phd is done. He did 8-10 hours a day, 6 days a week. Once you get into the workforce, you'll work a normal schedule and say "I have so much time for activities!"
2. Cost - If someone isn't paying for it, don't do it. Seriously, if you're in a competitive program and/or doing good research, someone WILL pay for your degree, as most people burn out once they complete the masters.
3. Age - If you like it, do it. He's 32 now and has been out for 2 years, but in the grand scheme, 5-6 years is nothing in what will likely be a lifelong pursuit/career. If you graduate at 36/37, you still have roughly 30 years of working time, then you'll probably get bored and tech for another 15-20.
Also, if you can, go to school somewhere around Boston, SF or near some of the companies in CT, as that's where all the companies that will likely hire you are, and you want to network with them early and often.
The advice here so far is pretty accurate, just a couple of things to add:
1. You want to be working in industry, which is awesome. There is still a lot of prejudice that PhD means you should be in academia. If I only gave you a single piece of advice, it would be to DO AT LEAST ONE INDUSTRY-FACING PROJECT. It's easy to get wrapped up in crazy academic proof-of-concept stuff, but it does change your employability to do a project that is identical to what you'd do in the private sector. If you're not sure that's what you want, or what the work is like, spend a year or two working as an RA in a lab. It's decent pay and it helps your PhD application, though you may need to retake some tests before you apply if you wait too long after college. Seriously though, spending time as a tech is considered a positive on your application at any school, even top tier.
2. Relative to your cohort, you're starting your career 5 years late and facing a lot of time with low pay. In the Bay Area, starting PhD salary without a postdoc runs 60-80k, with a postdoc runs 75-95k. In a lot of cases there is no benefit to doing a post-doc, so that saves you a few years. Manager level runs 100-130k depending on speciality, experience, and publication record. If you started in a different industry or as a tech right now making 40-50k, that's a lot of time to build up retirement savings, gain specialty training in your field, and climb the ladder. It also gives you time to learn what you like and don't like about the day-to-day life in your field, something PhD programs aren't really good at. Again, spending a year as a tech can help you decide for yourself.
3. No one I know had a problem finding a job due to age. That said, don't try and hold your age up as a benefit, either. It can become a crutch that keeps you from learning new adaptations in the field, and you will need to learn how to work well with your younger colleagues. Any PhD program that doesn't cover tuition AND pay you a stipend isn't worth going to. All the good schools pay you to attend because the research you produce is so valuable. Any costs you incur during your PhD will be due to other obligations (like family) or lifestyle mistmatch (you're spending too much). I took some pretty nice vacations during grad school and so had some debt from that.
4. You need to learn to code during your PhD. At least perl scripts, and having familiarity with python or matlab would be even better. A lot of PhD programs still don't include bioinformatics as part of the default training but this is so important in research these days it can make your career and you will be way more employable if you can do your own informatics work. It will also help you communicate with the informatics department, and biotech work is increasingly cross discipline.
5. Everyone else has said this so far but it's so important I want to say it again: Whether or not your PhD is a positive experience is almost entirely dependent on the lab environment you join. You'll spend so much time at work it's much more like joining a family, a clubhouse/fraternity, a co-op, or joining the cast of a reality show than just going to a job and to school. If you're choosing between different schools of the same level, pick the one in the town you want to live. If you're choosing between labs, pick the one that feels like family. I struggled career wise for a bit after my post doc, but I am so happy about my PhD and post-doc experience, how it taught me to think and solve problems, how to handle complex projects, as well as the friends and connections I made. I still talk regularly with my PhD and post-doc advisors about all kinds of stuff, from borrowing lab supplies to which daycare they use. I'm really happy with my decision and given the chance I would do it again, but I think understanding the financial and career tradeoff is important. It's really easy to say "I'm going to get a PhD" and let the rest of your life fall apart. It's important to take a balanced look at all the things in life that are important to you and evaluate if getting a PhD, starting your career/finances late, and working long hours in a lab should be a part of that.
If you have more specific questions feel free to PM me.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
Hey snap, I worked on a Bioinformatics PhD for four years, before descending into clinical depression, losing everything I valued and leaving the program. That all mainly due to the lab environment I was in.
The other guys have basically said most things I'd want to; but I'd add you shouldn't think of a PhD as one singular thing, its a 4-5 year career move where you learn many things. Being able to break down all those things into CV bullet points has made me plenty employable despite not completing.
Don't over focus on the goal of the thesis/your supervisors research goals to the detriment of training your skills and networking.
I completed my PhD in biochemistry last week. It was an utterly miserable 5 years, but I find it impossible to say whether the fault for that is mine. I will offer some advice, though.
1. Network like everything depends on it, because everything depends on it (it's trite because it's true). If you can find a project (or more than one) - either your thesis or on the side - that will allow you to collaborate with people outside your lab, especially in industry or government, then DO THAT. Most people I know who had ongoing collaborations had them turn into job offers one way or another.
2. Push. Push to get publications. Push to go to conferences. And, eventually, push to get your advisor to let you graduate. You'll get plenty of help with your research (hopefully), but responsibility for the degree is yours, and nobody is going to make it a priority but you.
3. Look for an older, established advisor (a tenured professor), if you can. Young professors often have the coolest projects and the best sales pitches, and tons of energy and enthusiasm. But cool projects are often ambitious projects, which to you should mean "I may spend literal years on something that never works". Young PIs are often under tremendous pressure, which absolutely will be transferred to you, and generally have less well-developed management skills. They are still focused on building their careers, and will have less interest in yours. Older PIs, in my experience, take their mentoring role more seriously. They also tend to have well-established research methods that will get you results and publications. They often have more connections to potential collaborators (and, critically, potential future employers), too. These are generalizations, of course, but they're hard-earned.
Pros:
-Challenging. Even though some days I feel overwhelmed I think this is a net positive, personally I get bored whenever I don't feel challenged, and this keeps me on my toes.
-You keep having to learn new things. I like this.
-You develop a very good qualification, and not only for academia, if I ever graduate I KNOW that, after doing this project, I will be able to tackle whatever comes my way.
-You get to travel a LOT and you are encouraged to do so.
Cons:
-I have always been a field biologist, so for me getting into this was incredibly hard. The project for me is interesting, but not hugely fascinating, and after a couple of years you will start noticing it if you are not 100% in it.
-Very frustrating, my lab was newly-stablished, so I had to deal with a lot of unstable equipment, missing data analysis routines and incredibly old shit that kept breaking/not working.
-I have tons of data and after 2 and a half years but my supervisor keeps pushing and pushing for more experiments, experiments which take up most of my week and make my progress on data analysis, writing etc. painfully slow. She is fine otherwise, very supportive, but this is driving me around the bend right now.
-I have to make experiments on live animals, and that shit gets VERY old VERY soon, or maybe I'm too sensitive.
So, advice:
-You are not too old, I know plenty of older people doing a PhD, nobody is going to look at you funny, but you need to do a cost/benefit analysis on embarking on this, because it takes a lot of time, it gives little money and I'm not sure you can have a proper family while you are doing it. A PhD is only for people who want to play the long game.
-It's really important that you like the topic. At least that you find some part of it interesting. I.e: I PREFER field biology but I always liked the brain. If you look at the topic and you say "meh" you will need a lot of resilience for what lies ahead.
-Even more important than this, gather info on the lab you plan to join. Make sure your supervisor is not an asshole, and getting into an established lab with many people will make things much easier. I am the only student on a recent lab and it certainly does not help.
-Learn Matlab if you haven't already. It's pretty awesome.
-But seriously, look for a good lab environment. I know people who are really fucked up because of that.
It's amazing. I love being in grad school because I love what I do. I'm constantly interested in what I'm doing and never bored. I feel like grad school is finally what college was always supposed to be (in my mind). Doing really intelligent work with smart people that I'm super passionate about.
Much like everyone else here, the people that surround you make or break your experience though a lot of times. I'm lucky to be in a good department that supports its students and with a bunch of students that are all pretty cool people. I've made a lot of friends and I have a nice social circle.
I wouldn't trade the experience for anything, and it's necessary for what I plan to do (teach). If it's not necessary and you are skeptical as to your interest or environment, I would probably not.
I have a friend who is in grad school for psychology. She's miserable. Her department sounds difficult, and she doesn't seem to have a lot of people to share the burden with. She's burned out, and not as interested. She wants to be a clinician, not a researcher, but she's being forced to do research because that's what you do, even in clinical programs. She's going to finish her masters and get out. I think that in a better environment she would flourish, but plants can't grow in poor soil.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Its not easy. Its long hours and you're kind of at the mercy of the culture of your lab and university. Some places really push for people to drop out at the Masters level because it makes statistics look better. My friend is published (multiple times, once as lead author) and they're still putting a lot of pressure on her not subtly trying to force her out. The hours are long, and it can be stressful and disruptive.
On the other hand, that's life? If you have the intellectual ability and educational foundation where going for a doctorate in biochemistry isn't a joke you can get a job that is low stress. Its might not pay great or provide a lot of intellectual challenge or great economic compensation but there are jobs like that. A doctorate is an achievement to be proud of and if it was easy everyone would do it.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This is why the PsyD degree was invented, BTW.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But not everyone's experience is so rosy.
I know that some members of my cohort were miserable, in part because they came to decide that their work wasn't important, or they couldn't get over the feeling of sheer boredom that sets in after you've been working on a single issue in your dissertation for two years. For others, the rampant sexism of contemporary philosophers was inescapably oppressive. But mostly, the misery arose as the academic job market led them to regret ever entering graduate school in the first place.
PhD's in the humanities are strange -- philosophy perhaps maximally so. If you're at a good program, your stipend will cover your tuition and at least some of your living costs. (My program was in a very low cost of living area, so my wife and I could buy a house largely just on my stipend.) This might make it seem like a fine way to spend a few years cooling one's heels and making future plans, if nothing else. Yet it's easy to overlook the fact that you're significantly less employable with a philosophy PhD than you are with a philosophy BA (something I think that is also true for many humanities PhDs). A BA can qualify you for most any ordinary entry-level college grad job, as well as serve as a launching point for law school or MBA programs; but with a PhD, you're widely seen as overqualified for anything other than a college professor or a policy wonk at a think-tank. Yet the job market for both of those kinds of positions is so bad that it's probably a bad pragmatic decision to enter a PhD program if your goal is to get one of those jobs -- job postings for college philosophy professors, for instance, regularly get 300 or more applications for a single position. (No offense @LoserForHireX.)
It is a singularly terrifying prospect to be 30+ years old, have ten years of collegiate and postcollegiate education under your belt, and realize that you are entirely unemployable. (It's even worse for those who have families and children involved.) And dropping out of a graduate program isn't any better, because then you have the hard task of explaining what you spent those 3-5 years doing and why you chose to drop out rather than finish.
All that to say, grad school is no joke. It's easy to have confirmation bias by only seeing the relatively positive cases (for instance, it's almost assured that every professor you ever had in college had a pretty good graduate school experience -- they wouldn't be professors otherwise). But the misery is there. I have a good friend who spent 10-years moving his family across the country every year or two as he moved from one temporary academic position to the next. It was only when he was 43-years-old with two children that he finally realized that he was never going to get a permanent academic job, and so he went back to college to get another degree.
That said, I overcame the odds. And I'm quite glad that, when I was 25, I didn't listen to those who were telling me not to leave my software engineering job in order to go to graduate school in philosophy; despite the significant pay cut, I'm far happier and feel more fulfilled now than I was when making $70K/year as an engineer.
Basically I think there are two things to consider. Do you think you'll enjoy the PhD study *itself*, and do you think that the end result of it will be beneficial (either to yourself or to society at large)? The ideal situation would be both- you have a blast doing 6 years of research on something that you're passionate about, produce great research that helps society, and then get a sweet job as a scientist. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, they just grind away at something they don't care about because they need pubs, and they don't even get a good job afterwards. That was pretty much what I saw during my time in a science PhD program (I dropped out after a year).
One thing I would suggest is that grad school isn't the *only* way to do research. Well, maybe it is if you need to do big expensive experiments, but there's nothing stopping you from just going to the library in your free time to read research papers about the subject and learn about it on your own. Do that for a year, and see if you're still interested- it'll also give you a much better idea of what research groups you might want to join. I think too many grad students basically just apply at random, with no idea of what topic they want to study or what research group they want to join. If you feel like reading research papers alone at the library is excruciatingly boring, then you probably won't enjoy grad school.
I would also recommend reading some of this blog so you can read a first-hand account of what a really, really bad grad school experience is like.
One trend I'm seeing is that, yes, how people feel going through grad school has more to do with the environment and themselves than grad school in general, which is good and bad. Good, because it reinforces my notion the horrible stuff we here about grad schools isn't inherent to the system itself. Bad, because it seems like getting into good situation and group seems like a crap shoot. However, my experience with biochemistry has been nothing but positive in terms of colleagues and almost completely positive in regards to professors, so I'm not too concerned about ending up in a terrible situation.
That's something good to keep in mind. I should get a chance to give the place a proper look in person long before committing to it, so I'll watch out for this sort of thing. The place I'm looking at is well-funded and well-reviewed, but still, it shouldn't be too hard to see their labs are in good working order.
In terms of interest in my topic, my current issue is simply picking a more specific route to go down; interest in the field itself is not a problem at all, as I find the material continually and thoroughly fascinating. In terms of a professor, I should be able to cope with just about anything but an actively abusive one; I'm extremely flexible when it comes to dealing with people of all types. And even in the case of an abusive or hostile professor, I'm too old and experienced to put up with that sort of bullshit without making their life hell in return.
This is something I've head about a good bit, and I've got no problem with it. One of my advisors actually finished her biochem PhD in 3 years, and it was because she put in the extra time; the university I'm at now (which is not where I'm planning to stay for the PhD) wants people in the PhD program finished within 5 years, and even then, my advisor noted that people could finish much sooner if they didn't take so many weekends off. My view of a PhD program is that I'm not getting paid much (though it's not bad if you count the value of the waived tuition), but I'll have free reign to perfect my research skills in an environment where that's the point and I should take advantage of it while I can.
Very good info to hear, because yeah, I've already seen the prejudice that academics have against private sector/industry jobs. Frankly, it's a position I've never understood; yes, it's important that research get dispersed to the scientific community in general, but it's all that private sector money that lets corporations provide funding for academic programs. Not to mention that it's pretty ridiculous to expect everyone to stay in the academic environment, because academia simply can't reasonably support all those people in terms of grants and paychecks; expecting people to starve themselves of opportunity in the name of science is a ridiculous idea.
Well, the thing to keep in mind here is that the "low pay" thing is very relative. Even at "only" 60k a year, I could live very comfortably and save up quite a bit every year; biochem/biotech jobs in general seem to pay considerably higher than that when you get into the masters/PhD stuff. Really, I'm more concerned with something like getting bogged down in administrative duties instead of being able to do research; I just want to make sure that a PhD will increase my options, not limit them.
This is something I've been wondering about anyway, so that's good info to have. I have some coding experience, but not with any of the languages that seem to be commonly used in bioinformatics. However, this works just fine for me, because I thoroughly enjoy learning new techniques and skills.
This is something I'm already trying to keep in mind. For me, getting a PhD is about developing the proper skills to conduct top-notch research, but I know that a university wants results from me so they can say "hey, look at this great research we're supporting, come enroll here or give us money." But at the end of the day, if I'm not getting the skills I need just to give them more research, then the program isn't doing me any good.
Ow, my brain. But yeah, after reading the posts here, I just need to make a list of programming languages to get familiar with.
My view of the program is multi-faceted. On the one hand, yes, I want my research to benefit humanity in general; biochemistry involves VERY complex systems which control the fundamental operations of biology, which means there is the potential there for helping to improve a lot of people's lives. In fact, the fact that so much of the field is unexplored or explained is part of why it appeals to me so much; I like the fact that there is so much left to know, and that solving many of the problems there require multiple types of skills and lines of reasoning. However, I'm not going to lie and say my interest is selfless; potentially, I can make a very good living performing research I want to do anyway, so the whole thing is a confluence of goals.
So yeah, great info here, folks, thanks. At the very least, I'm already seeing a number of different topics I need to investigate or could get on top of already.
Sometimes... when I'm alone...
I can't stop looking at them.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
I want to laugh but I want to cry, too.
During my postdoc, I learned that I had a fairly awesome professor, even though I didn't know it at that up until that point. I'm not the one to be using as a benchmark there. The only thing I would judge him poorly on is that he made networking a sink or swim type affair. You had to do it for yourself.
You made a comment that academics have a prejudice against industry. The reverse is far worse. Saying something is of "academic interest" is a backhanded way of saying it doesn't make money. Industrial research is research that makes money or advances the knowledge to the point where it can make money. I actually find the industry topics more interesting, because you are solving problems that mean the widgets can be sold. Then when I see widget in the store, I know that widget exists because I figured out how to make it functional. That satisfies me more than any publication ever did.
So go ahead and work late nights on YOUR research, on papers where you are an author, on presentations you'll be giving to people who might hire you. Don't be fooled into doing the same because your professor needs his glassware cleaned, or a class written. You'll be happier, graduate sooner, and have a better time in your PhD if you don't take anybodies nonsense.
And, most importantly of all ONLY do a PhD if you actually want to do a PhD (unless it's a solid three year PhD program outside the US). If you are there as a path to something else, you will not survive. If you are there because you want to be, you'll have a blast and it wont seem like hard work at all. Certainly that was my experience in the UK.
It has been my experience in Biotech that out of country PhDs are perceived as less prestigious, outside of a handful of top-tier schools. Part of this is because they are done so quickly, they end up compared to masters programs. I don't have any statistics on this however, just hiring committees that I have sat on and the opinions of various managers and professors.
I'm confused about what you say as "your research" vs. "your professor's research". I was never asked to do work where I wouldn't be part of the publication as a result. That said I completely agree that it's important to prioritize work that you value and on how you want your PhD to take shape.
(Some edits to change my word use. I don't want to come off as harsh against your experience, just provide the OP with some info)
I made that comment. I'll note that you were in an engineering program and not a science program
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
1) This one is pretty uncontroversial, but still needs to be said: don't go unless you're fully funded. Good programs will pay your tuition and give you money for living expenses--typically through some mixture of TA-ships and straight free money. You should not take any loans. This is doubly important because the quality of the funding tends to vary proportionately with the strength of the graduate program. The places that give no funding, that force you to teach in your first year, that force you to teach every year, and so on, are also most likely to be third-tier. They're exploitative and everyone involved should be ashamed.
This is also a reason to avoid doing your PhD out-of-country, if you're from the USA. It can be impossible to qualify for a lot of the funding if you're a foreigner.
2) The job market is bad and rankings are important. I am currently involved in a junior faculty search committee. We have, very unusually, four openings we're currently hiring for. For those four openings, we've received about 450 applications. That is too many for a committee of four people to spend much time on the first cut. People from second and third tier institutions are automatically thrown out unless they happen to have a couple excellent publications, or very strong letters from established people outside their institutions. Even coming from top institutions, getting a job is very hard and it's not easy to predict at the start who they're going to go to. Coming from a mediocre program (say, one that's ranked but not in the top 20 or 30) just makes it that much harder. You should know this going in.
Related: make sure to know what rankings are relevant for your particular field (it is not necessarily the US News--in philosophy it certainly is not. Find this out from professors).
3) Many people are attracted to graduate school because they like school, and are good at it. But graduate school is a very different experience from regular school. There's a lot less structure, a lot less feedback, and a lot less support. So if one of the things you enjoyed about regular school was being a good worker bee, fulfilling expectations, and then getting praised for it--graduate school might not be for you. In general, it helps a lot if you're a self-confident self-starter who doesn't need much in the way of external support or reinforcement. If, on the other hand (as so many nerds are) you're a withdrawn, introverted type with delicate self-esteem, then your path will be a lot more difficult. It's very common for graduate students to struggle with anxiety and depression, and also to struggle with substance abuse problems (particularly alcoholism). If you have the sort of melancholic personal disposition that's prone to reacting to extreme stress by retreating into depression or substance abuse, then graduate school might be the wrong choice for you. You'll have every opportunity to go into a downward spiral, and no one will stop you once you start. You can easily throw away a few years of your life that way.
4) Social science data shows that young men tend to be over-confident in their abilities, whereas young women tend to be under-confident. Adjust your instincts in light of these findings. Try to find external indicators of your talent. Most professors will not be willing to come out and give you a straight answer, because they do not want to take responsibility for your life. But you can still pick up hints. In some way, you will get a clearer idea of their opinion after your acceptances (or lack thereof) come in, for those will be highly dependent on the enthusiasm of your letter-writers.
5) If you get to the stage where you're accepted, pay attention to the climate for graduate students at the schools you visit (be suspicious of schools that won't pay to fly you out for a visit). A school can have a very strong research profile, yet a totally dysfunctional departmental culture. If you are a member of a minority group, it can be particularly important to you whether your department has a discriminatory working environment. Often the only people who will both know about this and honestly tell you about it are current graduate students. But beyond that, also be attentive to how quickly a program graduates people, and how that compares to the norm (too slow is definitely bad, and too fast can be as well). Try to find complete and accurate placement data comparing your options. This can be hard to rustle up. Many places won't post the data. You may have to resort to word-of-mouth.
6) Sometimes people say 'only go to grad school if you can't possibly imagine doing anything else.' This is ridiculous advice, and encourages an unhealthy, overly romantic attitude toward what is in the end just another vocation. A more reasonably attitude is this: don't go to graduate school unless you like your topic so much that you're willing to spend six years studying it with no material reward. You have to be okay with just starting over afterward--with taking that entry level job somewhere outside the academy. If you can imagine getting nothing that improves your resume, no awesome job, and just a chance to spend time thinking about what you want to think about and talking to a bunch of like-minded people, and it still seems worth doing, then graduate school might be for you. You don't have to actively plan to do something else afterward, and such active planning can actually be counter-productive if as a result you always have one foot out the door, but in your heart of hearts you have to be at peace with the possibility of eventually moving on and starting at the bottom somewhere else.
So: as I said, I'm not sure whether I made the right choices for me. But that's my advice; hopefully others can adapt it to their circumstances.
Of course you have the flip side of a focused research project whose experimental collaborators drop out 2 years in. Leaving you fucked with a very short time frame to invent a new project!
<--
Also dropping loads is correct, there is a (field specific) disdain of non-US PhDs from Americans, basically meaning you have to do an extra post-doc placement before they feel you have a 'real' amount of experience.
In the world of industry, other than in very specific fields all they care is that you have a postdoc and its not a joke school. Your PhD just qualifies you for the interview, nothing more.
By 'extra' postdoc, I meant a second on top of the one you'll be doing anyway
After completing a BS in Statistics, I wanted to find applications for my knowledge to move from the abstract to the concrete. Psychology's not normally a field one thinks of when it comes to applications of statistics, but cognitive science is where statistical techniques can be used to model psychological phenomena with mathematics and statistics. And I do believe I fit in quite well with the program as far as my interests and skills went, and I did pick up additional techniques and tools, and was quite happy to learn new things.
But I think the one thing I was really missing was a true motivation. I've found that I'm not particularly good at independent thinking. While I'm quite happy to learn about what other people are working on and generally good at working on projects given to me, I don't really have a personal impetus for finding extensions into the unknown. Ask me to solve a given problem and I'm fine, ask me to find a problem that needs solving and I have trouble. This kind of passivity meant that it took me longer to completion and with less to show for it at the end than my peers. It didn't help that my desire for novelty wasn't being entirely fulfilled. During my final year, one of my colleagues asked during my final year whether or not I was depressed, and back then, I didn't think so. Looking back, I probably was; I'm still doing my best to deal with it now.
At heart, I still feel more like a generalist, and not at all like the specialist a PhD title might imply. I'm still kind of directionless, but I know at least that academic research isn't my thing. Still, I can appreciate the things I learned over my time as a grad student and post-grad and try to use my experiences to move on and find something where my knowledge can be put to good use. There's a lot of good advice in this thread and a lot of points I can certainly agree with. It takes a certain kind of mind to thrive in academics past undergraduate education, so it's definitely worth thinking carefully about. I can't be certain whether or not I would have been better off not doing grad school, since I'm still in a transitional period and I really can't conceive of myself as I was those years ago doing anything but grad school. It's a bit unfortunate that things did not end up as expected, but all I can do is to take the experience and try to push it to my favor as much as it will allow. I still haven't given up hope that I'll figure out what I want to do with my talents, but I'll just have to keep moving forward and grow into it with time and more experiences.
I've been having some very earnest conversations with faculty and current PhD candidates around here about The Game™: the potentially necessary process of getting in good with faculty who will be the best letter-writers and/or are on selection committees. One very well-established MENA scholar has told me outright that The Game™ doesn't exist, that it's all about just being A Strong Applicant; some friends to whom I mentioned that remark counter that he probably did play The Game™ and either didn't realize he was doing it, or is just giving me that advice because he wants to keep me at arm's length so I don't bother him.
But most current PhD students are telling me that: A) it's not so much a Game as it is the well-ingrained cliquishness and relationship-based culture of academia -- especially at the top tier; and that B ) yes, you have to play The Game™.
I'm still sorting out my options. I don't even wanna teach or do (just) research -- my Actual Goal is to wind up in policymaking related to the Middle East at some consequential (if relatively low/on-the-ground) level. But a lot of people are telling me that having those last three letters after my name will only help me reach that goal, though there are certainly ways to get there that don't involve 4-5 extra years of school.
The big problem for Ph.D. jobs is that hiring people is so expensive. In industry, say they give you two years before they decide. That is easily 300k with all the costs involved plus whatever the company lost by that project not being properly completed. When a school gives a package to an incoming professor, they include x years of student support. That money plus lab space and salary means they are investing beyond a half million dollars. The recruiter has enormous pressure to not screw up.
It works both ways. The first year or two of a us PhD is a lot like a taught master's in Europe so I've known people with usian PhDs struggle to get anywhere with European institutions because there's a perception that they are very hand holdy. It's nonsense as far as I can tell, the end result seems pretty similar.
In all my years I met a single person in academia who'd done his PhD on the states and now worked in European academia.
So the us-world academic wall works in both directions
In general, getting a doctoral degree is very stressful. The hours are long, the pay is bullshit, and there's no guarantee that you'll succeed by just putting enough time and effort in. When people ask me if they should go on do to a doctoral degree (as opposed to a masters) I tell them no, and then I regale them with tales about how I used the phrase 'work life balance' as a punchline for 6 years, or how it nearly ruined my marriage, or any number of horror stories relating to not having enough time to function as a human outside of my lab. My thought is that anyone I can convince to not get a PhD shouldn't really be trying to get one anyway. If nothing can dissuade you from it, if you won't be happy with anything less, that is the only damned reason to do it.
I very much enjoyed my time in grad school. As a EE, I could work remotely, so I didn't necessarily have to be in lab to do all my work. There were definitely weeks (related to paper/thesis/other deadlines) where I worked crazy hours and that is something I do not miss.
2) I started a PhD because I didn't want a real job yet. Now I'm looking at jobs where I will have a fair amount of independence and responsibility, which is probably something I'll enjoy much more than a starting position right out of ugrad.
3) Free to me. Tuition waiver, small stipend, health insurance. IMO, don't get a PhD if you have to pay for it. A masters is probably reasonable to pay for.
The cost is really that I don't have 6 years of "work" experience. I expect to be making about the same amount of money as my friends who graduated from undergrad and started well-paying engineering jobs at the time.
4) Started right out of ugrad, finished right after I turned 28. I have a few friends with children (some with multiple) in grad school, and they seem to very much enjoy the flexibility.
5) I took a post-doc right after I finished so my gf and i could start looking for work at the same time. She finished and immediately moved to boston for a post-doc of her own. I've applied for a couple jobs in boston and I'm hoping to get one of them. They seemed pretty keen on me and my research, so hopefully that turns out.
Some advice:
The most important factor in your grad school experience is your advisor. Make sure you're on the same page in terms of expected time commitment, and management style. The specific research topic should be of interest to you, but if you don't get along with your advisor, you will both be unhappy. Unhappy advisor means more stress, and potentially longer time in school.
If you want an additional degree to make more money, get a masters. The last I saw was that getting a masters + 3-4 years of experience (and actual salary) outweighs getting a PhD in terms of earnings over your lifetime.
Because that's the other thing. You better really have the disposition for research because it will take up a big chunk of your life. Not only does it take time, but it essentially takes money from you. My PhD was structured in that I basically completed a Masters program in the first 2 years. I could have graduated then and got a (probably well paying) job instead of going for it all. I also probably could have finished my PhD a bit earlier than I did, but that's on me. In any case, I have basically turned down a fair amount of money to get to where I am now. Which is still not making a whole lot. I continued on with my PhD research as a research assistant/post-doc fellow and tried applying for some grants to finally give myself a half decent wage. But unfortunately, the first batch have come up empty for me. Yeah, I got my tuition covered for most of my PhD, but I was only getting paid peanuts. Once I graduated my position started paying me macadamia nuts. More, but not enough to really start a life with my wife.
I am kind of at a potential transition point here now. My patience for research is still great, but my patience for life might be running out. I am starting to apply for jobs that I would have been qualified for after those first two years of grad school, because it might be time for me to move on now. Fortunately, my field gives me that option. It's currently Medical Physics Residency season, but those positions are generally not designed for people who have spent years on research and want to do research in the future. But I at least have that option. Not sure what other options are available to PhDs who don't end up in research or academia.
But here's the thing.......I really like research and in an ideal world, I would continue to do it. Those residency positions might be better to pay the bills, but I think they would be alot harder for me to slog through. The way I view my job right now, I basically get paid to learn things. Not sure if that's what everyone thinks, but I feel that if I learned something new today, then I did my job. That's an awesome feeling for me and I have a fair amount of freedom to accomplish that. That freedom is both good and bad because sometimes it gets me too distracted. Like when I spend 30 minutes posting on the internet instead of doing something useful.
When I was putting together those grants that ultimately came up short, I kind of had a moment where I realized this is what I want to do for my life if possible. I had to put together a biosketch of a mentor that would oversee my work. I had to list stuff like, where schooling, publications, awards, other grants etc.... I asked one of my committee members, my most senior one in fact, to be on it and he happily agreed. He sent his CV and when I opened it, I was inspired to ultimately have one that looked just like his. His CV was a 50+ page pdf that listed hundreds of his publications, talks, grants, awards and on and on. Intimidating and amazing at the same time. Like I said, if possible, that would be something that I would retire with. But real life gets in the way.
A PhD is for those of us with the ability to do it, but you also need alot of things to fall your way as well. I don't want to say that it would be a definite positive or a definite negative. Everyone is different and everyone needs to weigh their own options accordingly. Hope you make the right choice.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
PSN:Furlion
I finished a M.S. in Mathematics a couple of years ago, and before that I had been working in industry for several years. I went for two reasons: 1) to try my hand at research, and 2) a deep-seated need to get a higher degree. I had the time of my life, and I feel that it was over far too soon! Due to my age and where I am in life now, however, I have far more responsibilities than I had when I was 22 and fresh out of my B.S. In that light, although I still have a desire to get my PhD at some point, after looking into what it costs and what it produces, that desire has diminished quite a bit from where it was. Primarily, my realization was this: I can still do research (and I am) on my own, albeit without the vast resources and tremendous opportunities that being at a university can provide, and though I would really enjoy being a professor, the US academia job market is oversaturated with fresh meat, er, graduates.
I really enjoyed my time as a grad student. I had already been working on the research project since August 2006, first as part of my undergraduate honours project, then for my Master's degree. I worked all those years under the supervision of a brilliant mind. I can't stress enough how important the choice of your supervisor is.
In my field, getting a PhD was a no brainer. The profession is rapidly progressing towards more and more stringent requirements, so higher degrees give you an edge over other people. I'm also lucky to live in a city with a lot of government labs and other job opportunities tailored to my expertise, so hopefully my job search does not last too long.
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc