3 ms·

This isn't an American perspective, and I know American academia is pretty different to elsewhere (wtf 7 year PhDs!) but over my life I've found that the rules

by gmurphy 17y ago

This isn't an American perspective, and I know American academia is pretty different to elsewhere (wtf 7 year PhDs!) but over my life I've found that the rules for admissions into various things were usually just rough guidelines that people take way too seriously. For example, I have a Masters degree, but I never finished an undergraduate degree (I dropped out). Similarly, though less bureaucratically, there are plenty of other dropouts working here at Google leading awesome projects, despite the 'must come from a top school or have a PhD' image it has. It's cheesy, but in all such cases, I've seen that the biggest hurdle was getting over the "no you can't because you don't have X", either by trying harder, or by having someone else show you the way (or by dumb luck, in my case).

nostrademons 17y ago
My own story is pretty similar to the article's, except s/graduate school/Google/. I've found that people tend to discount the past pretty heavily, at least in America. Nobody cares if you were lazy five years ago, as long as you've worked hard in those five years and have a record of concrete accomplishments to show that. If you went to a community college and then finished undergrad at Harvard, people will see the Harvard degree. If you went to a state college for college and then went to MIT for grad school, people will see the MIT degree. The hard part is getting into Harvard or MIT or Google with that past record. I think the important part for that is to not let your current circumstances define you. If you've been turned down for that dream job and have to work on CRUDscreen enterprise apps to pay the bills, it's really easy to sit back and get comfortable writing CRUDscreen enterprise apps. If you want to give that dream job another try in the future, though, it's important to continue working as if you got it, either by doing your current job to the standards of the dream job, or by keeping your skills sharp with side projects outside of work. BTW, I think you were my phone-screener for Google, so maybe the article's point about having someone on the inside pulling for you has some merit.
barrkel 17y ago
I think the personal connections angle is often under-appreciated by those who simply see the formal rules and bureaucracy. For example, if you can get a job working at a university, that can make it a lot easier to get into a postgraduate course than if you're some stranger walking in off the street; and it can end up cheaper, or even funded through part-time work, etc. This is the de facto angle my girlfriend used to get into an economics PhD program at LSE, starting in a relatively low-level research position when getting out of the boring banking sector before the proverbial hit the fan.
- RK 17y ago
  I've seen people who were able to enroll as non-degree grad students for a semester or two and then be admitted.
  - djcapelis 17y ago
    Unfortunately this route means you don't get any funding. Taking a research position at a university might be a better path for someone with financial constraints. But yes, I've heard of people doing this too and I can imagine it working. Professors who know you like you a lot more than professors who don't know you.
    - RK 17y ago
      It might also work to be in only one class, allowing you to still have your normal job, etc. I think the main thing would be to show the department/professor that you can cut it at the university. If you can get a research job and take class(es), you're practically a grad student already :)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
RK 17y ago
I agree with your comment that qualification X isn't necessarily needed, but it has it's limits of course. If you want to go into academia or a professional field such as medicine, the qualifications can be very rigid. Sometimes you can get away without a lower degree (e.g. bachelor's), but pretty much always need the terminal degree (doctorate). As far as long PhD's are concerned, I think it's a difference in funding structure and expectation from some other countries. For one thing, when you hear that someone was doing their PhD for 7 years, that almost always encompasses master's work as well, even if they weren't awarded a master's. I am most familiar with how physics grad school works in the US, where the average PhD takes 6 years. Generally students who do get a master's on the way to a PhD get it after 2-2.5 years, so they spend 3.5-4 years on their PhD by itself. Another big difference from how things are done in the US versus what I know of in European universities is the way students are funded. Most European students I know are funded by the university/government and given 3-4 years to complete their PhDs. After that, they have no more money. In the US, funding is secured by the grad students themselves by essentially being hired by a professor as a researcher or working as a teaching assistant for a professor or the department (or possibly winning a fellowship from a government agency). Often this funding is on a semester to semester basis and in principle can last indefinitely. The fundamental nature of research means that it can last a long time when external constraints, such as funding, are not in place. I think my university had a rule that you had to graduate within 12 years or so.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by gmurphy 17y ago

nostrademons 17y ago

My own story is pretty similar to the article's, except s/graduate school/Google/. I've found that people tend to discount the past pretty heavily, at least in America. Nobody cares if you were lazy five years ago, as long as you've worked hard in those five years and have a record of concrete accomplishments to show that. If you went to a community college and then finished undergrad at Harvard, people will see the Harvard degree. If you went to a state college for college and then went to MIT for grad school, people will see the MIT degree. The hard part is getting into Harvard or MIT or Google with that past record. I think the important part for that is to not let your current circumstances define you. If you've been turned down for that dream job and have to work on CRUDscreen enterprise apps to pay the bills, it's really easy to sit back and get comfortable writing CRUDscreen enterprise apps. If you want to give that dream job another try in the future, though, it's important to continue working as if you got it, either by doing your current job to the standards of the dream job, or by keeping your skills sharp with side projects outside of work. BTW, I think you were my phone-screener for Google, so maybe the article's point about having someone on the inside pulling for you has some merit.

barrkel 17y ago

I think the personal connections angle is often under-appreciated by those who simply see the formal rules and bureaucracy. For example, if you can get a job working at a university, that can make it a lot easier to get into a postgraduate course than if you're some stranger walking in off the street; and it can end up cheaper, or even funded through part-time work, etc. This is the de facto angle my girlfriend used to get into an economics PhD program at LSE, starting in a relatively low-level research position when getting out of the boring banking sector before the proverbial hit the fan.

RK 17y ago
I've seen people who were able to enroll as non-degree grad students for a semester or two and then be admitted.
- djcapelis 17y ago
  Unfortunately this route means you don't get any funding. Taking a research position at a university might be a better path for someone with financial constraints. But yes, I've heard of people doing this too and I can imagine it working. Professors who know you like you a lot more than professors who don't know you.
  - RK 17y ago
    It might also work to be in only one class, allowing you to still have your normal job, etc. I think the main thing would be to show the department/professor that you can cut it at the university. If you can get a research job and take class(es), you're practically a grad student already :)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

RK 17y ago

I agree with your comment that qualification X isn't necessarily needed, but it has it's limits of course. If you want to go into academia or a professional field such as medicine, the qualifications can be very rigid. Sometimes you can get away without a lower degree (e.g. bachelor's), but pretty much always need the terminal degree (doctorate). As far as long PhD's are concerned, I think it's a difference in funding structure and expectation from some other countries. For one thing, when you hear that someone was doing their PhD for 7 years, that almost always encompasses master's work as well, even if they weren't awarded a master's. I am most familiar with how physics grad school works in the US, where the average PhD takes 6 years. Generally students who do get a master's on the way to a PhD get it after 2-2.5 years, so they spend 3.5-4 years on their PhD by itself. Another big difference from how things are done in the US versus what I know of in European universities is the way students are funded. Most European students I know are funded by the university/government and given 3-4 years to complete their PhDs. After that, they have no more money. In the US, funding is secured by the grad students themselves by essentially being hired by a professor as a researcher or working as a teaching assistant for a professor or the department (or possibly winning a fellowship from a government agency). Often this funding is on a semester to semester basis and in principle can last indefinitely. The fundamental nature of research means that it can last a long time when external constraints, such as funding, are not in place. I think my university had a rule that you had to graduate within 12 years or so.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]