4 ms·

The primary output of a PhD is not a good project -- it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. Instead, the o

The primary output of a PhD is not a good project -- it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. Instead, the output of the US system is researchers capable of forging their own path. No surprise Jean landed a professorship at CMU after all this. That's useful for anyone in a thought leadership role, e.g., PI/CEO/CTO. (Though yes, for related reasons, US CS systems PhDs probably also have a higher impact factor, e.g., they're actually implemented as is discussed in her post.) As for the bean counting: her first-author PLDI best paper is the field's equivalent of a Nature paper, and she got one in her first year.

mafribe 11y ago
geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. I am not sure the phrase "quick cheap labour" really gets to the heart of the matter. The real reason why most PhD students work on their supervisor's ideas is different. Most students would drown in the ocean of possible ideas, would simply fail without strong guidance from an experienced supervisor. It's probably best to see a PhD as a warm-up exercise for future research. The ocean of previous research one must master before being able to do original research in mature fields is simply so large that most students can't handle it on their own. Supervisors would love PhD-students who are intellectually mature enough to come up with their own ideas and execute them to a publishable standard. In my experience, at best 1 in 5 PhD students can do this. I used to think my own PhD work was 100% self-invented. But now, having supervised a lot of my own students, I see clearly how my intellectual mentor gently nudged me in the right direction at all critical junctions where I would have gone astray otherwise. Without him, I too would have failed. US PhD typically last a lot longer than UK PhDs, so comparing the two is difficult. I'd say UK PhD+postdoc is a probably comparable with an US PhD.
chrisseaton 11y ago
> it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea Hmm I thought it was the other way around. In the UK PhD students rarely do work for their supervisors like teaching undergraduate courses, which seems to happen a lot in the US. When I started my PhD in the UK I was told I needed to come up with my own project from the start. I only did one paper that was sort of related to my supervisor's project, and I only did a hundred hours teaching over my entire PhD, and that was voluntary. The other big difference between the US and UK PhD approaches is that in the UK a PhD student doesn't do any courses. Day one on the PhD is day one working towards their research project and thesis.
lmeyerov 11y ago
Not sure how to edit, but I was overly harsh: my point about the European programs is that many combine their short duration with requiring a project proposal going in, which often is used by PIs to work on the next ~deterministic step of their existing research program. For students in that situation, a postdoc (or darwinian trial by fire as a professor) is necessary to learn how to lead research. The above is not always true, but when it is, I view the US system as fulfilling its mission better. Whether everyone is suited to the US system and leading innovative projects is another story.
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  At least here in Belgium, project proposals (which are indeed required) can come from either the student or a principal investigator. Many of the most talented students pick their own topic, and the topic is accepted or rejected by an independent jury, not by the person who would advise you.
  - lmeyerov 11y ago
    In the US, there's generally a proposal process two years in to determine this, and even there' it's not surprising to see a pivot a year or so after that once preliminary data is in. By pre-agreeing to a problem (and part of the process), too much of the research definition process is skipped. While half the PhD is about learning how to get to the solution, the other half is in learning how to pick the right problem. In terms of HN, making a startup solve a niche is great, but knowing how to grow it into a bigger space is better.

mafribe 11y ago

geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. I am not sure the phrase "quick cheap labour" really gets to the heart of the matter. The real reason why most PhD students work on their supervisor's ideas is different. Most students would drown in the ocean of possible ideas, would simply fail without strong guidance from an experienced supervisor. It's probably best to see a PhD as a warm-up exercise for future research. The ocean of previous research one must master before being able to do original research in mature fields is simply so large that most students can't handle it on their own. Supervisors would love PhD-students who are intellectually mature enough to come up with their own ideas and execute them to a publishable standard. In my experience, at best 1 in 5 PhD students can do this. I used to think my own PhD work was 100% self-invented. But now, having supervised a lot of my own students, I see clearly how my intellectual mentor gently nudged me in the right direction at all critical junctions where I would have gone astray otherwise. Without him, I too would have failed. US PhD typically last a lot longer than UK PhDs, so comparing the two is difficult. I'd say UK PhD+postdoc is a probably comparable with an US PhD.

chrisseaton 11y ago

> it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea Hmm I thought it was the other way around. In the UK PhD students rarely do work for their supervisors like teaching undergraduate courses, which seems to happen a lot in the US. When I started my PhD in the UK I was told I needed to come up with my own project from the start. I only did one paper that was sort of related to my supervisor's project, and I only did a hundred hours teaching over my entire PhD, and that was voluntary. The other big difference between the US and UK PhD approaches is that in the UK a PhD student doesn't do any courses. Day one on the PhD is day one working towards their research project and thesis.

lmeyerov 11y ago

Not sure how to edit, but I was overly harsh: my point about the European programs is that many combine their short duration with requiring a project proposal going in, which often is used by PIs to work on the next ~deterministic step of their existing research program. For students in that situation, a postdoc (or darwinian trial by fire as a professor) is necessary to learn how to lead research. The above is not always true, but when it is, I view the US system as fulfilling its mission better. Whether everyone is suited to the US system and leading innovative projects is another story.

stdbrouw 11y ago
At least here in Belgium, project proposals (which are indeed required) can come from either the student or a principal investigator. Many of the most talented students pick their own topic, and the topic is accepted or rejected by an independent jury, not by the person who would advise you.
- lmeyerov 11y ago
  In the US, there's generally a proposal process two years in to determine this, and even there' it's not surprising to see a pivot a year or so after that once preliminary data is in. By pre-agreeing to a problem (and part of the process), too much of the research definition process is skipped. While half the PhD is about learning how to get to the solution, the other half is in learning how to pick the right problem. In terms of HN, making a startup solve a niche is great, but knowing how to grow it into a bigger space is better.