4 ms·

I am after my PhD and I consider quality of this list being close to of a "be creative" list. That is, in principle all points make sense, but they are either

by stared 11y ago

I am after my PhD and I consider quality of this list being close to of a "be creative" list. That is, in principle all points make sense, but they are either truism, too obvious, too vague or things that are out of control. (If I had read it before starting my PhD it wouldn't have changed a thing). Or maybe I am overly skeptical of simplistic life-advice? Is there any take-home message that changed your way of acting?

jackcosgrove 11y ago
Here is a piece of advice for CS graduate students: take a look at the Gartner hype cycle. Here's the cycle from 2014: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918 http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918. Pick something far on the left side of the curve, and ride the hype.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  I'm not so sure this is great advice for PhD students. Junior faculty maybe. You should fix a lot of other things first (in particular, prefered methodology and advisor) and then, after fixing those things, choose applications toward the left-hand side. A few reasons: 1. If you're doing it for hype alone you will be miserable. Ph.D. students tend to be out ahead of pretty much everyone in terms of the nitty gritty details, so they often hit the trough of disillusionment right around the time everyone else is at the top of the hype curve. 2. A Ph.D. is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be paid (sometimes comfortably) to work on (mostly) whatever you want. If it's not at least a little self-indulgent, you're wasting a great opportunity. 3. You'll have the rest of your life to chase the next sexy thing.
- Xcelerate 11y ago
  "Quantum computing" is ahead of "connected home"?
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    These curves are marketing material for an "advisory firm". Nothing more, nothing less. The idea of the curbe is more important that the particular points, and the points are often mis-placed. Also, lots of technologies jump around randomly on the curve or move rapidly through some parts, etc.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
I disagree, honestly. I don't think creativity is an important part of doctoral work. The 'new' requirement is certainly true, but that can simply be an extension in relatively predictable territory. A PhD demonstrates that you can successfully conduct original research. Period. The time for creativity and really making a name for yourself is in a post-doc. That's when you differentiate yourself. You can do this during doctoral work, but it is far from required. As long as you're doing something significant (which any lab you join should be doing), you'll likely encounter plenty of new insights that really do contribute in a novel way. This can let you focus on process and methods that lead to good results. You learn to troubleshoot, to adequately record observations, and to be able to write all that up in a coherent and thorough way. These are the key lessons, and those most valuable and translatable outside academia should you take that route. In the end, I think that creativity comes easily and naturally if you're on top of the literature and actually performing experiments. If you trust your observations (which takes a lot of effort to get there) and are looking at interesting things, you will set down interesting paths of inquiry.
- scott_s 11y ago
  I think you may have misread stared's comment. They felt this list was similar to saying "be creative", and implied that is not very helpful.

by stared 11y ago

jackcosgrove 11y ago

Here is a piece of advice for CS graduate students: take a look at the Gartner hype cycle. Here's the cycle from 2014: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918 http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918. Pick something far on the left side of the curve, and ride the hype.

nmrm2 11y ago
I'm not so sure this is great advice for PhD students. Junior faculty maybe. You should fix a lot of other things first (in particular, prefered methodology and advisor) and then, after fixing those things, choose applications toward the left-hand side. A few reasons: 1. If you're doing it for hype alone you will be miserable. Ph.D. students tend to be out ahead of pretty much everyone in terms of the nitty gritty details, so they often hit the trough of disillusionment right around the time everyone else is at the top of the hype curve. 2. A Ph.D. is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be paid (sometimes comfortably) to work on (mostly) whatever you want. If it's not at least a little self-indulgent, you're wasting a great opportunity. 3. You'll have the rest of your life to chase the next sexy thing.
Xcelerate 11y ago
"Quantum computing" is ahead of "connected home"?
- nmrm2 11y ago
  These curves are marketing material for an "advisory firm". Nothing more, nothing less. The idea of the curbe is more important that the particular points, and the points are often mis-placed. Also, lots of technologies jump around randomly on the curve or move rapidly through some parts, etc.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago

I disagree, honestly. I don't think creativity is an important part of doctoral work. The 'new' requirement is certainly true, but that can simply be an extension in relatively predictable territory. A PhD demonstrates that you can successfully conduct original research. Period. The time for creativity and really making a name for yourself is in a post-doc. That's when you differentiate yourself. You can do this during doctoral work, but it is far from required. As long as you're doing something significant (which any lab you join should be doing), you'll likely encounter plenty of new insights that really do contribute in a novel way. This can let you focus on process and methods that lead to good results. You learn to troubleshoot, to adequately record observations, and to be able to write all that up in a coherent and thorough way. These are the key lessons, and those most valuable and translatable outside academia should you take that route. In the end, I think that creativity comes easily and naturally if you're on top of the literature and actually performing experiments. If you trust your observations (which takes a lot of effort to get there) and are looking at interesting things, you will set down interesting paths of inquiry.

scott_s 11y ago
I think you may have misread stared's comment. They felt this list was similar to saying "be creative", and implied that is not very helpful.