4 ms·

This highlights what was a huge misconception for me about a PhD. I thought a PhD was about making an original contribution to my field. I thought Academia was

This highlights what was a huge misconception for me about a PhD. I thought a PhD was about making an original contribution to my field. I thought Academia was a place where you took risks in pursuit of knowledge, and a PhD was your first real go at it. In retrospect (I'm a PhD dropout) the PhD is really more about training in the fundamentals of scholarship. It's about building up background knowledge, and learning the mechanics of research and publishing. The actual scholarly contribution matters almost not at all. This is why faculty will pressure you to pick a conservative project... the results are besides the point. The point is demonstrating that you can do all the steps. Because lots of great people can only do half the steps. A PhD means you can do all. Once you have your PhD, then its your career on the line and you can do whatever you want. Before that point, you're really working on borrowed (from your advisor) time, and as much as it might seem like you are supposed to blaze a path, they really just want you to show that you can walk in a straight line.

arca_vorago 10y ago
I understand the part about building up the background knowledge (of the particular field) is going to vary wildly, but it seems like the part about learning the mechanics of research and publishing should be something so well documented it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Do you have any good resources that summarize that knowledge and/or process?
- bbgm 10y ago
  No amount of documentation can teach that. The entire discipline of research, collaboration, iterating, grant writing, etc was an amazing experience (and I didn't stay in academia).
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > but it seems like the part about learning the mechanics of research and publishing should be something so well documented it shouldn't be that big of a deal. No. I think you're thinking: "how to format/structure a paper/grant, how to conduct an experiment, how to write a proof, how to write a bibliography, how to conduct a literature search, how to submit a paper to a conference, ..." Those are all very easy and formulaic by comparison. What your parent actually probably meant: "how to pick a research problem, how to develop a multi-year research program that addresses that problem along with other related problems, how to find collaborators and succeed in working with other researchers, how to write a convincing paper, how to write a winning grant proposal, how to find funding, how to present your work in a compelling way at meetings/conferences, ..." Those things all have a million particularities and can't be taught from a text book or lecture. You have to just do them and experience the millions of little things that come up and see a pro handle each situation. It's like the difference between knowing how to incorporate a Delaware C and put together a passable pitch deck vs. actually running a particular type of business through every stage. Like a start-up focused on X, where X is your research field and there are maybe only a few other labs (companies) doing X in the world.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
arcanus 10y ago
I'm getting a negative tone from this post and I don't really see why. Training is the point of graduate school. That is why we still call them graduate students. > I thought a PhD was about making an original contribution to my field > the PhD is really more about training in the fundamentals of scholarship You realize that these two concepts are not mutually incompatible? And furthermore, that the former is contingent upon capability in the latter? > as much as it might seem like you are supposed to blaze a path, they really just want you to show that you can walk in a straight line The vast majority of graduate students are not capable of conducting independent research when they start (I certainly was not!). Often, it takes years of training to get them into a state in which they are sufficiently knowledgeable to take a real leadership role. Expecting someone to be capable of independent research would be wasteful: they need more guidance! This is why they are called 'advisers', not bosses. Without them most students would zig off into a direction that is fruitless. However, to suggest that the work you do at this time is meaningless is also wrong. Your adviser almost certainly has funding sources that support the work, and this is likely directed towards productive and meaningful pursuits. The fact that students are not leading these effort is not a detriment, and in my experience even smaller research projects quickly provide amply opportunities for taking initiative. Furthermore, very few students finish a doctorate without writing papers, so I find the notion that there is no actual scholarly contribution inaccurate.
- klodolph 10y ago
  Hm, that's an interesting reaction. I also don't really see why that you're getting a negative tone. I don't think the post is suggesting that the work is meaningless (as your comment interprets) but rather that the meaning of a PhD is mostly not in the thesis itself, but in the ability to conduct independent research, like you said.
  - Retric 10y ago
    In science original research is only original if you don't know the outcome. There is a huge temptation to assume the outcome matters, but as long as you can validate why you looked into something then the outcome should be meaningless. Thus the thesis matter's, but only up to a point. Otherwise you push people to either make things up, or only reward the lucky. PS: Some non science fields have other criteria, but they are not experimenting.
pmiller2 10y ago
I'm also a grad school dropout, so I have a bit of perspective on this as well. You're correct, IMO that the PhD is largely about training to become a junior researcher, and less about making an original contribution to science. But, based on the dissertation defenses I've attended and theses I've seen, I would say they are less "conservative" than "scope limited." Many people I know have gotten two years worth of papers out of their dissertation topics. This may be field-specific, however (I was in math).
alimw 10y ago
There's a mechanics of research? Why is my supervisor hiding it from me?? It must be his plan to weaken and kill me...
squidfood 10y ago
My advisor put it like this: Any person with a doctorate should be able to, on their own, begin a department in the undergraduate basics of their subject if hired by a university that doesn't have one.
- dnautics 10y ago
  I doubt that 80% of the doctorates in biology could do that. I dropped out of academia, but I effectively did that myself, by starting a nonprofit research organization and acquiring the resources to conduct science from almost zero.

arca_vorago 10y ago

I understand the part about building up the background knowledge (of the particular field) is going to vary wildly, but it seems like the part about learning the mechanics of research and publishing should be something so well documented it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Do you have any good resources that summarize that knowledge and/or process?

bbgm 10y ago
No amount of documentation can teach that. The entire discipline of research, collaboration, iterating, grant writing, etc was an amazing experience (and I didn't stay in academia).
throwawaysocks 10y ago
> but it seems like the part about learning the mechanics of research and publishing should be something so well documented it shouldn't be that big of a deal. No. I think you're thinking: "how to format/structure a paper/grant, how to conduct an experiment, how to write a proof, how to write a bibliography, how to conduct a literature search, how to submit a paper to a conference, ..." Those are all very easy and formulaic by comparison. What your parent actually probably meant: "how to pick a research problem, how to develop a multi-year research program that addresses that problem along with other related problems, how to find collaborators and succeed in working with other researchers, how to write a convincing paper, how to write a winning grant proposal, how to find funding, how to present your work in a compelling way at meetings/conferences, ..." Those things all have a million particularities and can't be taught from a text book or lecture. You have to just do them and experience the millions of little things that come up and see a pro handle each situation. It's like the difference between knowing how to incorporate a Delaware C and put together a passable pitch deck vs. actually running a particular type of business through every stage. Like a start-up focused on X, where X is your research field and there are maybe only a few other labs (companies) doing X in the world.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

arcanus 10y ago

I'm getting a negative tone from this post and I don't really see why. Training is the point of graduate school. That is why we still call them graduate students. > I thought a PhD was about making an original contribution to my field > the PhD is really more about training in the fundamentals of scholarship You realize that these two concepts are not mutually incompatible? And furthermore, that the former is contingent upon capability in the latter? > as much as it might seem like you are supposed to blaze a path, they really just want you to show that you can walk in a straight line The vast majority of graduate students are not capable of conducting independent research when they start (I certainly was not!). Often, it takes years of training to get them into a state in which they are sufficiently knowledgeable to take a real leadership role. Expecting someone to be capable of independent research would be wasteful: they need more guidance! This is why they are called 'advisers', not bosses. Without them most students would zig off into a direction that is fruitless. However, to suggest that the work you do at this time is meaningless is also wrong. Your adviser almost certainly has funding sources that support the work, and this is likely directed towards productive and meaningful pursuits. The fact that students are not leading these effort is not a detriment, and in my experience even smaller research projects quickly provide amply opportunities for taking initiative. Furthermore, very few students finish a doctorate without writing papers, so I find the notion that there is no actual scholarly contribution inaccurate.

klodolph 10y ago
Hm, that's an interesting reaction. I also don't really see why that you're getting a negative tone. I don't think the post is suggesting that the work is meaningless (as your comment interprets) but rather that the meaning of a PhD is mostly not in the thesis itself, but in the ability to conduct independent research, like you said.
- Retric 10y ago
  In science original research is only original if you don't know the outcome. There is a huge temptation to assume the outcome matters, but as long as you can validate why you looked into something then the outcome should be meaningless. Thus the thesis matter's, but only up to a point. Otherwise you push people to either make things up, or only reward the lucky. PS: Some non science fields have other criteria, but they are not experimenting.

pmiller2 10y ago

I'm also a grad school dropout, so I have a bit of perspective on this as well. You're correct, IMO that the PhD is largely about training to become a junior researcher, and less about making an original contribution to science. But, based on the dissertation defenses I've attended and theses I've seen, I would say they are less "conservative" than "scope limited." Many people I know have gotten two years worth of papers out of their dissertation topics. This may be field-specific, however (I was in math).

alimw 10y ago

There's a mechanics of research? Why is my supervisor hiding it from me?? It must be his plan to weaken and kill me...

squidfood 10y ago

My advisor put it like this: Any person with a doctorate should be able to, on their own, begin a department in the undergraduate basics of their subject if hired by a university that doesn't have one.

dnautics 10y ago
I doubt that 80% of the doctorates in biology could do that. I dropped out of academia, but I effectively did that myself, by starting a nonprofit research organization and acquiring the resources to conduct science from almost zero.