12 ms·

"Specifically, I tell them that it is best if they know before they even apply who they want to work with and in what capacity." I append this with the advice

by Fomite 8y ago

"Specifically, I tell them that it is best if they know before they even apply who they want to work with and in what capacity." I append this with the advice that one should never go to a place where their prospective advisor is the only person they can imagine working with. Primarily because: "Know the pluses and minuses of their advisor. The best grad students I have seen have read at least some of the research of all of the tenured professors in the department, and they know who is strong and who is weak. They will also have a feel for the politics. These folks are rare, but they are usually the future big time academics." Is often something that will only come out in time. You can try to figure these things out, and get a good idea, but there are subtle nuances to people that only comes by knowing them. "This might be true in schools or departments with very weak research programs. Even then, an advisor advocating for a specific applicant, even if it is a rare occurrence, would most likely be accommodated." My PhD department worked on the "No specific advisor when admitted, lots of coursework" model, and characterizing it as having a "very weak research program" would make you look like an idiot.

csa 8y ago
> My PhD department worked on the "No specific advisor when admitted, lots of coursework" model, and characterizing it as having a "very weak research program" would make you look like an idiot. My comment was a reply to throwawaymath’s comment that US programs usually don’t allow professor admits and don’t have a research focus. If you went to a good school (as you seem to claim), I am willing to bet that one or more admits were advocated for by a professor and (most likely) ended up as that professor’s advisee. You may not have been told about this, but I bet it happens. As I said elsewhere, strong doctoral students (relatively speaking) are extremely hard to find, and most good professors won’t leave a good fit to chance. Maybe your field is different, but I somehow doubt it. I will also guess that your school has a strong research focus, since having a strong research focus is almost a defining characteristic of a strong program. Note that OP said “unilateral focus”, and maybe your program does not have a “unilateral focus” (I’m not sure exactly how that would be defined), but that largely seems to be a minor issue of semantics rather than the major issue of throwawaymath’s thesis that US programs don’t usually have a strong focus on research (“non-existent” was the word he used). I know of no good doctoral program that does not have a strong focus on research. Lastly, note that I didn’t say anything about “lots of coursework” — this is common in US doctoral programs. The issue I commented on is that folks who come in with less focus (I think i said “expecting to be taught” or something similar) tend to have weaker career prospects. This doesn’t doom a less-focused person to failure (not at all), but it does make it tougher than someone who comes in with a more intense focus on research. Again, maybe it’s different in your field, but somehow I doubt it. If you have specific examples, I would genuinely love to hear about them — I personally know of a handful, and they are all due to the fortuitous hire of a new professor.
- Fomite 8y ago
  "If you went to a good school (as you seem to claim), I am willing to bet that one or more admits were advocated for by a professor and (most likely) ended up as that professor’s advisee. You may not have been told about this, but I bet it happens. As I said elsewhere, strong doctoral students (relatively speaking) are extremely hard to find, and most good professors won’t leave a good fit to chance. Maybe your field is different, but I somehow doubt it." The program doesn't do direct admit like that - I know because I asked. Faculty can advocate, and everyone was matched with an advisor, but for the most part first year funding was not under someone's direct RA line, and a slim majority of students ended up switching advisors (myself included). Ironically, one of the professors who did recruit the strong doctoral students did so in a way that was a very useful cautionary tale for my own recruiting - namely that it's very hard to actually determine that from an application.

by Fomite 8y ago

csa 8y ago

> My PhD department worked on the "No specific advisor when admitted, lots of coursework" model, and characterizing it as having a "very weak research program" would make you look like an idiot. My comment was a reply to throwawaymath’s comment that US programs usually don’t allow professor admits and don’t have a research focus. If you went to a good school (as you seem to claim), I am willing to bet that one or more admits were advocated for by a professor and (most likely) ended up as that professor’s advisee. You may not have been told about this, but I bet it happens. As I said elsewhere, strong doctoral students (relatively speaking) are extremely hard to find, and most good professors won’t leave a good fit to chance. Maybe your field is different, but I somehow doubt it. I will also guess that your school has a strong research focus, since having a strong research focus is almost a defining characteristic of a strong program. Note that OP said “unilateral focus”, and maybe your program does not have a “unilateral focus” (I’m not sure exactly how that would be defined), but that largely seems to be a minor issue of semantics rather than the major issue of throwawaymath’s thesis that US programs don’t usually have a strong focus on research (“non-existent” was the word he used). I know of no good doctoral program that does not have a strong focus on research. Lastly, note that I didn’t say anything about “lots of coursework” — this is common in US doctoral programs. The issue I commented on is that folks who come in with less focus (I think i said “expecting to be taught” or something similar) tend to have weaker career prospects. This doesn’t doom a less-focused person to failure (not at all), but it does make it tougher than someone who comes in with a more intense focus on research. Again, maybe it’s different in your field, but somehow I doubt it. If you have specific examples, I would genuinely love to hear about them — I personally know of a handful, and they are all due to the fortuitous hire of a new professor.

Fomite 8y ago
"If you went to a good school (as you seem to claim), I am willing to bet that one or more admits were advocated for by a professor and (most likely) ended up as that professor’s advisee. You may not have been told about this, but I bet it happens. As I said elsewhere, strong doctoral students (relatively speaking) are extremely hard to find, and most good professors won’t leave a good fit to chance. Maybe your field is different, but I somehow doubt it." The program doesn't do direct admit like that - I know because I asked. Faculty can advocate, and everyone was matched with an advisor, but for the most part first year funding was not under someone's direct RA line, and a slim majority of students ended up switching advisors (myself included). Ironically, one of the professors who did recruit the strong doctoral students did so in a way that was a very useful cautionary tale for my own recruiting - namely that it's very hard to actually determine that from an application.