5 ms·

Very inspiring to highlight education and learning is lifelong. Ph.D. even though symbolism (not really needed if only aim is knowledge assimilation and creatio

Very inspiring to highlight education and learning is lifelong. Ph.D. even though symbolism (not really needed if only aim is knowledge assimilation and creation through learning), will serve as a big boost in confidence for middle age workers, who think there aren’t enough opportunities for them. Also Ph.D. gives chances to work with younger people keeping middle and older generations more active and alive. I hope to continue learning in my middle and old age like the post, not sure of Ph.D. though. But may consider if it opens a way for me to work alongside young researchers can learn new things from them and feel alive.

BeetleB 6y ago
I think we should be careful not to conflate the pursuit of knowledge with acquiring a PhD. The latter is a very constrained and narrow way to do it, and can easily disappoint. As I get older, the (non-financial) value of the PhD keeps diminishing in my eyes, whereas the pursuit of knowledge hasn't. As I have less time on Earth, I want to optimize my time, and much of PhD work is orthogonal to my goals of gaining knowledge. A PhD will force you to spend years on an extremely narrow topic (of course, acquiring some breadth along the way). When you're older, that time is precious. It better be a problem you really are passionate about. Consider: 1. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own. 2. You will have to fulfill several steps tied to the culture of academia, and none of these is needed to acquire knowledge. But tradition is tradition, and you have to do it. 3. There can be a lot of politics involved - also orthogonal to acquiring knowledge, but you will have to put up with them, play them, and suffer because of them. 4. Professors will often work you harder than you'll want at an older age. Their rationale is often a variant of "Well, if you want a career in research/academia, this is the workload you will have to deal with". But a 60+ year old usually has very different goals. Of course, I have seen plenty of professors who are sympathetic to such people. Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers. Disclaimer: My view on this topic is a bit biased. I spent most of a decade in grad school (at a younger age) but eventually quit the PhD program. I was at the point where I felt I had attained most of the benefits of a PhD except that final paper (acquired a lot of knowledge, published in journal, lots of personal development/introspection, gained much from being around the intellectual environment, etc). I quit because my work was not good enough to get my dream research jobs (in academia or industry), and spending the 2 or so more years fulfilling my advisor's requirements knowing it would not lead me to my dream jobs was just pointless. Sure - I could get a postdoc and do enough good work there to land my dream job, but I decided it wasn't worth the gamble. I often fantasize about becoming financially independent and going back to university and hopefully do some research (in a different discipline this time). I do miss the intellectual discussions, etc. But while the studying and research problem aspect appeal to me, I really don't have the patience to put up with all the negatives I listed above. And I didn't even get into how in some disciplines (or sub-disciplines), journal publications are a racket (with both the publisher and academia being guilty parties). If I ever did anything interesting and novel enough, I'd likely write it up in a blog post or at most post to arxiv. I really don't want to participate in the current journal publishing culture. But of course, kudos to the person in this submission!
- analog31 6y ago
  In my view, a broader statement -- not necessarily a counterpoint -- is that the grad school experience is highly variable. For instance my own experience was quite positive. >>> 1. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own. You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and there is often room for compromise. This is a conversation that happens before joining their group. There are some benefits to starting with at least a suggested project. In my case, such a project idea came with a fully equipped lab including a quarter million 1986 dollars worth of gear. But my unique interests and abilities definitely steered my project in a direction that my advisor had not originally imagined when I started out. In the humanities, where the cost of research is close to zero, you might have more latitude, again depending on how you choose your advisor. I have a friend who literally created her own project and pitched it to a couple of departments who agreed to let her pursue a dual discipline PhD in education and psychology. She was 60. >>> Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers. True at any age. I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. They have their own grips about the system, but every system has a system. I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was really ready to go out the door. Granted that's something I would also have learned the hard way, had I started a start-up, but that was just not on my radar as a physics student in the 1980s for whatever reason.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > For instance my own experience was quite positive. As was mine, despite not completing it. However, I don't think I'd want to deal with the negatives at an older age.[1] To put it another way, if you're older and want admission to grad school so you can learn a lot, and are not too particular about actually completing the PhD, then you probably will enjoy the experience and can ignore my previous comment. Also, if you have the resources, a second BS or MS can be fun. I knew at least two students who were in their 60's pursuing a second BS (one of them was pursuing both a BS in math and physics, with little background in them). They both enjoyed the experience and were quite content. However, a PhD is quite different from that. > You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and there is often room for compromise. If you've had prior research experience, this advice may work. If you haven't, then you will likely be wrong about whether a particular professor's research program appeals to you - and you may not realize this until you've been in the program for a few years. > I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. Having spent time at both a mediocre and a top school, what you describe was more in line with what I saw at the mediocre school, and not at all like the top school. Most of the professors in the engineering departments were always trying to climb the rung, and competing with everyone to do it. Things got very petty. My advisor, who was already a Fellow of 3 large professional bodies (IEEE, physics (AIP? I forget), etc), was still quite competitive, extremely protective of his research, upset if a paper got rejected and would try hard to find out who the referees were, etc. I remember wondering why he was so invested in all of this. He was fairly old, had achieved a lot, and what more could he achieve?[2] He was not an outlier there. Even the more laid back professors would eventually exhibit some of this behavior because not doing so would demean them in the eyes of their peers (and yes, one of the benefits of academia and tenure is supposed to be that you're relatively immune from this, and yet...). Now at the mediocre university, it was more like you described. In fact, not many professors even had PhD students. There it was more about the research and not the career. And yet, in my last few visits to the department (again, engineering), the professors told me that even there the culture was shifting to being more career focused. The pressure to get funding was much more, etc. The common sentiment from people who had joined the department in the 80's through the 90's was "The level of work I had to do to get tenure (number of papers, funding, etc) will not get anyone tenure now in this department." I see you were in physics, and the experience there can be different. In some universities it is less funding driven than in engineering, and there probably are fewer rungs to climb (or perhaps they don't value those rungs as much). In the top university I went to, the physics department was actually in the college of engineering, so the pressure for funding, publishing, etc was similar to engineering. > I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was really ready to go out the door. For me, a lot of the problem was that I sincerely doubt anyone will ever find a way to test my results. Unfortunately, a lot of theoretical/computational engineering/physics is that way. Did I really want to become an expert in something that no one will ever prove/disprove? It wasn't just my research, but much of my discipline, and a lot of why papers would get accepted/rejected had to do with groupthink.[3] It really felt like I was doing literature where subjective opinion matters so much. I remember asking some of my peers if they even believed their research, and for many it was a strange question: They were in the business of publishing papers and getting research/academic jobs, not seeking the truth. If it's publishable, it's good! Ultimately, I picked the wrong area to do research in. Also, one of my undergrad professors told me it was a hot, young discipline. He was right in some ways but was mostly wrong. It was very mature by the time I entered grad school, and that usually means a lot more time (years) studying to get to the state of art before you can make a meaningful contribution. As a general rule, I tell people going for PhDs to find a discipline that is not mature - it'll be easier to make meaningful contributions that way. [1] Arguably, I probably did not want to put up with it at my younger age, and it probably contributed to my decision to quit, but it would have been one of the minor factors in that decision. [2] And several years later, I know - there were lots more rungs on that ladder. There always are, until you become a president of a university or the head of the NSF or something. [3] Yes - they did care about your formalism, techniques, novelty of ideas, etc. But there were far too many subjective ways to reject a paper as not being interesting enough to be published in this journal, etc.
tasogare 6y ago
This hit very close to home, especially point 1. I was told recently that something was not my research topic but someone’s else in the lab despite having written about in my application for the lab and the other guy switching to that very recently. The main issue is power imbalance. I need my advisors signature graduate so I have to accept more abuse than I would otherwise. This lead to a loss-loss situation were I’m particularly dissatisfied and put more energy on my side projects and papers than on thing I’m told to do.

BeetleB 6y ago

I think we should be careful not to conflate the pursuit of knowledge with acquiring a PhD. The latter is a very constrained and narrow way to do it, and can easily disappoint. As I get older, the (non-financial) value of the PhD keeps diminishing in my eyes, whereas the pursuit of knowledge hasn't. As I have less time on Earth, I want to optimize my time, and much of PhD work is orthogonal to my goals of gaining knowledge. A PhD will force you to spend years on an extremely narrow topic (of course, acquiring some breadth along the way). When you're older, that time is precious. It better be a problem you really are passionate about. Consider: 1. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own. 2. You will have to fulfill several steps tied to the culture of academia, and none of these is needed to acquire knowledge. But tradition is tradition, and you have to do it. 3. There can be a lot of politics involved - also orthogonal to acquiring knowledge, but you will have to put up with them, play them, and suffer because of them. 4. Professors will often work you harder than you'll want at an older age. Their rationale is often a variant of "Well, if you want a career in research/academia, this is the workload you will have to deal with". But a 60+ year old usually has very different goals. Of course, I have seen plenty of professors who are sympathetic to such people. Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers. Disclaimer: My view on this topic is a bit biased. I spent most of a decade in grad school (at a younger age) but eventually quit the PhD program. I was at the point where I felt I had attained most of the benefits of a PhD except that final paper (acquired a lot of knowledge, published in journal, lots of personal development/introspection, gained much from being around the intellectual environment, etc). I quit because my work was not good enough to get my dream research jobs (in academia or industry), and spending the 2 or so more years fulfilling my advisor's requirements knowing it would not lead me to my dream jobs was just pointless. Sure - I could get a postdoc and do enough good work there to land my dream job, but I decided it wasn't worth the gamble. I often fantasize about becoming financially independent and going back to university and hopefully do some research (in a different discipline this time). I do miss the intellectual discussions, etc. But while the studying and research problem aspect appeal to me, I really don't have the patience to put up with all the negatives I listed above. And I didn't even get into how in some disciplines (or sub-disciplines), journal publications are a racket (with both the publisher and academia being guilty parties). If I ever did anything interesting and novel enough, I'd likely write it up in a blog post or at most post to arxiv. I really don't want to participate in the current journal publishing culture. But of course, kudos to the person in this submission!

analog31 6y ago
In my view, a broader statement -- not necessarily a counterpoint -- is that the grad school experience is highly variable. For instance my own experience was quite positive. >>> 1. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own. You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and there is often room for compromise. This is a conversation that happens before joining their group. There are some benefits to starting with at least a suggested project. In my case, such a project idea came with a fully equipped lab including a quarter million 1986 dollars worth of gear. But my unique interests and abilities definitely steered my project in a direction that my advisor had not originally imagined when I started out. In the humanities, where the cost of research is close to zero, you might have more latitude, again depending on how you choose your advisor. I have a friend who literally created her own project and pitched it to a couple of departments who agreed to let her pursue a dual discipline PhD in education and psychology. She was 60. >>> Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic advisor who cares more about you than their own careers. True at any age. I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. They have their own grips about the system, but every system has a system. I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was really ready to go out the door. Granted that's something I would also have learned the hard way, had I started a start-up, but that was just not on my radar as a physics student in the 1980s for whatever reason.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > For instance my own experience was quite positive. As was mine, despite not completing it. However, I don't think I'd want to deal with the negatives at an older age.[1] To put it another way, if you're older and want admission to grad school so you can learn a lot, and are not too particular about actually completing the PhD, then you probably will enjoy the experience and can ignore my previous comment. Also, if you have the resources, a second BS or MS can be fun. I knew at least two students who were in their 60's pursuing a second BS (one of them was pursuing both a BS in math and physics, with little background in them). They both enjoyed the experience and were quite content. However, a PhD is quite different from that. > You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and there is often room for compromise. If you've had prior research experience, this advice may work. If you haven't, then you will likely be wrong about whether a particular professor's research program appeals to you - and you may not realize this until you've been in the program for a few years. > I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. Having spent time at both a mediocre and a top school, what you describe was more in line with what I saw at the mediocre school, and not at all like the top school. Most of the professors in the engineering departments were always trying to climb the rung, and competing with everyone to do it. Things got very petty. My advisor, who was already a Fellow of 3 large professional bodies (IEEE, physics (AIP? I forget), etc), was still quite competitive, extremely protective of his research, upset if a paper got rejected and would try hard to find out who the referees were, etc. I remember wondering why he was so invested in all of this. He was fairly old, had achieved a lot, and what more could he achieve?[2] He was not an outlier there. Even the more laid back professors would eventually exhibit some of this behavior because not doing so would demean them in the eyes of their peers (and yes, one of the benefits of academia and tenure is supposed to be that you're relatively immune from this, and yet...). Now at the mediocre university, it was more like you described. In fact, not many professors even had PhD students. There it was more about the research and not the career. And yet, in my last few visits to the department (again, engineering), the professors told me that even there the culture was shifting to being more career focused. The pressure to get funding was much more, etc. The common sentiment from people who had joined the department in the 80's through the 90's was "The level of work I had to do to get tenure (number of papers, funding, etc) will not get anyone tenure now in this department." I see you were in physics, and the experience there can be different. In some universities it is less funding driven than in engineering, and there probably are fewer rungs to climb (or perhaps they don't value those rungs as much). In the top university I went to, the physics department was actually in the college of engineering, so the pressure for funding, publishing, etc was similar to engineering. > I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was really ready to go out the door. For me, a lot of the problem was that I sincerely doubt anyone will ever find a way to test my results. Unfortunately, a lot of theoretical/computational engineering/physics is that way. Did I really want to become an expert in something that no one will ever prove/disprove? It wasn't just my research, but much of my discipline, and a lot of why papers would get accepted/rejected had to do with groupthink.[3] It really felt like I was doing literature where subjective opinion matters so much. I remember asking some of my peers if they even believed their research, and for many it was a strange question: They were in the business of publishing papers and getting research/academic jobs, not seeking the truth. If it's publishable, it's good! Ultimately, I picked the wrong area to do research in. Also, one of my undergrad professors told me it was a hot, young discipline. He was right in some ways but was mostly wrong. It was very mature by the time I entered grad school, and that usually means a lot more time (years) studying to get to the state of art before you can make a meaningful contribution. As a general rule, I tell people going for PhDs to find a discipline that is not mature - it'll be easier to make meaningful contributions that way. [1] Arguably, I probably did not want to put up with it at my younger age, and it probably contributed to my decision to quit, but it would have been one of the minor factors in that decision. [2] And several years later, I know - there were lots more rungs on that ladder. There always are, until you become a president of a university or the head of the NSF or something. [3] Yes - they did care about your formalism, techniques, novelty of ideas, etc. But there were far too many subjective ways to reject a paper as not being interesting enough to be published in this journal, etc.

tasogare 6y ago

This hit very close to home, especially point 1. I was told recently that something was not my research topic but someone’s else in the lab despite having written about in my application for the lab and the other guy switching to that very recently. The main issue is power imbalance. I need my advisors signature graduate so I have to accept more abuse than I would otherwise. This lead to a loss-loss situation were I’m particularly dissatisfied and put more energy on my side projects and papers than on thing I’m told to do.