5 ms·

This article hits close to home. I was a very late-term dropout from a doctoral program in a hard science. I had neither the good sense to quit early on, nor

This article hits close to home. I was a very late-term dropout from a doctoral program in a hard science. I had neither the good sense to quit early on, nor the mental fortitude to complete my dissertation and ended up wasting years of my life in the process. Among my many regrets, I wish there had been a professor who could have been honest with me about my ability to succeed as well as the consequences of failure. Unfortunately, by the very fact that they were professors, they had never experienced anything like the misery that I did. I did miraculously salvage my science career, but any time I get the chance, I strongly discourage anyone from pursuing a graduate degree in my field.

chrismcb 5y ago
Why do you discourage ANYONE? Surely it is great for some people? Why not urge caution? Let people know it isn't for everyone.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Because for most people going into a doctoral programme is a bad idea. If you do not come from money or have a spouse who can support you it's a terrible bet in terms of chances of success. Outside demand for PhDs is low in most fields. Most people who start a PhD don't graduate with one. They drop out. Substantial numbers of people who do get a PhD never even get a tenure track job. Getting a tenure track job often leads to looking for a new job after seven years, with the "rejected" sticker. Many fields are worse than that. They demand postdocs. Some people make the terrible mistake of thinking that adjuncting is a way of staying in the academy. It's not. If you are adjuncting full time you are extremely unlikely to ever get a real academic job, as a lecturer or professor. Get out. Getting a PhD is fine if you are in a field with great outside options, like Economics, CS, Math etc. but it's consumption, not an investment in future earnings. Outside top programmes the likelihood of becoming an academic drops of f rapidly. A PhD is training to become an academic. It can also be necessary to get a job in some fields with huge oversupply of PhDs, like the sciences, but those jobs are badly paid too. If you really, really want to be an acedemic and you can get into a good programme go for it. No one else should go unless they don't need the degree to earn a living or the degree comes with the prospect of radically improving their lives by making immigration possible.
  - ackbar03 5y ago
    >Getting a tenure track job often leads to looking for a new job after seven years, with the "rejected" sticker. Could you elaborate on this one? I thought tenure professor is as stable as you can get in terms of a career
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      He's saying if you don't get tenure, not only have you spent years failing to achieve your goal but now you also carry a stigma with you as you try again.
    - dsq 5y ago
      It's tenure track, meaning that after seven years you either get tenure or you leave.
    - sampo 5y ago
      > Could you elaborate on this one? I thought tenure professor is as stable as you can get in terms of a career "Tenure track" doesn't mean tenure, it means on a track towards a possible tenure. People are hired to start their tenure track, and then during the next 6-7 years, they are evaluated, and in the end some of them are promoted to a tenure position. https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/what-is-tenure https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/what-is-tenure
  - dagw 5y ago
    Worth noting that most of this is a very US view of PhDs. In Europe most PhD students earn pretty close to what their starting salary fresh out of school would be. Also in Europe the concept that PhD means you want an academic career doesn't seem to be as true. I work with a lot of people who have PhDs and none of them did it because they wanted an academic career. In fact going back to get your PhD after working for a few years is surprisingly common, and in many cases your employer will partially sponsor that.
    - rscho 5y ago
      I agree. This a very US centric view and it's much better in Europe. But Europe is steering towards the US education model. A big loss, IMO.
- jraph 5y ago
  My PhD could have gone better, but I encourage everyone with the right mindset to try, telling them what to be careful about. I have plenty examples of successful PhDs around me. If you think you could be interested in a PhD and don't try, you might as well regret it for your whole life. If you try and it does not go well, you can quit.
wombatpm 5y ago
I was going to write a similar story. I often share my story with high school students so that they understand it is ok to fail and not have all of the answers.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  "It is ok to fail". That's a survivor's point of view... I'd prefer if you'd spell it like "it's ok to not have the luck I had, there are other ways". (which is the point of the article I guess). But when you're the survivor, please, be very careful about the words you use. You are on the winning side of a very unfair lottery.
  - ndr 5y ago
    This reply seems to be replying to a "survivor" but the parent doesn't seem one. It's actually replying to a non-survivor who "failed" in parent's own words, or "did not have luck" in yours. Is it any more ok to talk this way for non-survivors?
    - martincmartin 5y ago
      I take it as -- using the word "fail" to mean you don't finish your Ph.D. is the word a survivor (say, professor) would use. Even though grandparent didn't survive in academia, they're still using the terminology associated with that. Namely, that not becoming a professor is somehow failing.
inter_netuser 5y ago
mental fortitude in what sense? insight ability or toughness?
misnome 5y ago
I succeeded in my (UK, funded) physics doctoral program, but nobody else who started in my department the same year did, even if they seemed to be very capable and intelligent individuals. I think one or two managed to convert their progress into MPhil degrees. I think the absolute biggest factor was supervisor - mine was new, very supportive, and pushed for my work to be relevant. Theirs seemed to mostly use them as cheap engineering labour, and they seemed to spend the majority of their time polishing optical fiber and binning LEDs. Those that I am still in contact with also managed to get a career in science - this was probably helped a little by the fact they had spent time doing their doctoral program, but I'm sure that while it wasn't a complete waste I don't think the time was entirely necessary either. I wouldn't go quite so far as "strongly discourage", but it's certainly a decision not to take lightly and you should go into with your eyes open. Also, from what I've seen, experimental Physics is pretty low on the abuse scale compared to some of the other sciences, so suspect general experience is _very_ sensitive to the particular field you are interested in.
- reallydontask 5y ago
  Interesting, I did a PhD in experimental physics in the UK and we only had two dropouts during my time. The group increased size from 8 students when I joined to about 25 when I officially finished (about 5.5 years later, long story) What's more interesting, to me at least, is that I was one of the very few that didn't continue down the academic science path. Though to be fair most have since left it and I think only 5 have stuck with it, but still an impressive amount of postdocs

chrismcb 5y ago

Why do you discourage ANYONE? Surely it is great for some people? Why not urge caution? Let people know it isn't for everyone.

barry-cotter 5y ago
Because for most people going into a doctoral programme is a bad idea. If you do not come from money or have a spouse who can support you it's a terrible bet in terms of chances of success. Outside demand for PhDs is low in most fields. Most people who start a PhD don't graduate with one. They drop out. Substantial numbers of people who do get a PhD never even get a tenure track job. Getting a tenure track job often leads to looking for a new job after seven years, with the "rejected" sticker. Many fields are worse than that. They demand postdocs. Some people make the terrible mistake of thinking that adjuncting is a way of staying in the academy. It's not. If you are adjuncting full time you are extremely unlikely to ever get a real academic job, as a lecturer or professor. Get out. Getting a PhD is fine if you are in a field with great outside options, like Economics, CS, Math etc. but it's consumption, not an investment in future earnings. Outside top programmes the likelihood of becoming an academic drops of f rapidly. A PhD is training to become an academic. It can also be necessary to get a job in some fields with huge oversupply of PhDs, like the sciences, but those jobs are badly paid too. If you really, really want to be an acedemic and you can get into a good programme go for it. No one else should go unless they don't need the degree to earn a living or the degree comes with the prospect of radically improving their lives by making immigration possible.
- ackbar03 5y ago
  >Getting a tenure track job often leads to looking for a new job after seven years, with the "rejected" sticker. Could you elaborate on this one? I thought tenure professor is as stable as you can get in terms of a career
  - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
    He's saying if you don't get tenure, not only have you spent years failing to achieve your goal but now you also carry a stigma with you as you try again.
  - dsq 5y ago
    It's tenure track, meaning that after seven years you either get tenure or you leave.
  - sampo 5y ago
    > Could you elaborate on this one? I thought tenure professor is as stable as you can get in terms of a career "Tenure track" doesn't mean tenure, it means on a track towards a possible tenure. People are hired to start their tenure track, and then during the next 6-7 years, they are evaluated, and in the end some of them are promoted to a tenure position. https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/what-is-tenure https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/what-is-tenure
- dagw 5y ago
  Worth noting that most of this is a very US view of PhDs. In Europe most PhD students earn pretty close to what their starting salary fresh out of school would be. Also in Europe the concept that PhD means you want an academic career doesn't seem to be as true. I work with a lot of people who have PhDs and none of them did it because they wanted an academic career. In fact going back to get your PhD after working for a few years is surprisingly common, and in many cases your employer will partially sponsor that.
  - rscho 5y ago
    I agree. This a very US centric view and it's much better in Europe. But Europe is steering towards the US education model. A big loss, IMO.
jraph 5y ago
My PhD could have gone better, but I encourage everyone with the right mindset to try, telling them what to be careful about. I have plenty examples of successful PhDs around me. If you think you could be interested in a PhD and don't try, you might as well regret it for your whole life. If you try and it does not go well, you can quit.

wombatpm 5y ago

I was going to write a similar story. I often share my story with high school students so that they understand it is ok to fail and not have all of the answers.

wiz21c 5y ago
"It is ok to fail". That's a survivor's point of view... I'd prefer if you'd spell it like "it's ok to not have the luck I had, there are other ways". (which is the point of the article I guess). But when you're the survivor, please, be very careful about the words you use. You are on the winning side of a very unfair lottery.
- ndr 5y ago
  This reply seems to be replying to a "survivor" but the parent doesn't seem one. It's actually replying to a non-survivor who "failed" in parent's own words, or "did not have luck" in yours. Is it any more ok to talk this way for non-survivors?
  - martincmartin 5y ago
    I take it as -- using the word "fail" to mean you don't finish your Ph.D. is the word a survivor (say, professor) would use. Even though grandparent didn't survive in academia, they're still using the terminology associated with that. Namely, that not becoming a professor is somehow failing.

inter_netuser 5y ago

mental fortitude in what sense? insight ability or toughness?

misnome 5y ago

I succeeded in my (UK, funded) physics doctoral program, but nobody else who started in my department the same year did, even if they seemed to be very capable and intelligent individuals. I think one or two managed to convert their progress into MPhil degrees. I think the absolute biggest factor was supervisor - mine was new, very supportive, and pushed for my work to be relevant. Theirs seemed to mostly use them as cheap engineering labour, and they seemed to spend the majority of their time polishing optical fiber and binning LEDs. Those that I am still in contact with also managed to get a career in science - this was probably helped a little by the fact they had spent time doing their doctoral program, but I'm sure that while it wasn't a complete waste I don't think the time was entirely necessary either. I wouldn't go quite so far as "strongly discourage", but it's certainly a decision not to take lightly and you should go into with your eyes open. Also, from what I've seen, experimental Physics is pretty low on the abuse scale compared to some of the other sciences, so suspect general experience is _very_ sensitive to the particular field you are interested in.

reallydontask 5y ago
Interesting, I did a PhD in experimental physics in the UK and we only had two dropouts during my time. The group increased size from 8 students when I joined to about 25 when I officially finished (about 5.5 years later, long story) What's more interesting, to me at least, is that I was one of the very few that didn't continue down the academic science path. Though to be fair most have since left it and I think only 5 have stuck with it, but still an impressive amount of postdocs