3 ms·

> A good phd fundamentally transforms who you are as a person. Huh? I've heard this a lot and I just don't see it. What is supposed to happen to you? I got on

> A good phd fundamentally transforms who you are as a person. Huh? I've heard this a lot and I just don't see it. What is supposed to happen to you? I got one in math, published my 3 papers like they wanted, and that was it. I don't think I changed me one bit, other than not enjoying education/academia anymore.

ncmncm 5y ago
Maybe what they mean is that if it didn't transform you, you did it wrong.
- erdos4d 5y ago
  I see. How was I supposed to "do it right"?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Dunno, haven't got one myself.
ramraj07 5y ago
I’d argue that you didn’t do a good PhD then? Even it’s original intent was to be an understudy and learn how to do research and create new knowledge. This changes slightly between fields but my take away is that a good PhD teaches you to find, and respect your boundaries, while constantly trying to push it. It teaches you to plan years ahead and work towards goals that are simultaneously abstract but large as well, with concrete practical steps. It should make “learning” second nature to you, where you don’t need courses or classes any more: you learn whatever you need to accomplish the project at hand. If you’re able to do all of those things even before a PhD then I suppose you’re born gifted. Also it should never be about just the fucking papers. Either you get them or you don’t who cares. Not me at least.
- erdos4d 5y ago
  I get what you are saying, I just thought all of those things were either present or absent in a person way before going to university even, let alone getting a PhD. If you are not a self learner, I don't see how you can even excel in university in the first place, at least not in a heavily technical subject. No professor is really going to explain how any of that stuff works, if anything they are going to keep it vague and try to weed you out. You have to be able to read texts and make sense of it on your own, maybe with the occasional question to your prof for a detail or two, but if you cannot do 98% of the learning, you are toast. At least in math which I did, there is no way a person can lean on faculty for their knowledge, it really is up to you.
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    You’re either talking from a place where you’re taking every skill for granted or have no clue at all. I didn’t say anyone will spoon feed how to learn, you just have to figure it out yourself. But the PhD is precisely the time to do that, with occasional nudging from your mentor. I didn’t even have a great mentor and he still spent hours advising me on what I need to improve. If you didn’t get anything like that from your mentors I feel sorry for you. Unless you’re working next to Terrance Tao, I.e., at the top of whatever game you’re supposed to be in, you clearly haven’t pushed yourself to be better. Of course that’s a choice to begin with if you want to even do it. But given that you do, a PhD should have been the time when you got better at everything no matter where you started. If you already started with amazing skills then you should have become world class at it by now. If you did a good PhD that is. In your case, if the 3 papers you published were “pedestrian” by your standards, you and your mentors should both have pushed for more ambitious stuff.

ncmncm 5y ago

Maybe what they mean is that if it didn't transform you, you did it wrong.

erdos4d 5y ago
I see. How was I supposed to "do it right"?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Dunno, haven't got one myself.

ramraj07 5y ago

I’d argue that you didn’t do a good PhD then? Even it’s original intent was to be an understudy and learn how to do research and create new knowledge. This changes slightly between fields but my take away is that a good PhD teaches you to find, and respect your boundaries, while constantly trying to push it. It teaches you to plan years ahead and work towards goals that are simultaneously abstract but large as well, with concrete practical steps. It should make “learning” second nature to you, where you don’t need courses or classes any more: you learn whatever you need to accomplish the project at hand. If you’re able to do all of those things even before a PhD then I suppose you’re born gifted. Also it should never be about just the fucking papers. Either you get them or you don’t who cares. Not me at least.

erdos4d 5y ago
I get what you are saying, I just thought all of those things were either present or absent in a person way before going to university even, let alone getting a PhD. If you are not a self learner, I don't see how you can even excel in university in the first place, at least not in a heavily technical subject. No professor is really going to explain how any of that stuff works, if anything they are going to keep it vague and try to weed you out. You have to be able to read texts and make sense of it on your own, maybe with the occasional question to your prof for a detail or two, but if you cannot do 98% of the learning, you are toast. At least in math which I did, there is no way a person can lean on faculty for their knowledge, it really is up to you.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  You’re either talking from a place where you’re taking every skill for granted or have no clue at all. I didn’t say anyone will spoon feed how to learn, you just have to figure it out yourself. But the PhD is precisely the time to do that, with occasional nudging from your mentor. I didn’t even have a great mentor and he still spent hours advising me on what I need to improve. If you didn’t get anything like that from your mentors I feel sorry for you. Unless you’re working next to Terrance Tao, I.e., at the top of whatever game you’re supposed to be in, you clearly haven’t pushed yourself to be better. Of course that’s a choice to begin with if you want to even do it. But given that you do, a PhD should have been the time when you got better at everything no matter where you started. If you already started with amazing skills then you should have become world class at it by now. If you did a good PhD that is. In your case, if the 3 papers you published were “pedestrian” by your standards, you and your mentors should both have pushed for more ambitious stuff.