5 ms·

I feel for the student writing this piece and I'm sad that they've developed some bitterness at their advisors and the entire field (which I read in the piece,

I feel for the student writing this piece and I'm sad that they've developed some bitterness at their advisors and the entire field (which I read in the piece, even if it wasn't the intent.) Everyone needs to understand something important: a PhD is first and foremost an apprenticeship. It is your opportunity to study under someone who has done a specific kind of research, and learn from that person. If that relationship isn't a good fit, the PhD itself won't be a good fit: it's like trying to learn neurosurgery from a cardiac surgeon. You cannot fix this with reading or online lectures, the apprenticeship is the whole point. Occasionally I run into students who have these advisor mismatches and my instinct is to try to help them. However what I've learned is that good intentions (try to advise a student who is interested in a different area) don't actually translate to good outcomes. I am monomaniacal (only) about the research that interests me, and that doesn't translate into other areas I'm less familiar with. They will be frustrated with my lack of expertise in those other areas, and I will end up frustrated by my inability to properly advise them. In the worst case, that bad fit can turn to resentment against the entire scientific process (I see this process starting in the post above.) If the author of the post wants to pursue a PhD, I would first urge them to stop for a while and not think about research: just do something else. When and if they've reached the point where they are bored to tears with whatever they're doing (I recommend taking a "real" job for a while) -- and can only think about the research they're missing out on -- then go figure out whose papers are actually exciting to them. Then go find out how to work with that person, whatever it takes. Sometimes there are ways to work with someone that don't require a formal PhD admission, and enough persistence can make the difference. I'm not saying this is easy. The point is: don't do it because it's easy, do it because you want to do it enough that it doesn't matter if it's hard.

stanford_labrat 4y ago
I’m starting my PhD this fall and the prospect of an advisor mismatch terrifies me (having seen this first hand). Thankfully my program has 2 or 3 faculty who align well based off of my interviews but you never know…
- enchiridion 4y ago
  Don’t be terrified, just keep pushing. That’s what separates those who finish from those who don’t. I say this as someone who nearly did not finish a PhD and had terrible mismatch with my advisor. If you have a mismatch with your advisor, I have three pieces of unsolicited advice. 1. Find the community of your research topic early and get involved. Partially due to covid there are now many ~weekly seminars that meet online and post recordings on YouTube. They tend to be welcoming, and getting to know the people drives home the idea of “if they can do it so can I” 2. Pick a problem with extremely clear benchmarks. If you exceed the benchmarks, then congrats on your state of the art work! If not, write about the good parts and explain why the bad parts exist. 3. Write about your topic early and often. You don’t have to publish it necessarily, but writing has a clarifying effect acknowledged by every PhD student I know. Stay positive and remember to take care of yourself! Good luck!
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Pick your advisor before you accept the PhD position.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    I'm actually very surprised by many of the posts here. I know that in the humanities advisors are often picked which are only partly related to the research question. But I would have expected to find many more natural science/engineering PhD here. In those areas picking an advisor is directly linked to picking a topic, i.e. you pick the advisor because you want to work in his area of expertise.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Right - you should apply to an advisor and compromise on the university, not apply to a university and compromise on the advisor.
tombert 4y ago
I don't know how they do it in the US, but something I like about the British way of doing PhDs (at least University of York) is that they require you to write a 5-6 page proposal for your project. The proposal needs to be at least a little well-researched, with citations and needs to show a minimal level of competence in the subject that you want to study. I think this is a good idea because it really forces you to consider if you actually enjoy the subject. You work alongside the professors to tailor the proposal, and you'll find out pretty quickly if you hate the subject or not, and if you decide you do hate the subject, at least you didn't waste multiple years (and potentially thousands of pounds) trying to pursue it.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  In the US we have a thesis proposal as well. However something I've learned is that no five-page document, no matter how well considered, can ever determine the optimal strategy for how to spend a 4-5 year slice of your research life. The whole point of research is to learn new things: new things sometimes imply changing direction.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    In the US doesn’t the thesis proposal come after you’ve already sunk several years? In the UK you do it as part of your application.
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      Holding someone to a (US-style) thesis proposal is hard enough when they're already familiar with the area and have a couple of years of direct research experience under their belt. Doing it even earlier in the process sounds much harder.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > Doing it even earlier in the process sounds much harder. Right - which is why it's a better check before they embark on a PhD.
dizzant 4y ago
Thanks for this perspective. I am one of these mismatched PhD students. When I entered 6 years ago, no professors in my department had time to advise me. The professor for whom I was a GTA took pity on me after two years of rejection, and now serves as my committee chair despite having little to no expertise in my field. I am coadvised through a different department, but again, my coadvisor has little overlap with my interests. I am nearing completion, but stumbling over the lack of support, technical leadership, and community of practice. I am unconvinced that my proposed dissertation is meritorious or valuable in any way, but the only advise my advisors can give is “persist and finish quickly” because I am more expert than both of them. Defending feels like a gamble. The bitterness that comes from poor-fit advising is real, even when both advisors are earnestly doing their best. I wish I had learned this lesson sooner and quit with a master’s when I had the chance.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  You can still quit. And, at least I would recommend you doing it. I have yet to do the jump to industry, but from what I'm hearing so far: There is little to no value assigned to the _paper_. And, at least in my view, this is exactly as it should be. There are two and only two situations [0]: 1) The company requires your specific expertise and won't care about the title as you are the one with the knowledge 2) The company does not require your specific expertise at which point they care about the PhD as a marker of "can do stuff autonomously", which has nothing to do with the title. On the other hand: (that is an assumption that may be wrong) You are miserable! That is time and joy that you won't get back. Academia will not be thankful for your sacrifice! And besides: I highly doubt that you would have to work for less pay if you quit. [0] well there is a third one: Someone wants someone with a title for title slides and reports. But I _really_ don't want to work for these people, so I'm discarding it.
  - treesknees 4y ago
    There are some programs where you can earn a Doctorate without a Master's degree. Sometimes the program will combine both into one curriculum. In these cases, it's not possible to just quit and still have a Master's. You will have a Bachelor's and a bunch of debt. Perhaps they could work with an academic advisor to apply those credits taken to a Master's, maybe fill in the gaps and be done with it.
hnaccount_rng 4y ago
Thanks for this response. This is exactly how I approached my PhD: I was in a group where I liked the _people_ and where I both enjoyed working with them, but also - crucially - was thinking that they could teach me something. The actual topic of my work a) shifted significantly [0], b) was barely relevant for my decision and c), while highly fascinating, very unlikely to be ever relevant, even if all stars align just the right way. If you do not like your advisor [1] or even worse if you do not have confidence in at least scientific integrity: Then you should absolutely run and quit. You won't be happy. Ever. That doesn't mean you are not "fit for science" or either of you or your advisor is a "bad scientist". Just that the two particular persons don't (and won't) work out. At least here in Germany it's also not a particularly hard decision [2]: You (quite easily) double your salary, while also (at least normally) significantly reducing your workload. But this assumes that you do the PhD because you "want it" and not because of the title. But then again: I would very much discourage anyone doing a PhD for the title. So maybe I'm not the best person to ask [0] up to the point where _after_ having written up my thesis I rediscovered the "outline" of the work that we send to the foundation and the faculty. Of which precisely _nothing_ was in my actual thesis. [1] This is not necessarily your official supervisor, as in the person that is taking you on and giving you your title. Given a large enough group size (and I very much would put that number at anything beyond 3 students) but the person you interact with daily (or at least weekly). [2] At least from the vantage of someone who _hasn't_ taken that one. FWIW
lumost 4y ago
It seems like the PhD admission process is mismatched with the goal of admission. Phd students are recruited based on application rather than research interest. A candidate can easily go to an are which they have zero interest in. Why not match students with professors pre admission? Phd from mit doesn’t mean much if you can’t work in your chosen field.
SMAAART 4y ago
This is a fresh perspective, and a DUH moment for me. I know quite a few PhD(s) and researchers, and a few PhD programs dropout. My takeaway up until now was "PhD = politics", but now I see that I was looking at it all wrong, I was looking under the wrong lens of pick_a_school->get_an_advisor. The reverse is true, when the student is read, the master will appear; the place comes with the advisor (not the other way around).
temp_anne_12345 4y ago
"It is your opportunity to study under someone who has done a specific kind of research, and learn from that person. " That is what is it supposed to be, but I must interject that for many, myself included, the advisor is effectively absent. In a lab without postdocs or other students what I personally ended up with is an apprenticeship in learning from myself. If you are seeing your advisor more than once or twice a year, and or if there are other people in your lab to discuss your work with then you are doing your PhD in easy mode.

stanford_labrat 4y ago

I’m starting my PhD this fall and the prospect of an advisor mismatch terrifies me (having seen this first hand). Thankfully my program has 2 or 3 faculty who align well based off of my interviews but you never know…

enchiridion 4y ago
Don’t be terrified, just keep pushing. That’s what separates those who finish from those who don’t. I say this as someone who nearly did not finish a PhD and had terrible mismatch with my advisor. If you have a mismatch with your advisor, I have three pieces of unsolicited advice. 1. Find the community of your research topic early and get involved. Partially due to covid there are now many ~weekly seminars that meet online and post recordings on YouTube. They tend to be welcoming, and getting to know the people drives home the idea of “if they can do it so can I” 2. Pick a problem with extremely clear benchmarks. If you exceed the benchmarks, then congrats on your state of the art work! If not, write about the good parts and explain why the bad parts exist. 3. Write about your topic early and often. You don’t have to publish it necessarily, but writing has a clarifying effect acknowledged by every PhD student I know. Stay positive and remember to take care of yourself! Good luck!
chrisseaton 4y ago
Pick your advisor before you accept the PhD position.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I'm actually very surprised by many of the posts here. I know that in the humanities advisors are often picked which are only partly related to the research question. But I would have expected to find many more natural science/engineering PhD here. In those areas picking an advisor is directly linked to picking a topic, i.e. you pick the advisor because you want to work in his area of expertise.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Right - you should apply to an advisor and compromise on the university, not apply to a university and compromise on the advisor.

tombert 4y ago

I don't know how they do it in the US, but something I like about the British way of doing PhDs (at least University of York) is that they require you to write a 5-6 page proposal for your project. The proposal needs to be at least a little well-researched, with citations and needs to show a minimal level of competence in the subject that you want to study. I think this is a good idea because it really forces you to consider if you actually enjoy the subject. You work alongside the professors to tailor the proposal, and you'll find out pretty quickly if you hate the subject or not, and if you decide you do hate the subject, at least you didn't waste multiple years (and potentially thousands of pounds) trying to pursue it.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
In the US we have a thesis proposal as well. However something I've learned is that no five-page document, no matter how well considered, can ever determine the optimal strategy for how to spend a 4-5 year slice of your research life. The whole point of research is to learn new things: new things sometimes imply changing direction.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  In the US doesn’t the thesis proposal come after you’ve already sunk several years? In the UK you do it as part of your application.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Holding someone to a (US-style) thesis proposal is hard enough when they're already familiar with the area and have a couple of years of direct research experience under their belt. Doing it even earlier in the process sounds much harder.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Doing it even earlier in the process sounds much harder. Right - which is why it's a better check before they embark on a PhD.

dizzant 4y ago

Thanks for this perspective. I am one of these mismatched PhD students. When I entered 6 years ago, no professors in my department had time to advise me. The professor for whom I was a GTA took pity on me after two years of rejection, and now serves as my committee chair despite having little to no expertise in my field. I am coadvised through a different department, but again, my coadvisor has little overlap with my interests. I am nearing completion, but stumbling over the lack of support, technical leadership, and community of practice. I am unconvinced that my proposed dissertation is meritorious or valuable in any way, but the only advise my advisors can give is “persist and finish quickly” because I am more expert than both of them. Defending feels like a gamble. The bitterness that comes from poor-fit advising is real, even when both advisors are earnestly doing their best. I wish I had learned this lesson sooner and quit with a master’s when I had the chance.

hnaccount_rng 4y ago
You can still quit. And, at least I would recommend you doing it. I have yet to do the jump to industry, but from what I'm hearing so far: There is little to no value assigned to the _paper_. And, at least in my view, this is exactly as it should be. There are two and only two situations [0]: 1) The company requires your specific expertise and won't care about the title as you are the one with the knowledge 2) The company does not require your specific expertise at which point they care about the PhD as a marker of "can do stuff autonomously", which has nothing to do with the title. On the other hand: (that is an assumption that may be wrong) You are miserable! That is time and joy that you won't get back. Academia will not be thankful for your sacrifice! And besides: I highly doubt that you would have to work for less pay if you quit. [0] well there is a third one: Someone wants someone with a title for title slides and reports. But I _really_ don't want to work for these people, so I'm discarding it.
- treesknees 4y ago
  There are some programs where you can earn a Doctorate without a Master's degree. Sometimes the program will combine both into one curriculum. In these cases, it's not possible to just quit and still have a Master's. You will have a Bachelor's and a bunch of debt. Perhaps they could work with an academic advisor to apply those credits taken to a Master's, maybe fill in the gaps and be done with it.

hnaccount_rng 4y ago

Thanks for this response. This is exactly how I approached my PhD: I was in a group where I liked the _people_ and where I both enjoyed working with them, but also - crucially - was thinking that they could teach me something. The actual topic of my work a) shifted significantly [0], b) was barely relevant for my decision and c), while highly fascinating, very unlikely to be ever relevant, even if all stars align just the right way. If you do not like your advisor [1] or even worse if you do not have confidence in at least scientific integrity: Then you should absolutely run and quit. You won't be happy. Ever. That doesn't mean you are not "fit for science" or either of you or your advisor is a "bad scientist". Just that the two particular persons don't (and won't) work out. At least here in Germany it's also not a particularly hard decision [2]: You (quite easily) double your salary, while also (at least normally) significantly reducing your workload. But this assumes that you do the PhD because you "want it" and not because of the title. But then again: I would very much discourage anyone doing a PhD for the title. So maybe I'm not the best person to ask [0] up to the point where _after_ having written up my thesis I rediscovered the "outline" of the work that we send to the foundation and the faculty. Of which precisely _nothing_ was in my actual thesis. [1] This is not necessarily your official supervisor, as in the person that is taking you on and giving you your title. Given a large enough group size (and I very much would put that number at anything beyond 3 students) but the person you interact with daily (or at least weekly). [2] At least from the vantage of someone who _hasn't_ taken that one. FWIW

lumost 4y ago

It seems like the PhD admission process is mismatched with the goal of admission. Phd students are recruited based on application rather than research interest. A candidate can easily go to an are which they have zero interest in. Why not match students with professors pre admission? Phd from mit doesn’t mean much if you can’t work in your chosen field.

SMAAART 4y ago

This is a fresh perspective, and a DUH moment for me. I know quite a few PhD(s) and researchers, and a few PhD programs dropout. My takeaway up until now was "PhD = politics", but now I see that I was looking at it all wrong, I was looking under the wrong lens of pick_a_school->get_an_advisor. The reverse is true, when the student is read, the master will appear; the place comes with the advisor (not the other way around).

temp_anne_12345 4y ago

"It is your opportunity to study under someone who has done a specific kind of research, and learn from that person. " That is what is it supposed to be, but I must interject that for many, myself included, the advisor is effectively absent. In a lab without postdocs or other students what I personally ended up with is an apprenticeship in learning from myself. If you are seeing your advisor more than once or twice a year, and or if there are other people in your lab to discuss your work with then you are doing your PhD in easy mode.