5 ms·

You really shouldn't start a PhD without doing the PhD simulator first [0]. Sadly, people who haven't yet been through the PhD experience think that this game i

by lqet 2y ago

You really shouldn't start a PhD without doing the PhD simulator first [0]. Sadly, people who haven't yet been through the PhD experience think that this game is exaggerating for comic effect. It really isn't. [0] https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html https://research.wmz.ninja/projects/phd/index.html

senkora 2y ago
Discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597534
SubiculumCode 2y ago
its more amusing than accurate, IMO
- lamename 2y ago
  In all seriousness, I think you're lucky then. (I can only speak for my experience and those of my peers in my field, at the end of the day)
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    I agree, but my estimate 90% of my peers' PhDs (including mine) were essentially 3 years of work on an idea that did not work, or trying and failing to find an idea that did work. Then writing up your work as if it was great. The 10% of "successful" PhDs were on ideas that were almost guaranteed to work - more development than research. This was in a proper hard engineering field though. I think in other fields can be much more likely to be things that can't really fail. For example in computer science, a lot of PhDs are just like "I implemented this thing" where there's very little risk of it simply not working. An exception in computing is AI research where it is very much like the "try some stuff; it didn't work" experience of engineering and science research. I imagine a PhD in AI is not a fun experience...
    - XorNot 2y ago
      In hindsight it should've been a huge red flag to me when the only "what's it like to do a Ph. D" students at the induction were comp. sci. My advice to most people would just be "don't". My second run of advice would be "find the most boring project imaginable" since it's likely to succeed on the basis of "do a bunch of fairly predictable experiments and publish them".
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  I liked the aspect of it where you get an idea, and then work on it to get a result, and then a major result, supporting figures etc.; and while this rigidity in finishing the ideas one starts may not be optimal there's at least an element of it which could motivate people to finish things first, before moving on. I think this is often useful. Maybe it's obvious, but it can be very tempting to develop ideas, or develop new shiny results, when you still have other ideas that haven't yet been turned into definite packages of well-supported results.
Johnbot 2y ago
Wow, I lasted exactly as long in the simulator as I did in real life, with many of the exact same circumstances (less a global pandemic and family tragedy plunging the hope meter into the negatives).
- Loughla 2y ago
  Thought about going back?
hi_dang_ 2y ago
5 years and 2 months. I assume this is about average?
- goosedragons 2y ago
  In real life? In North America it depends. For some programs it is. For Europe? I think they more reasonably kick everyone out the door in 3 years.
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    In the UK it’s 4 years but you stop getting paid after 3 and a half.
    - Staple_Diet 2y ago
      Australia too. But difference is you at least get paid (albeit a small stipend) in our countries, I think US the student pays tuition or has to also undertake seminars etc. My doctorate was essentially; run studies for 2-3yrs, write up papers for submission, smash them together with an intro and general discussion, graduate.
      - bowsamic 2y ago
        Same, basically. In fact, in the UK the requirements were low enough that after my first paper published a year into my PhD (in theoretical quantum physics) my supervisor was like: "I consider this enough for graduation, now you can work on whatever you are interested in"
    - bowsamic 2y ago
      Why did I get downvoted for this?? This website is absurd
  - lqet 2y ago
    I know someone who was in a PhD program for 10 years in Europe, without graduating. After year 6, it got very difficult for the university to legally employ him, and after year 9, it was simply impossible and he lived on his savings, but was still allowed to use his old office.
noman-land 2y ago
That was fun. I earned my PhD in 5 years 11 months. Got so engrossed I didn't even notice the hope meter but finished with a 56. That seems like a long time but I also enjoyed reading all those papers.
gwervc 2y ago
That's the most realistic simulator I ever play; and that's not a good thing.
jakderrida 2y ago
I got it in 6 years and seven months and got filthy rich on PhD coin. Bear in mind, I think not being a PhD actually made the game MUCH easier for me because I had no empathy for the character and approached it as semi-predictable inputs and outputs.
- klyrs 2y ago
  > I had no empathy for the character and approached it as semi-predictable inputs and outputs. I dunno about the "filthy rich" outcome but this strategy is actually fairly common.
Swizec 2y ago
Thanks for sharing this game! It showed me exactly what I'm doing wrong with my current book project (~2.5 years so far). The winning move is to mine for an idea, then just do that idea and nothing else until you get a paper or reject the idea. Rest when tired. Got my [simulated] PhD in 5y 4mo with 99/100 hope left by following that algorithm. Perfect teachable moment. Thanks
s0rce 2y ago
Neat, my personal experience was that there were way more opportunities to submit conference abstracts and you needed little more than an idea, you can figure out the actual presentation by the time the conference actually happens. You also can get rejected a lot more times before you get accepted, if you submit to high impact journals.
- ghaff 2y ago
  For non-research related stuff, that's always my approach :-) My general flow seems to be: genesis of idea, proposal, acceptance, panic, coalescence, creation, (usually) decent delivery.
noworld 2y ago
I beat it in one click.
- hoseja 2y ago
  The only winning move.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Took me 7 years to earn my PhD, but I did publish 4 papers (ex conference papers) instead of 2 :)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paulsutter 2y ago
Desert Bus is slightly more realistic
hodgesrm 2y ago
> You really shouldn't start a PhD without doing the PhD simulator first. Or without seeing what Matt Groening thinks of your plan. (Just in case the Ph.D. simulator was not enough to scare you off.) https://www.pinterest.com/pin/grad-school-so-glad-i-am-done--245938829621087897/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/grad-school-so-glad-i-am-done-...
wenc 2y ago
That simulator hits home. The discouragement and anguish was real. I finished my Ph.D. in 6 years rather than the usual 4 1/2 because ideas just didn't work out. My topic was much harder than those of my peers. That said, I felt the 2 extra years I spent made me a much more solid researcher in my narrow field, because I spent more time learning and relearning the foundations of my craft. I relate to what Winston Churchill said about being a dunce at school (who later become a incomparable wartime orator distinguished by his use of simple English): "By being so long in the lowest form I gained an immense advantage over the cleverer boys... I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence–which is a noble thing. Naturally I am biased in favor of boys learning English; I would make them all learn English: and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honor, and Greek as a treat."
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  During my PhD I realized the longer you can extend it, the better (if you intend to stay in academia). If you do 6 years, you'll have the experience of someone who has already done one post doc, but you'll have easier time applying for grants since you're judged as a fresh PhD (possibly with a CV much better than the other applicants due to your extra time).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ykonstant 2y ago
    My adviser insisted that I extended it as much as I could, but I didn't listen to him :(
trostaft 2y ago
Well, I probably should not have played this, given that I'm (seemingly) in my last year of my PhD. Back to paper writing...
- lqet 2y ago
  Don't worry, I was in the last year of my PhD for 3 years.
lulzury 2y ago
If you want a non-simulated memoir of someone's PhD, I highly recommend reading "The PhD Grind" by Philip Guo.. [0] I read it in my last year of college. It was a page turner, and helped me think about whether I wanted to do a PhD. [0] https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g8mc1lniyf26opxtrqgna/pguo-PhD-grind.pdf?rlkey=mmj1sryb14hl8o4k9offkyj6u&e=1&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g8mc1lniyf26opxtrqgna/pguo-Ph...
tintedfireglass 2y ago
The first try I failed after 7 years while the second time I finished it in 5y4m with 99 hope. Hmm interesting
silverlake 2y ago
Many CS PhDs work on a small piece of a larger funded project. You work normal hours, read papers in the evening, take Sunday off. It’s not a big deal. So many naive students think they are going to solve AGI. No, you’ll publish an insignificant twist on a loss function and get a job.
cashsterling 2y ago
The simulator didn't really mirror my experience but I do think folks should think twice about going to grad school. Economically, it is often not the best decision... plus you spend the best years of your life with less personal freedom (or financial ability) for long vacations/adventures, etc. Going to grad school was the wrong economic decision for me... and perhaps the wrong 'life' decision as well.
- parpfish 2y ago
  i think this depends on what the alternative career/job would be compared to grad school. if you had the option of getting into a well-payed, cushy tech job grad school would result in less personal/financial freedom. if (like me) you didn't have that option out of undergrad, grad school was comparatively a period of great freedom. * i made enough on research/TA stipends that i lived a slightly-fancier-than-my-undergrad lifestyle that wasn't too far behind what my classmates that became teachers were living. * TONS of freedom with respect to how I wanted to work and having full control of my schedule I feel like grad school gave me a pretty idealistic way to spend my mid 20s. And (luckily) in that time I was able to develop enough skills that I could jump into one of those high-paying, cushy tech jobs when it came time to realize that academica sucks and I wanted to leave.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >i think this depends on what the alternative career/job would be compared to grad school. This, the economy was shit when I graduated, I wasn't interested in a phd, but strongly considered getting a masters, and would have likely been financially better off had I stayed in school those extra two years instead of graduating into a horrible job market and losing that fresh graduate advantage when applying for jobs once it finally got moving again. In retrospect, I would have much rather lived a college lifestyle and did research/ta type stuff instead of doing the tech support type jobs I ended up with to make ends meet.
admissionsguy 2y ago
Seems accurate. I had 1 conference paper after 1 year, same as during my actual PhD. The expiration of the initial enthusiasm modifier was brutal indeed. I dropped out at that point, but there is no such option in the simulator (perhaps it shows up only once the hope drops low enough)? My big issue with the PhD is that it was designed to treat me as an employee in exchange for an annual salary equal to 1-2 months worth of earnings as a software freelancer. But the work was interesting. So I wondered why not be an amateur researcher instead.. Of course once I quit, real life intervened and I did little of substance during the following couple of years. I neglected the value of the focus that doing a formal program facilitates. However, I had some ideas recently and was able to establish a dialogue with a relevant research group, so the whole idea may work out after all.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
I really enjoyed my PhD (computational physics) The team was great, the topic was great, I did something really innovative. I also partied a lot, met great girlfriends, met my wife, made friends. One of the best times in my life.
financetechbro 2y ago
Had to call it quits after year 3 to get back to work

by lqet 2y ago

senkora 2y ago

Discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597534

SubiculumCode 2y ago

its more amusing than accurate, IMO

lamename 2y ago
In all seriousness, I think you're lucky then. (I can only speak for my experience and those of my peers in my field, at the end of the day)
- IshKebab 2y ago
  I agree, but my estimate 90% of my peers' PhDs (including mine) were essentially 3 years of work on an idea that did not work, or trying and failing to find an idea that did work. Then writing up your work as if it was great. The 10% of "successful" PhDs were on ideas that were almost guaranteed to work - more development than research. This was in a proper hard engineering field though. I think in other fields can be much more likely to be things that can't really fail. For example in computer science, a lot of PhDs are just like "I implemented this thing" where there's very little risk of it simply not working. An exception in computing is AI research where it is very much like the "try some stuff; it didn't work" experience of engineering and science research. I imagine a PhD in AI is not a fun experience...
  - XorNot 2y ago
    In hindsight it should've been a huge red flag to me when the only "what's it like to do a Ph. D" students at the induction were comp. sci. My advice to most people would just be "don't". My second run of advice would be "find the most boring project imaginable" since it's likely to succeed on the basis of "do a bunch of fairly predictable experiments and publish them".
impossiblefork 2y ago
I liked the aspect of it where you get an idea, and then work on it to get a result, and then a major result, supporting figures etc.; and while this rigidity in finishing the ideas one starts may not be optimal there's at least an element of it which could motivate people to finish things first, before moving on. I think this is often useful. Maybe it's obvious, but it can be very tempting to develop ideas, or develop new shiny results, when you still have other ideas that haven't yet been turned into definite packages of well-supported results.

Johnbot 2y ago

Wow, I lasted exactly as long in the simulator as I did in real life, with many of the exact same circumstances (less a global pandemic and family tragedy plunging the hope meter into the negatives).

Loughla 2y ago
Thought about going back?

hi_dang_ 2y ago

5 years and 2 months. I assume this is about average?

goosedragons 2y ago
In real life? In North America it depends. For some programs it is. For Europe? I think they more reasonably kick everyone out the door in 3 years.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  In the UK it’s 4 years but you stop getting paid after 3 and a half.
  - Staple_Diet 2y ago
    Australia too. But difference is you at least get paid (albeit a small stipend) in our countries, I think US the student pays tuition or has to also undertake seminars etc. My doctorate was essentially; run studies for 2-3yrs, write up papers for submission, smash them together with an intro and general discussion, graduate.
    - bowsamic 2y ago
      Same, basically. In fact, in the UK the requirements were low enough that after my first paper published a year into my PhD (in theoretical quantum physics) my supervisor was like: "I consider this enough for graduation, now you can work on whatever you are interested in"
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    Why did I get downvoted for this?? This website is absurd
- lqet 2y ago
  I know someone who was in a PhD program for 10 years in Europe, without graduating. After year 6, it got very difficult for the university to legally employ him, and after year 9, it was simply impossible and he lived on his savings, but was still allowed to use his old office.

noman-land 2y ago

That was fun. I earned my PhD in 5 years 11 months. Got so engrossed I didn't even notice the hope meter but finished with a 56. That seems like a long time but I also enjoyed reading all those papers.

gwervc 2y ago

That's the most realistic simulator I ever play; and that's not a good thing.

jakderrida 2y ago

I got it in 6 years and seven months and got filthy rich on PhD coin. Bear in mind, I think not being a PhD actually made the game MUCH easier for me because I had no empathy for the character and approached it as semi-predictable inputs and outputs.

klyrs 2y ago
> I had no empathy for the character and approached it as semi-predictable inputs and outputs. I dunno about the "filthy rich" outcome but this strategy is actually fairly common.

Swizec 2y ago

Thanks for sharing this game! It showed me exactly what I'm doing wrong with my current book project (~2.5 years so far). The winning move is to mine for an idea, then just do that idea and nothing else until you get a paper or reject the idea. Rest when tired. Got my [simulated] PhD in 5y 4mo with 99/100 hope left by following that algorithm. Perfect teachable moment. Thanks

s0rce 2y ago

Neat, my personal experience was that there were way more opportunities to submit conference abstracts and you needed little more than an idea, you can figure out the actual presentation by the time the conference actually happens. You also can get rejected a lot more times before you get accepted, if you submit to high impact journals.

ghaff 2y ago
For non-research related stuff, that's always my approach :-) My general flow seems to be: genesis of idea, proposal, acceptance, panic, coalescence, creation, (usually) decent delivery.

noworld 2y ago

I beat it in one click.

hoseja 2y ago
The only winning move.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Took me 7 years to earn my PhD, but I did publish 4 papers (ex conference papers) instead of 2 :)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paulsutter 2y ago

Desert Bus is slightly more realistic

hodgesrm 2y ago

> You really shouldn't start a PhD without doing the PhD simulator first. Or without seeing what Matt Groening thinks of your plan. (Just in case the Ph.D. simulator was not enough to scare you off.) https://www.pinterest.com/pin/grad-school-so-glad-i-am-done--245938829621087897/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/grad-school-so-glad-i-am-done-...

wenc 2y ago

That simulator hits home. The discouragement and anguish was real. I finished my Ph.D. in 6 years rather than the usual 4 1/2 because ideas just didn't work out. My topic was much harder than those of my peers. That said, I felt the 2 extra years I spent made me a much more solid researcher in my narrow field, because I spent more time learning and relearning the foundations of my craft. I relate to what Winston Churchill said about being a dunce at school (who later become a incomparable wartime orator distinguished by his use of simple English): "By being so long in the lowest form I gained an immense advantage over the cleverer boys... I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence–which is a noble thing. Naturally I am biased in favor of boys learning English; I would make them all learn English: and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honor, and Greek as a treat."

karmakurtisaani 2y ago
During my PhD I realized the longer you can extend it, the better (if you intend to stay in academia). If you do 6 years, you'll have the experience of someone who has already done one post doc, but you'll have easier time applying for grants since you're judged as a fresh PhD (possibly with a CV much better than the other applicants due to your extra time).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ykonstant 2y ago
  My adviser insisted that I extended it as much as I could, but I didn't listen to him :(

trostaft 2y ago

Well, I probably should not have played this, given that I'm (seemingly) in my last year of my PhD. Back to paper writing...

lqet 2y ago
Don't worry, I was in the last year of my PhD for 3 years.

lulzury 2y ago

If you want a non-simulated memoir of someone's PhD, I highly recommend reading "The PhD Grind" by Philip Guo.. [0] I read it in my last year of college. It was a page turner, and helped me think about whether I wanted to do a PhD. [0] https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g8mc1lniyf26opxtrqgna/pguo-PhD-grind.pdf?rlkey=mmj1sryb14hl8o4k9offkyj6u&e=1&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g8mc1lniyf26opxtrqgna/pguo-Ph...

tintedfireglass 2y ago

The first try I failed after 7 years while the second time I finished it in 5y4m with 99 hope. Hmm interesting

silverlake 2y ago

Many CS PhDs work on a small piece of a larger funded project. You work normal hours, read papers in the evening, take Sunday off. It’s not a big deal. So many naive students think they are going to solve AGI. No, you’ll publish an insignificant twist on a loss function and get a job.

cashsterling 2y ago

The simulator didn't really mirror my experience but I do think folks should think twice about going to grad school. Economically, it is often not the best decision... plus you spend the best years of your life with less personal freedom (or financial ability) for long vacations/adventures, etc. Going to grad school was the wrong economic decision for me... and perhaps the wrong 'life' decision as well.

parpfish 2y ago
i think this depends on what the alternative career/job would be compared to grad school. if you had the option of getting into a well-payed, cushy tech job grad school would result in less personal/financial freedom. if (like me) you didn't have that option out of undergrad, grad school was comparatively a period of great freedom. * i made enough on research/TA stipends that i lived a slightly-fancier-than-my-undergrad lifestyle that wasn't too far behind what my classmates that became teachers were living. * TONS of freedom with respect to how I wanted to work and having full control of my schedule I feel like grad school gave me a pretty idealistic way to spend my mid 20s. And (luckily) in that time I was able to develop enough skills that I could jump into one of those high-paying, cushy tech jobs when it came time to realize that academica sucks and I wanted to leave.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >i think this depends on what the alternative career/job would be compared to grad school. This, the economy was shit when I graduated, I wasn't interested in a phd, but strongly considered getting a masters, and would have likely been financially better off had I stayed in school those extra two years instead of graduating into a horrible job market and losing that fresh graduate advantage when applying for jobs once it finally got moving again. In retrospect, I would have much rather lived a college lifestyle and did research/ta type stuff instead of doing the tech support type jobs I ended up with to make ends meet.

admissionsguy 2y ago

Seems accurate. I had 1 conference paper after 1 year, same as during my actual PhD. The expiration of the initial enthusiasm modifier was brutal indeed. I dropped out at that point, but there is no such option in the simulator (perhaps it shows up only once the hope drops low enough)? My big issue with the PhD is that it was designed to treat me as an employee in exchange for an annual salary equal to 1-2 months worth of earnings as a software freelancer. But the work was interesting. So I wondered why not be an amateur researcher instead.. Of course once I quit, real life intervened and I did little of substance during the following couple of years. I neglected the value of the focus that doing a formal program facilitates. However, I had some ideas recently and was able to establish a dialogue with a relevant research group, so the whole idea may work out after all.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

I really enjoyed my PhD (computational physics) The team was great, the topic was great, I did something really innovative. I also partied a lot, met great girlfriends, met my wife, made friends. One of the best times in my life.

financetechbro 2y ago

Had to call it quits after year 3 to get back to work