3 ms·
3 full papers at top-tier conferences in your field (you are the first author and the papers didn't have a bazillion authors). That's the unspoken standard I've
by throwaway1979 14y ago
3 full papers at top-tier conferences in your field (you are the first author and the papers didn't have a bazillion authors). That's the unspoken standard I've seen in my area (systems). If you have an OSDI/SOSP paper, you could get away with less. I.e. One best paper at SOSP probably gets you a PhD as long as you were the primary person on the paper other than the advisor.
- throwaway1979 14y agoIf you are looking for a rationale why 3 is a good number, then I'd have to say: 1) It shows you are not a one trick pony. This is essential if you are applying for faculty positions. 2) It is the number employers expect to see. This is really determined by the number of papers had by your competition. In this regard, the reason the number is 3 is because other people have around 3 papers. This said, no one stamps a PhD on you when you get 3 papers. I actually got 3 papers pretty early in my PhD. I spent an extra year working with a research lab on an unrelated project. I found my PhD committee (full of some famous people) was not impressed by my papers. However, when I had some decent job offers, I felt I grew up in their eyes. So it is really about when you grow up, which doesn't happen by magic when you cross a certain number :-)
- endianswap 14y agoHow did the fact that you have job offers come out to your committee? Is that part of the normal process to ask?
- throwaway1979 14y agoI imagine my advisor or another faculty I worked close with may have mentioned it. This sort of news gets around surprisingly fast in academic circles.