3 ms·

I won't try and argue the merits of Bachelor's and Masters. But if you honestly believe that you can pick up the same experience from PhD on the job, then is se

I won't try and argue the merits of Bachelor's and Masters. But if you honestly believe that you can pick up the same experience from PhD on the job, then is seems like you learned little from that PhD that you were supposed to and your supervisor failed you. PhD is not about learning content. It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique. It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind, an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard. Maybe you did get that but you aren't using it in your job; if so, then maybe you didn't need that PhD, but that's hardly the fault of the degree.

mathisfun123 3mo ago
do you have a phd? did you get it in the last 10 years? because i have one as well and 100% agree with op - it was worthless. and i got mine from a "world class" school too (US T10). > It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique. lolol maybe in the days of yore. today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference. > It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference. > an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. in summary: this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling"
- sno129 3mo ago
  I do have a PhD and agree much more with the parent comment than yours. Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different. For instance: > there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. There's a difference between problems that are intractable and problems that require "grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard". Maybe the problems in CS are easier. In math, many of the problems are very much of this flavor, and the point often isn't to solve the original problem but rather to use your investigation into that problem to discover new techniques or more tractable problems that you can solve. Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems. On the other hand, I do mostly agree with this: > are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference. Agreed, there should be a difference. Unfortunately, in many modern PhD programs I'm not sure there is much of one....
  - mathisfun123 3mo ago
    > Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different my BS and MS were in (pure) math (my MS thesis is on convergence of the ito integral...) and my PhD is in CS systems. CS outside of theory is worse than an empirical discipline - it's a "throw spaghetti, lasagna, burgers, caesar salad at the wall and see what sticks" discipline. it bears literally no resemblance to math (pure or applied). > Maybe the problems in CS are easier... Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems. yes and that should tell you everything you need to know - there are kids in my department graduating with 5 first author conference papers (i had "only" 3). how much of those papers do you think is original work really?
- hodgehog11 3mo ago
  Yes, I did get it within the last ten years (with an excellent supervisor fortunately), and I take part in student supervision. I get to talk with the students and determine what is most valuable for them in the long-term. Considering where those students have ended up, and that we still keep in contact, I'd say I've done alright so far. > today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference. That's called a garbage supervisor. I'm sorry that was your experience, nobody deserves that. There has been only one student I have personally experienced where I felt some of the papers were questionable, but they were not strong, and should not have done the degree in the first place (unfortunately, I have no choice in the matter and just need to get them through). > it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging Immense challenge is suffering because you encounter failure over and over and over again. Eventually success will come, but the interim is tough on the mental state. No human likes to fail repeatedly, but it is important to experience that at least once in a research career. It only needs to happen for one project; afterwards, the student tends to develop an incredible autonomy because they've been through the worst of it. But of course, this is where the supervisor is supposed to be responsible to find the right balance, since the difficulty of the task needs to be judged to ensure the student can finish it, while being as ambitious as possible within reason. It's pretty difficult to get right, and many supervisors don't even bother, choosing instead to push their own career. To any PhD student out there experiencing that, find another PhD supervisor please, before it is too late. > there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time. You have a handful of years to impress people, so they have to count. > this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling" Honestly, it just sounds like you were unfortunate enough to have been in a supervisory relationship where you were used as part of a paper mill. I'm really sorry to hear that; it isn't uncommon, but it isn't what the degree is supposed to be, and it seems you did not experience what you should have. The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose, and it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.
  - 3mo ago
bonoboTP 3mo ago
PhD experiences vary much much more than bachelor's and master's programs that cover a fairly standard set of topics worldwide. PhD depends a lot on your specific topic, the specific supervisor, their other time commitments, their funding situation, how similar the other PhD students' topics are to yours, how hot the topic is or how the hotness changes over your PhD duration, how much teaching you have to do, how hands off the supervisor is (it is extremely common to have extremely disengaged supervisors, even famous ones, likely engagement and fame are anticorrelated), the expected publication venue tiers etc. In most of Europe, the PhD contains no formal training. It's just what you informally pick up while working with other PhD students, if you do collaborations (depends on whether the supervisor likes that), or from postdocs (if there are postdocs), or from your rare meetings with the supervisor (which are often about updating the supervisor on new developments, not getting much actionable insight from them), but many many are simply left to their own devices and just do stuff and cope with the inevitable rejections, etc. At other places the supervisor organizes things like retreats, internal poster sessions, lots of internal presentations, discussions among the group etc. While in other places there is none of that, in some places many PhD students simply work from home and don't even meet much. The winning strategy for prolific professors is to get a good early-career reputation, then hire really smart and conscientious applicants (proven through already published papers) and let them carry out the research. It's nothing about training them in any practical way. There are some who do that but it doesn't scale. You have to hire 20 PhD students and they will deliver enough papers for you to preserve your status and be able to hire the smartest applicants again and again. But again, there's huge variation. Even at good universities.

mathisfun123 3mo ago

do you have a phd? did you get it in the last 10 years? because i have one as well and 100% agree with op - it was worthless. and i got mine from a "world class" school too (US T10). > It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique. lolol maybe in the days of yore. today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference. > It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference. > an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. in summary: this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling"

sno129 3mo ago
I do have a PhD and agree much more with the parent comment than yours. Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different. For instance: > there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. There's a difference between problems that are intractable and problems that require "grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard". Maybe the problems in CS are easier. In math, many of the problems are very much of this flavor, and the point often isn't to solve the original problem but rather to use your investigation into that problem to discover new techniques or more tractable problems that you can solve. Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems. On the other hand, I do mostly agree with this: > are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference. Agreed, there should be a difference. Unfortunately, in many modern PhD programs I'm not sure there is much of one....
- mathisfun123 3mo ago
  > Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different my BS and MS were in (pure) math (my MS thesis is on convergence of the ito integral...) and my PhD is in CS systems. CS outside of theory is worse than an empirical discipline - it's a "throw spaghetti, lasagna, burgers, caesar salad at the wall and see what sticks" discipline. it bears literally no resemblance to math (pure or applied). > Maybe the problems in CS are easier... Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems. yes and that should tell you everything you need to know - there are kids in my department graduating with 5 first author conference papers (i had "only" 3). how much of those papers do you think is original work really?
hodgehog11 3mo ago
Yes, I did get it within the last ten years (with an excellent supervisor fortunately), and I take part in student supervision. I get to talk with the students and determine what is most valuable for them in the long-term. Considering where those students have ended up, and that we still keep in contact, I'd say I've done alright so far. > today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference. That's called a garbage supervisor. I'm sorry that was your experience, nobody deserves that. There has been only one student I have personally experienced where I felt some of the papers were questionable, but they were not strong, and should not have done the degree in the first place (unfortunately, I have no choice in the matter and just need to get them through). > it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging Immense challenge is suffering because you encounter failure over and over and over again. Eventually success will come, but the interim is tough on the mental state. No human likes to fail repeatedly, but it is important to experience that at least once in a research career. It only needs to happen for one project; afterwards, the student tends to develop an incredible autonomy because they've been through the worst of it. But of course, this is where the supervisor is supposed to be responsible to find the right balance, since the difficulty of the task needs to be judged to ensure the student can finish it, while being as ambitious as possible within reason. It's pretty difficult to get right, and many supervisors don't even bother, choosing instead to push their own career. To any PhD student out there experiencing that, find another PhD supervisor please, before it is too late. > there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable. No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time. You have a handful of years to impress people, so they have to count. > this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling" Honestly, it just sounds like you were unfortunate enough to have been in a supervisory relationship where you were used as part of a paper mill. I'm really sorry to hear that; it isn't uncommon, but it isn't what the degree is supposed to be, and it seems you did not experience what you should have. The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose, and it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.
- 3mo ago

bonoboTP 3mo ago

PhD experiences vary much much more than bachelor's and master's programs that cover a fairly standard set of topics worldwide. PhD depends a lot on your specific topic, the specific supervisor, their other time commitments, their funding situation, how similar the other PhD students' topics are to yours, how hot the topic is or how the hotness changes over your PhD duration, how much teaching you have to do, how hands off the supervisor is (it is extremely common to have extremely disengaged supervisors, even famous ones, likely engagement and fame are anticorrelated), the expected publication venue tiers etc. In most of Europe, the PhD contains no formal training. It's just what you informally pick up while working with other PhD students, if you do collaborations (depends on whether the supervisor likes that), or from postdocs (if there are postdocs), or from your rare meetings with the supervisor (which are often about updating the supervisor on new developments, not getting much actionable insight from them), but many many are simply left to their own devices and just do stuff and cope with the inevitable rejections, etc. At other places the supervisor organizes things like retreats, internal poster sessions, lots of internal presentations, discussions among the group etc. While in other places there is none of that, in some places many PhD students simply work from home and don't even meet much. The winning strategy for prolific professors is to get a good early-career reputation, then hire really smart and conscientious applicants (proven through already published papers) and let them carry out the research. It's nothing about training them in any practical way. There are some who do that but it doesn't scale. You have to hire 20 PhD students and they will deliver enough papers for you to preserve your status and be able to hire the smartest applicants again and again. But again, there's huge variation. Even at good universities.