6 ms·

Boy, all the articles about Ph.D.'s on HN are so negative. I had a great time getting mine. I got a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon. I gues

Boy, all the articles about Ph.D.'s on HN are so negative. I had a great time getting mine. I got a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon. I guess it must depend a lot on the subject you're studying. We mostly did classes for the first two years. We got an adviser in the second year, and gradually ramped up the research. I finished in 4 years and 3 months. Pretty much everyone in the program would finish in 4-4.5 years. Everyone worked very closely with their adviser, and didn't have the "drift" I read about a lot, where students seem to feel alone. It was do 3 papers, write your thesis, and get out. I really enjoyed the chance to do research, and do a really deep dive on a subject. They funded everyone, enough to live to a "grad student" standard. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

leoh 14y ago
I think you make a great point--the thing is that is really depends on the program, and students should meet students currently in the program, chat with them, and see how things are for them.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Xcelerate 14y ago
Haha, funny there's another chemical engineer on HN. Maybe our major is just a good one for grad school experiences.
polyfractal 14y ago
I think it is highly dependent on field. My field, biology, is basically like flipping a coin. Do you graduate in five years or nine? Will you come out with a golden road to tenure or a life destined to work sad, lonely, post-docs? Flip that coin! No matter how smart you are, the Gods of Biology are fickle. You may end up with a shitty protein, an assay that only works when the moon is aligned with Venus or cells that only grow when you swirl counter-clockwise. As much as people like to pretend Biology is science...the sad truth is that a lot is practically voodoo incantations to the protocol devised 15 years ago by a post-doc. It's one of the main reasons I left. You have to be Smart, Persistent AND Lucky. I'm fine with the first two, but when my career is hinged on luck...well, I started exploring fields that didn't quite as much require blind faith in the universe. :(
- kanzure 14y ago
  I wish there was some way to fix the situation with protocols in biology. Maybe we could attempt to identify the reasons that they suck, and then fix those reasons. There was a stackexchange site for protocols called methodmint, but nobody used that. Biologists either hate the internet or they hate computers because all of the attempts to get informal web communication happening have failed (even by email). It complicates things even more.
  - master_gopher 14y ago
    I don't think it's either of those things - biologists and biochemists just seem to be ridiculously busy, in part because of spending to long in the lab trying to get your crap to work. Every lab I've been in has an inefficient process by which people share, modify and troubleshoot their protocols amongst themselves - but that's convenient because you can ask the guy on the bench next to you. How to get researchers to invest more time and effort, communicating with people they don't explicitly have to, is the problem.
  - djt 14y ago
    Dont forget that each machine you use is slightly different, so there are protocols that exist for those labs and those particular pieces of gear set up that way.
- drpgq 14y ago
  I did my PhD in ECE specifically computer vision and had a decent time, but pretty much everyone I encountered during their PhD in biology had some horror story to tell.
10dpd 14y ago
Note that there is a huge difference between the UK PhD and the US PhD process. In the UK you are left to your own devices for 3 years, and only find out if the external examiner even approves of your research questions in the one and only final verbal exam. It is up to you alone to ensure the research is valid and makes a contribution. US PhD candidates have a lot more guidance and handholding that includes 4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination.
- kd0amg 14y ago
  4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination. And ideally, this plan has been discussed at length with the advisor before the formal proposal happens.
- mcguire 14y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. Just a few paragraphs into the article, I was thinking the author had done a spectacularly bad job of picking an adviser (or supervisor). In my experience, "meaningful intermediate goals" and feedback are the reason for having an adviser. Not to say that all advisers are very good at providing goals and feedback, though.
- ricw 14y ago
  At good uk universities you get excellent guidance, with multiple intermittent milestones and ongoing scrutinisation of your progress. Unless you pick a rubbish supervisor who simply doesn't care. Though I only can speak of Oxford..
  - jb17 14y ago
    It's also important to note that the supervising culture varies a lot between subjects. Computer scientists are usually spoiled by good supervision, but in the humanities you might see your supervisor only twice a year.. (and I do know people in Oxford in that situation).
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
It was do 3 papers, write your thesis, and get out. I'm a CS grad student at Technion, and that's basically how my advisor has described our grad-school process. Paper 1: your MSc thesis. Papers 2 and 3: If related to paper 1, combine into your PhD thesis. 3 related papers on one broad topic => thesis, you're done. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
- raverbashing 14y ago
  There's one important issue with this picture You don't have the bigger picture. In fact sometimes you don't even know that a person in another country (or why not, maybe in another university in the same city) did what you were trying to do, or already knows something you don't. Not to mention the Feuds, aah the feuds. Like something showing up in IEEE but in ACM it's gone and forgotten (or the other way round)
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Well yeah, this is why we have a couple of things: * Literature reviews. Check the published literature before thinking you've got an original research proposal. * Conference/journal reviewers. If something's unoriginal in your paper, they will reject you in an instant.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      Of course. But even with this sometimes it's hard And reviewers sometimes skip things. This is a very good reason for open-access, searchable publications.
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Completely agreed.

leoh 14y ago

I think you make a great point--the thing is that is really depends on the program, and students should meet students currently in the program, chat with them, and see how things are for them.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Xcelerate 14y ago

Haha, funny there's another chemical engineer on HN. Maybe our major is just a good one for grad school experiences.

polyfractal 14y ago

I think it is highly dependent on field. My field, biology, is basically like flipping a coin. Do you graduate in five years or nine? Will you come out with a golden road to tenure or a life destined to work sad, lonely, post-docs? Flip that coin! No matter how smart you are, the Gods of Biology are fickle. You may end up with a shitty protein, an assay that only works when the moon is aligned with Venus or cells that only grow when you swirl counter-clockwise. As much as people like to pretend Biology is science...the sad truth is that a lot is practically voodoo incantations to the protocol devised 15 years ago by a post-doc. It's one of the main reasons I left. You have to be Smart, Persistent AND Lucky. I'm fine with the first two, but when my career is hinged on luck...well, I started exploring fields that didn't quite as much require blind faith in the universe. :(

kanzure 14y ago
I wish there was some way to fix the situation with protocols in biology. Maybe we could attempt to identify the reasons that they suck, and then fix those reasons. There was a stackexchange site for protocols called methodmint, but nobody used that. Biologists either hate the internet or they hate computers because all of the attempts to get informal web communication happening have failed (even by email). It complicates things even more.
- master_gopher 14y ago
  I don't think it's either of those things - biologists and biochemists just seem to be ridiculously busy, in part because of spending to long in the lab trying to get your crap to work. Every lab I've been in has an inefficient process by which people share, modify and troubleshoot their protocols amongst themselves - but that's convenient because you can ask the guy on the bench next to you. How to get researchers to invest more time and effort, communicating with people they don't explicitly have to, is the problem.
- djt 14y ago
  Dont forget that each machine you use is slightly different, so there are protocols that exist for those labs and those particular pieces of gear set up that way.
drpgq 14y ago
I did my PhD in ECE specifically computer vision and had a decent time, but pretty much everyone I encountered during their PhD in biology had some horror story to tell.

10dpd 14y ago

Note that there is a huge difference between the UK PhD and the US PhD process. In the UK you are left to your own devices for 3 years, and only find out if the external examiner even approves of your research questions in the one and only final verbal exam. It is up to you alone to ensure the research is valid and makes a contribution. US PhD candidates have a lot more guidance and handholding that includes 4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination.

kd0amg 14y ago
4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination. And ideally, this plan has been discussed at length with the advisor before the formal proposal happens.
mcguire 14y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. Just a few paragraphs into the article, I was thinking the author had done a spectacularly bad job of picking an adviser (or supervisor). In my experience, "meaningful intermediate goals" and feedback are the reason for having an adviser. Not to say that all advisers are very good at providing goals and feedback, though.
ricw 14y ago
At good uk universities you get excellent guidance, with multiple intermittent milestones and ongoing scrutinisation of your progress. Unless you pick a rubbish supervisor who simply doesn't care. Though I only can speak of Oxford..
- jb17 14y ago
  It's also important to note that the supervising culture varies a lot between subjects. Computer scientists are usually spoiled by good supervision, but in the humanities you might see your supervisor only twice a year.. (and I do know people in Oxford in that situation).

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

It was do 3 papers, write your thesis, and get out. I'm a CS grad student at Technion, and that's basically how my advisor has described our grad-school process. Paper 1: your MSc thesis. Papers 2 and 3: If related to paper 1, combine into your PhD thesis. 3 related papers on one broad topic => thesis, you're done. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

raverbashing 14y ago
There's one important issue with this picture You don't have the bigger picture. In fact sometimes you don't even know that a person in another country (or why not, maybe in another university in the same city) did what you were trying to do, or already knows something you don't. Not to mention the Feuds, aah the feuds. Like something showing up in IEEE but in ACM it's gone and forgotten (or the other way round)
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Well yeah, this is why we have a couple of things: * Literature reviews. Check the published literature before thinking you've got an original research proposal. * Conference/journal reviewers. If something's unoriginal in your paper, they will reject you in an instant.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Of course. But even with this sometimes it's hard And reviewers sometimes skip things. This is a very good reason for open-access, searchable publications.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Completely agreed.