4 ms·

The "supervision" in a PhD can be a problem. Some Professors just keep shooting down their students' ideas, rather than actually teaching or guiding them. Som

by ucee054 14y ago

The "supervision" in a PhD can be a problem. Some Professors just keep shooting down their students' ideas, rather than actually teaching or guiding them. Some don't provide any feedback at all, like the student is supposed to pick things up by telepathic osmosis. I guess the victims are the students who take 7 years to finish. I wouldn't recommend a PhD.

jrobbins 14y ago
My CS PhD took 6 years. I liked it OK, despite the hardships and uncertainty. My main response to the article is that those people who are right for a PhD program will know it: they don't need to be told or warned or advised for or against. Even though academics are a rational pursuit, the decision to dedicate yourself so much to anything has got to be from the heart, otherwise just don't, and you probably wouldn't even be wondering in the first place. My other reaction to the article is that it is just describing all the aspects almost any really difficult accomplishment: it takes too long, no one is there to help you on the hardest parts, you have to give up significant other things in life (including a real part of your time, relationships, and health), people may try to block you, you run the risk of it all being for nothing, and in the end no one is going to care about it as much as you had to care about it. Replace "PhD" with climbing a mountain, building a successful business, raising a child, writing a novel, etc. and it all still applies. Earning a PhD is not supposed to be your last, biggest accomplishment in life any more than getting through high school is the biggest accomplishment for most people. Earning a PhD is your first official dent in the universe. It is practice for a life of taking on more hard and uncertain challenges. A lot of people do that, with or without the PhD as practice.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
> Some Professors just keep shooting down their students' ideas, rather than actually teaching or guiding them. This is what they are supposed to do. You can't be taught or guided on how to PhD-level research; like writing, it is more about trying and being critiqued on your outputs for N years straight. If you don't like being critiqued, don't do a PhD. If you think your ideas are good, persist with them even though your adviser is saying "no," and be ready to accept when the idea really sucks and you need to switch. I took 8 years to finish, no regrets at all.
- ucee054 14y ago
  I hope you never have any students, because it sounds like the abused will become the abuser.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    WTF!? Critique is a common learning method in many other fields, like art, music, design, journalism, and politics. Hand feeding and teaching is fine a dandy at the beginner undergrad level, but you reach a point quickly where you have to rely more on yourself to become better. Criticism starts out from your teachers and peers, and eventually you learn how to be self critical on your own. But you are right, this isn't for most people; PhDs aren't for everyone.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      A PhD isn't about critique. It's about: A) finding a grant-buzzword-friendly research direction (Green ICT social networking for wireless sensor motes anyone?) B) politicking to get as many publications squeezed out from one's meagre results as possible (Buddy, submit to the special edition of this journal because I'M the guest editor) If the advisor doesn't TEACH the student how to navigate the bullshit, the student is hosed. PhDs aren't for everyone ...I bet including many of the people who actually do them.
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        This is an extremely cynical point of view. Even if there is some truth to it (especially in Chinese universities), it's not what most of us do with our PhDs. Definitely not most of the google PhDs I know, nor my MSR colleagues. Academic politics isn't the only place to go with a phd.

by ucee054 14y ago

jrobbins 14y ago

My CS PhD took 6 years. I liked it OK, despite the hardships and uncertainty. My main response to the article is that those people who are right for a PhD program will know it: they don't need to be told or warned or advised for or against. Even though academics are a rational pursuit, the decision to dedicate yourself so much to anything has got to be from the heart, otherwise just don't, and you probably wouldn't even be wondering in the first place. My other reaction to the article is that it is just describing all the aspects almost any really difficult accomplishment: it takes too long, no one is there to help you on the hardest parts, you have to give up significant other things in life (including a real part of your time, relationships, and health), people may try to block you, you run the risk of it all being for nothing, and in the end no one is going to care about it as much as you had to care about it. Replace "PhD" with climbing a mountain, building a successful business, raising a child, writing a novel, etc. and it all still applies. Earning a PhD is not supposed to be your last, biggest accomplishment in life any more than getting through high school is the biggest accomplishment for most people. Earning a PhD is your first official dent in the universe. It is practice for a life of taking on more hard and uncertain challenges. A lot of people do that, with or without the PhD as practice.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

> Some Professors just keep shooting down their students' ideas, rather than actually teaching or guiding them. This is what they are supposed to do. You can't be taught or guided on how to PhD-level research; like writing, it is more about trying and being critiqued on your outputs for N years straight. If you don't like being critiqued, don't do a PhD. If you think your ideas are good, persist with them even though your adviser is saying "no," and be ready to accept when the idea really sucks and you need to switch. I took 8 years to finish, no regrets at all.

ucee054 14y ago
I hope you never have any students, because it sounds like the abused will become the abuser.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  WTF!? Critique is a common learning method in many other fields, like art, music, design, journalism, and politics. Hand feeding and teaching is fine a dandy at the beginner undergrad level, but you reach a point quickly where you have to rely more on yourself to become better. Criticism starts out from your teachers and peers, and eventually you learn how to be self critical on your own. But you are right, this isn't for most people; PhDs aren't for everyone.
  - ucee054 14y ago
    A PhD isn't about critique. It's about: A) finding a grant-buzzword-friendly research direction (Green ICT social networking for wireless sensor motes anyone?) B) politicking to get as many publications squeezed out from one's meagre results as possible (Buddy, submit to the special edition of this journal because I'M the guest editor) If the advisor doesn't TEACH the student how to navigate the bullshit, the student is hosed. PhDs aren't for everyone ...I bet including many of the people who actually do them.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      This is an extremely cynical point of view. Even if there is some truth to it (especially in Chinese universities), it's not what most of us do with our PhDs. Definitely not most of the google PhDs I know, nor my MSR colleagues. Academic politics isn't the only place to go with a phd.