5 ms·

This isn't a bad list, but it's hard to over-emphasize the amount of pushing that supervisors and committee members typically need to clarify their beliefs abou

This isn't a bad list, but it's hard to over-emphasize the amount of pushing that supervisors and committee members typically need to clarify their beliefs about what is an acceptable dissertation. It's not too strong to say that most academics will flat-out lie to students about what they need do. Although this "lying" is frequently the result of inattention of misunderstanding its effects are indistinguishable from malice. So don't be shy about getting very concrete and specific with your committee, including the kind of analysis you want to do, the theoretical framework you want to apply, etc. This is all easier in the sciences--humanities PhD programs are basically abuse factories (http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1588)--but http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1588)--but even in the sciences it is all too common to see students get misled by their supervisor and/or committee, who give guidance in one direction one month and a completely different direction the next. One further piece of advice with regard to a clear thesis question: I've often found it useful to ask students "What's the title of your dissertation?" This just a more concrete way of asking about their thesis question, but it's much harder to fool yourself about. "Well, I"m investigating blah blah blah..." may look like an answer to the question "What's your thesis question?" but it frequently can't be reduced to "Experimental Investigation of Blah Using Blah Models and Blah Theories". Finally, it isn't just your own perfectionism you have to watch out for. My iron rule for when a dissertation is finished is: the very first time your advisor tells you to change A to B in draft N, and then tells you to change B back to A in draft M > N, you are done. Your resistance to making further changes should go up factorially at that point, because your advisor has stopped paying attention or has become obsessed with minutia, and if given a free rein will continue to fiddle around indefinitely. I've seen students waste a year on this kind of nonsense, when they had a perfectly acceptable dissertation to begin with.

neltnerb 12y ago
One thing that served me incredibly well (finished from BS to Ph.D. in 4.5 years) was to very early on write a proposal that clearly stated exactly what question I would work on, and stating clearly what the approach and work product would be. This all but eliminated feature creep, and I could then go back and say "you agreed that investigating this was sufficient." Then it was just a matter of doing what I said I would do, and be done. It helped focus my attention, because anything that didn't address the thing in my proposal was more obviously tangential. It focused my entire course of research and kept me from spending too much time on side projects. But most importantly, it established in writing exactly what question I was going to answer and roughly how. I didn't say "I'm going to prove that <foo> does <bar>." I said "I'm going to test to see if <foo> does <bar>." If I do the tests, and show the relationship between <foo> and <bar> I've done science. The goal is to create an experimental plan that tests a theory, not to build the best whatever possible. The job of a Ph.D. student is to demonstrate that they can carry out research, not to build the best widget. If you can, great, but that's not what a Ph.D. means. I saw endless examples of people who waited until they had better data to put together a proposal. The problem with this approach is that it raises the bar by removing risk from the project. If you spend five years demonstrating the <foo> results in <bar> then your adviser will ask for you to spend another two years doing an actual project extending that result. If you clearly elucidate early on that it's not clear that <foo> results in <bar> then simply seeing if that's the case or not is often sufficient. Formal proposals are like a contract between yourself and your committee establishing the scope of project that is sufficient to graduate. Doing this as early as possible can only help you, and in my experience any work prior to establishing the scope merely results in a larger scope later.
- analog31 12y ago
  A formal proposal was required for me to enter the PhD program. For better worse, my proposed project failed, and I was extremely lucky that a Plan B emerged at the right moment.
  - neltnerb 12y ago
    Not to assume, but if it's possible for the project to fail, you need to define it differently. Unless you mean it ran out of funding, or a collaborator left or something. "I will use these techniques to test <foo> to see what the impact is on <bar>." I suppose you might find it impossible to do the measurement? Although I guess that's analogous to running out of funding.
    - analog31 12y ago
      That's fair. My project was a case where I had to build apparatus A to produce B in order to measure C. After spending a fair amount of time getting A working, I was able to observe B, barely above the noise, but could not sustain it at a level needed to even consider trying to measure C. It was an ambitious experiment, i.e., it would have earned me genuine recognition within my specialty. I admit a high likelihood that the project was over my head. Oddly enough a fellow student dreamed up a project for me that used much of my existing equipment and my equipment hacking skills. It produced one minor publication, but opened up a new experimental technique.
danieltillett 12y ago
It is hard to be a good supervisor. Almost no supervisors have received any training in how to be a good supervisor and usually their only frame of reference is their own experiences as a student. One of the things that makes being a good supervisor so hard is there is no one right way to do it as what each student needs is different. Some students need a lot of guidance and micromanagement, while others flourish when just pointed in the right general direction. The one thing I would like to see is a limit on the number of students a supervisor can have at anyone time. Students need more than an hour a month with their supervisor. I would try and always spend an hour a day for my students (a lot of that time was group discussion), and at least an hour a week one-on-one time. I have to say I did this mostly for selfish reasons (I really enjoyed talking with my students about what they were doing), but I like to think they benefited from it too.

neltnerb 12y ago

One thing that served me incredibly well (finished from BS to Ph.D. in 4.5 years) was to very early on write a proposal that clearly stated exactly what question I would work on, and stating clearly what the approach and work product would be. This all but eliminated feature creep, and I could then go back and say "you agreed that investigating this was sufficient." Then it was just a matter of doing what I said I would do, and be done. It helped focus my attention, because anything that didn't address the thing in my proposal was more obviously tangential. It focused my entire course of research and kept me from spending too much time on side projects. But most importantly, it established in writing exactly what question I was going to answer and roughly how. I didn't say "I'm going to prove that <foo> does <bar>." I said "I'm going to test to see if <foo> does <bar>." If I do the tests, and show the relationship between <foo> and <bar> I've done science. The goal is to create an experimental plan that tests a theory, not to build the best whatever possible. The job of a Ph.D. student is to demonstrate that they can carry out research, not to build the best widget. If you can, great, but that's not what a Ph.D. means. I saw endless examples of people who waited until they had better data to put together a proposal. The problem with this approach is that it raises the bar by removing risk from the project. If you spend five years demonstrating the <foo> results in <bar> then your adviser will ask for you to spend another two years doing an actual project extending that result. If you clearly elucidate early on that it's not clear that <foo> results in <bar> then simply seeing if that's the case or not is often sufficient. Formal proposals are like a contract between yourself and your committee establishing the scope of project that is sufficient to graduate. Doing this as early as possible can only help you, and in my experience any work prior to establishing the scope merely results in a larger scope later.

analog31 12y ago
A formal proposal was required for me to enter the PhD program. For better worse, my proposed project failed, and I was extremely lucky that a Plan B emerged at the right moment.
- neltnerb 12y ago
  Not to assume, but if it's possible for the project to fail, you need to define it differently. Unless you mean it ran out of funding, or a collaborator left or something. "I will use these techniques to test <foo> to see what the impact is on <bar>." I suppose you might find it impossible to do the measurement? Although I guess that's analogous to running out of funding.
  - analog31 12y ago
    That's fair. My project was a case where I had to build apparatus A to produce B in order to measure C. After spending a fair amount of time getting A working, I was able to observe B, barely above the noise, but could not sustain it at a level needed to even consider trying to measure C. It was an ambitious experiment, i.e., it would have earned me genuine recognition within my specialty. I admit a high likelihood that the project was over my head. Oddly enough a fellow student dreamed up a project for me that used much of my existing equipment and my equipment hacking skills. It produced one minor publication, but opened up a new experimental technique.

danieltillett 12y ago

It is hard to be a good supervisor. Almost no supervisors have received any training in how to be a good supervisor and usually their only frame of reference is their own experiences as a student. One of the things that makes being a good supervisor so hard is there is no one right way to do it as what each student needs is different. Some students need a lot of guidance and micromanagement, while others flourish when just pointed in the right general direction. The one thing I would like to see is a limit on the number of students a supervisor can have at anyone time. Students need more than an hour a month with their supervisor. I would try and always spend an hour a day for my students (a lot of that time was group discussion), and at least an hour a week one-on-one time. I have to say I did this mostly for selfish reasons (I really enjoyed talking with my students about what they were doing), but I like to think they benefited from it too.