I’ve been bugging the phdified among my friends as well as those who have attempted it or are currently attempting it. (Mostly comp sci folks, which is not what I’m going after, but I figure some lessons apply regardless)
The basic questions have been the following: “What is your advice to someone considering applying for a phd program?” and “What do you recommend for getting the most out of a PhD program?”
Yesterday,
I smiled and nodded and thought I’d get around to it … someday. Well, today I had a meeting where I didn’t see much benefit to paying attention and instead of rewriting mmorpg character plans (my usual pastime under those circumstances) I started jotting down those specs.
I want to work…
- … on topics related to real world quality of life issues
- … in ways that help to improve the quality of life for the comparatively disadvantaged (or, y’know, everyone. I wouldn’t mind helping everyone) or at least point out ways to do so.
- … in a collaborative and constructive manner.
- … in ways that make use of my technical mindset as an asset
- … in an environment where what I wear and when I show up to work do not matter for their own sake, but only in terms of how they affect what I accomplish (ie, being able to show up naked for a meeting is not a requirement, but dress codes are generally dumb)
- … I can go home with time to do what I enjoy and not be a slacker/failure.
- … get to explore issues deeply and provide well-reasoned thoughtful responses rather than off the cuff reactions.
That’s what I thought of today, anyway. =)
I’m not yet a phd candidate, but I can share with you what everyone has told me to look for: an adviser you can work with. So, ideally, one who knows a lot about the aspects of your field that interest you most, but who isn’t so tied up in blazing his or her own trail that s/he either forgets about you or tries to force their interests on you.
Do you need to undergo 5 to 7 years of apprenticeship to get such a job? (6) is not exactly compatible with doctoral or post-doc work.
Your wants are extremely broad. There certainly are a ton of non-profits in the bay area that might fit. They don’t pay well, but surely you could find yourself a rich husband.
re: (6)
any 80 hours a week you like, eh? =)
I only get paid 9 months a year, notably not including June/July/August.
I’m in the office at 9:30 right now.
That’s … odd. Your research doesn’t count as paid time?
What does “paid time” mean? I’m salaried.
Heh, so am I. But they still track my hours. Separate pools of vacation and sick leave time. If I go over 40 some week I can go under 40 another. This “everyone works 60+ hour weeks, it’s standard, what’s your problem?” bullshit seems to be endemic to software. No idea if its endemic elsewhere.
In academia, you are paid a salary, and you have the option of working as hard as you want. You get no explicit reward for doing so, but eventually you need to get hired or you need tenure or promotions; then you get rated against the people who worked their asses off.
The two times I worked in software, it was 40 hours, then you left; there may or may not be flex time. At NASA, the PI-types worked 50. What you’re describing is a startup company, where you have big-risk-big-reward (this is by no means restricted to software), or a game programming company or the movie industry or whatever, where the company feels it can get away with being dysfunctional.
I was struggling to write something other than glittering generalities. Maybe I can work on concretifying the list.
Basically, nothing in your list says “I need a fancy piece of paper.”
There are really only two good reasons to undertake a program that leads to a Philosophiæ Doctor:
1. you want to be a professor
2. you actually do love knowledge. A lot. No, really, a huge amount.
There’s also the fact that, with a Ph.D., you get taken more seriously right off the bat. I’m not sure exactly what that’s worth.
In a research lab, without a Ph.D., it will take you consistent effort over 5-7 years to climb through the ranks and become a lead researcher (and some luck). During this time, they’ll pay you better than grad school would have. The only door that can’t be otherwise opened is the professor door, a fact about which there’s some hand-wringing in academia.
If you have a clear idea of what you want to do, an advisor who consents, and are willing to work incredibly hard, you may be able to get through a doctoral program in 3-4 years. Typically it goes 5-7 because you “waste” about two years in the time between classes and real thesis work sponging up knowledge but not creating much any.
I think it would be helpful to pick something specific that you want to do. That will make choosing a program and advisor much easier. With that list as it is you could pretty much enter any field. 🙂
I suggest sitting down and writing a research proposal – what you plan to do over your n years in grad school. Make this like a project plan for work. “In year 1 I will do XYZ, year 2 QGB” etc. Concrete tasks. I think one of the biggest pitfalls PhD students fall into is not having a clear picture of their plan at the onset and then end up completely lost. Independent research is really difficult – sometimes people don’t realize how proactive and self-motivated they really need to be in order to be successful. I think a lot of students enter graduate school expecting to be told what to do and how to do it. But the reality is once the structured part of a PhD program ends most students are left to sink or swim.
(Sorry if you already know all this, by the way :))
If you plan to be a grad school dropout, please be sure to read and follow the advice in my post on How to Fail at Grad School.
I am curious about this , but I can’t read it.
Back to research I guess.
Wow, you want the ideal job. Somehow I don’t think more education will lead you there. Ideal jobs are not about credentials, they are about serendipity. As in outrageously good luck and surprise connections. Which I wish upon you 🙂
You’re actually pretty much describing the job I had at legal aid before I entered law school. It was the only job I ever loved. I still left it, though, which is a lesson in itself — that if you are lucky enough to find a job that has all these things, you’ll probably still get tired of it and want to move along. If for no other reason than to continue growing.
right task, surprising output
Knowing you’re grounded in enginerding, I thought maybe framing your career quest in familiar terms might move you to more concrete expressions of what you want – i.e. requirements. I had kinda sorta thought a list like this might be more a list of outputs – instead you’ve characterized an environment. That’s a great first step – Now, WHAT do you WANT to DO?
Not where, or with whom – not how, under what conditions – that is, in the end, somewhat important – but that’s like arbitrarily saying “I’ll never take a job where i have to wear a tie and work 9 to 5” – is that true? If you were offered a million dollars a year to research and deploy tests of clean water options for underprivledged people in mountain regions – and the only requriement were that you HAD to wear a tie in the office 9 to 5 – I doubt you’d say no. That’s like quitting a job because you can’t access facebook at work – ephemera.
I think your list is a good first step – but these aren’t requirements in the technical or applicable sense. This list says ‘talented, thoughtful generalist who enjoys a relaxed environment of contemplation.’
i’m thinking google, PARC, etc. – have you considered that kind of work? Or more applied things like the Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, etc…
As I’m sure you are aware, the areas you want to apply yourself too are not prone to long mindful contemplation – but instead hard nosed realities. Technical grounding is essential – but a PhD is not always required. Experience is. You have valuable experience, and i bet you can apply it – without a PhD.
Grad school and Post-doctoral programs are grueling – they test your fortitude, your dedication and your focus – that is not to imply you don’t have these things – but as we discussed, these programs don’t just grant knowledge; they push you to your limits. My concern is that you’re expecting the PhD to vest you with some kind of door-opening magic – but I don’t think that’s always true – and a long grueling study program merely to open doors you have yet to identify is a dubious proposition.
Credentials open some doors, but not all – experience instead counts a lot – that’s how I ended up in my line of work – far from Molecular Biology and Biochemistry.
You have a strong background in engineering, budgeting, evaluation, auditing – not thrilling areas, but essential to any government or Non-profit operation – pitching yourself as someone who can support grant writing, program evaluation and performance could open doors you didn’t know were there.
You’re on the right track – just keep thinking.
Yes…
What he says…
(this will mainly be for Mr. Chaotic… although I love your username..)
Adding to what I have below.. I have an undergrad in General Engineering from Un. of ILL @ Shampoo-Banana with a specialization in Controls. While there, I also, because of 42 hours of AP credit, took a ton of liberal arts classes for fun so that I graduated in 4 years with like 170 credit hours.
I then went into Engineering Grad school in Controls before breaking off and going to Germany to study history over there.. and then came back to the History of Science program I’m in now.. although, here, I did specialize in the History of Technology… wrote my masters on the history of German Engineering Education 1860-1900.. and now have my dissertation on the development of synthetic fuels in the United States during the 1940’s and early 50’s…
My goal, since I was much younger, was to help act as a bridge between the technical and humanistic worlds.. (think c. p. snow..).. and thus my interest in the history of science/technology.. but in terms of actually acting as a bridge.. it is most likely that I will end up–if I have my way–in engineering administration here at a university… becoming someone who helps to shape how engineers are trained and educated…
Getting such a position, however, would not be possible from just my Ph.D work.. but is much more likely because along the way I have TA’d over in Engineering and done Project Assistantships and worked with numerous people over there… so keep such things in mind in terms of any grad school program you go into.. networking in the area you want to arrive in is at least as important as any research you do along the way… (actually more!)
Re: right task, surprising output
So, more along the lines of
but with a level of detail similar to the above?
I’m getting back to you here…
since you responded to my post.. and I had already thought of responding to this one..
As someone who’s been in grad school since the last millenium (haha), some words of wisdom.
Know what you want to study from the outset. I went into Grad school with some rather fuzzy notions about it being an extension of undergrad where you learn more in-depth about a certain field in a very general way. This is not the case in some important ways. Yes, you do learn a lot more and it is more focused–but writing a dissertation–especially in a humanistic field–is an immense project–and if you don’t want to flail around aimlessly for a few years (making next to no money), then it helps to know what the fuck you want to do when you go in.
What I see above are principles–that’s great.. that’s the kind of thing that I sort of had when I went into the history of science.. (that, and it was a field that combined my two main interests of math/science/engineering & history ).. However.. I spent a good 2 years trying to figure out just what the hell I wanted to write a dissertation on after my prelims and am only now, in my 9th year, getting the fucker done.
Is it good–yes.. I have a cool topic on synthetic fuels that–unlike many disserations that I’ve read–actually seems to be relevant to the real world and that I could turn into a book that more than 10 people in the world might want to read…
However.. along the way… I had years where I almost quit and where almost nothing got done…
Anyway.. perhaps all of this won’t matter–because you will be going into a different kind of field. One thing to keep in mind is that grad school is really a misnomer… each PhD program/discipline has vastly different requirements–takes vastly different amounts of time & effort & results in very different products. I have acquaintances who just finished their PhD’s in biochem–and their dissertation was basically running an experiment for a year or two, and then writing about 100 pages of text along with lots of data and charts and such.
English Ph.D’s, I’ve heard, can be under 200 pages…
My Ph.D will end up being about 500 pages.. it will be based on reading about 3-400 different secondary sources.. and combining that with the information I gleaned from over 1000 primary source documents (trade press articles, national archives material, and material from a presidential library..).
It all depends.
Thus. I would urge you to figure out in advance the kinds of topics that interest you–not just principles.. if you find a problem that you think you would like to dedicate yourself to, and you think going to grad school will help you do that.. then do so…
Personally, I think that Ph.D’s–at least in non-technical fields–basically just train you to read, research, and write (maybe you learn to teach along the way–but that’s a side bonus..)… they don’t train you in anything related to acquiring or exerting power.. things like Law degrees are more relevant there.. or MBA’s or what not..
Good luck with your thinking!