
Dear brilliant students: Please consider not doing a PhD. - Cass
http://liv.dreamwidth.org/389934.html
======
cschmidt
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.

~~~
10dpd
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.

~~~
ricw
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
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).

~~~
kscaldef
I think it's also worth saying that phrasing it as "picking a rubbish
superviser" puts an unfair blame on the student. By the time you realize your
advisor is neglectful, or incompetent as a teacher, or actually neglectful,
you might be a year or more down a research path. There might not be another
professor at your school qualified and willing to supervise your research. The
choice at that point, whether to tough it out or to throw away all your
progress up to that point, is an incredibly difficult one.

(FWIW, my advisor in theoretical physics was merely neglectful. Almost all of
my friend in an experimental field had advisors who bordered on abusive.)

------
jpallen
As others are saying in this thread, I find myself disagreeing with almost
every point the author makes about doing a PhD. I'm just about to hand in my
thesis after 3 and half years of doing a PhD in theoretical physics in the UK.
I've published 2 papers and have a third in preparation so I feel like my PhD
has been 'good'. In contrast to the author, I've worked on my PhD no more than
40 hours a week, often less since I've also spent a lot of time building up a
website and a business that I hope to pursue full-time afterwards. I also
haven't been 'broken' in anyway - sure it was tough at times, but I'm leaving
my PhD feeling more intelligent and more energised that I ever did. The
experience of pushing myself into the unknown and having to learn a lot in a
short time has been very beneficial, and I now feel like there is little
knowledge that I couldn't master given the time. So all in all, a very
positive experience. Sure my research isn't particularly groundbreaking, but
the personal development that has come with my PhD has been huge.

~~~
pmb
The UK system is reputed to be far less abusive than the US system. The US
system put me through the frigging wringer.

~~~
snogglethorpe
Take this with an enormous grain of salt, but some vague memories from
conversations with UK grad students (I worked in a UK university for a few
years a while back):

(1) UK undergrad programs are a lot more focused, so students tend to be a lot
further along _before_ they start a PhD program.

(2) UK PhD students are funded for a fixed time 3(?) years, and then you're
supposed to be done. That doesn't always happen, of course—I knew students who
went on the dole to continue once their funding ended—but the system is
focused on getting them out in that period. In the U.S., on the other hand,
there seems to be a _lot_ more variability; we've all heard the stories about
CS grad students that take 10 years to get their degree...

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> UK undergrad programs are a lot more focused, so students tend to be a lot
> further along before they start a PhD program.

It depends. Definitely doing a theory-based PhD can benefit from a European
(not just UK) undergrad education, but in systems or implementation, American
undergrads actually have an edge (everything else being equal, which is never
true).

> PhD students are funded for a fixed time 3(?) years, and then you're
> supposed to be done.

Truth. I didn't know anyone to get out in 5 or 6 years, let alone three (in
the American system).

~~~
rmk2
That is because American PhD and English PhD are _fundamentally different_.
English PhD programmes usually have no curriculum (or only coursed to bring
everyone up to the same level coming from their previous degrees during 4-year
courses that are highly interdisciplinary).

In the sciences, people either do 4 year undergrad degrees followed by 4 year
(usually funded) PhDs, or they do 3/2/3 years (undergrad/Masters/PhD). In the
social sciences and humanities, 3/2/3 or 3/1/3 or 4/1/3 are normal, going from
undergrad directly into PhD is _higly_ unusual in these.

The US 5/6 years usually include a Masters degree, as far as I know, which is
usually not the case in the UK.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
We had a couple of years of light course work in my phd school, followed by
research. We didn't have a masters in our path either (I don't have one). But
a master degree is not very relevant to a CS phd.

We (US vs. UK PhDs) aren't that different, we compete at about the same level
on completion (with typical personal variations, of course). Even the length
of the PhD program doesn't seem to be as important as total length in field.

~~~
rmk2
> Even the length of the PhD program doesn't seem to be as important as total
> length in field.

Oh, I by no means meant to disagree with this!

My point was that the programs themselves are differently structured, so
comparing the actual time a PhD takes does not really work, since there are a
number of possible combinations of undergrad/grad(/grad)-degrees that make up
the length of an individual project. In the end, people will probably be at
about the same stage, but that does not mean that going from undergrad
straight into a PhD in the US and the UK work he same way. As a further
example, in Germany, you were able to do just a PhD, as your only degree ever,
until relatively recently. In the end, it probably wouldn't matter, since PhD
is PhD (in a way), but your way there is hardly comparable!

------
snowwrestler
I've had several friends get Ph.D.s, and here's what I see: it takes very
strong, maybe borderline obsessive self-motivation, to feel ok throughout the
process and to succeed. In that respect it is probably like doing a high-
stakes startup. It's not for everyone.

But I think a lot of this post is about the pain of transition for brilliant
students. They go from a position of constant praise and success, to a
position of being constantly frustrated and subject to the whims of more
powerful people.

In my experience this transition happens to ALL brilliant students. It is
structural, in that up to the completion of a bachelor's degree, the vast
majority of the typical academic experience consists of professors creating
structured, completable assignments, and the student completing them and being
graded. In short, exercises.

But once you leave undergrad, that structure disappears pretty quickly.
Whether it's your boss, your investors, or your advisor, the "adults" above
you aren't just guiding you to pre-determined success points. They're just
other people with their own goals and agendas. And the problems you're
tackling with them are not necessarily structured, easy, or even achievable.

------
lists
I'd like to read some warnings and recommendations targeted at an older, more
mature individual who's continued researching her interest after undergraduate
but has yet to begin, though plans on, applying for a doctorate.

I remember dating one and meeting many young graduate students in humanities
who when asked "What are you working on?" didn't have anything terribly
specific in mind. I'd made the decision not to apply after undergraduate
because I specifically didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to work on
(disclosure: I'm in _philosophy_!). Now, a few years later, my independent
research has come to grips with a real subject and problem and feel much more
confident about applying, but now I'm told that I shouldn't disclose how
decided I am in the work that I want to do, that I should present my
intentions as a little ambiguous and up in the air still. Huh!?

~~~
Cass
There's a few people in the comment section talking about how doing their PhD
as a mature student worked far better for them and left them with their soul
only lightly crushed, so you might be able to ask for some advice over there.

------
ChuckMcM
One of the interesting thing I find about PhDs (as in people who have one) is
that a non-trivial number of them seem to equate not having a PhD with not
being able to get one. I've always wondered if that was a cognitive dissonance
issue (unable to relate to having a capability and not using it) or a self
evaluation issue (unable to accept that having a PhD doesn't increase the
specialness of your snowflake status). Generally only a problem when it got in
the way of productive discussions.

I realize this is true for any class of certificate, whether it be a College
Degree or a Certified Microsoft Programmer but my experience is that its a
bigger issue with PhDs.

I would agree that passing on getting a PhD can be argued to be a good
investment in your time (unless you really really want to teach). But if you
are passionate about a subject enough to pursue it through the PhD level then
by all means go for it.

~~~
_delirium
I don't see that as much in computer science, though I could be oblivious.
Conferences often have a mix of people with and without PhDs, and a lot of
good work comes from people in the 2nd category (especially if your sub-area
has many participants from industry), so I don't think many people are under
the impression that those people are less intelligent.

I do find it jarring that in some fields they put the degree right at the top
of papers, which segregates the two groups much more publicly: the author line
will be "John Smith, PhD". I've never seen that on a CS paper (people put
affiliations at the top, but not credentials), and I think it would be
considered a bit gauche and uncollegial.

~~~
ChuckMcM
It is entirely possible that this impression comes from survivor bias as its
jarring when you run into it, and you don't notice when you don't.

------
Xcelerate
What did she do her PhD in? Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing it in
her article/rant.

I'm on the second semester of getting a PhD in chemical engineering and so far
I love it. My undergraduate school was much more of a time-sink (then again,
it was rated one of the least happy schools in the US). Right now, I can do my
research anywhere and anytime I feel like it. I get to use the world's best
equipment at the best national labs and I get to guide the direction of my
projects with the help of my advisor -- who is also amazing by the way.

So maybe that's kind of a humble-brag, but it should be. The author shared her
n=1 miserable experience and I'm sharing my n=1 great experience so perhaps
you should learn about getting a PhD yourself and decide if that's what you
want to do instead of listening to people moan about what martyrs grad
students are.

~~~
cookiecat
Perhaps share your thoughts with us after you have completed your PhD as well?

~~~
Xcelerate
Sure, just give me a couple more years ;) But cschmidt shared his, and his
sentiments are positive.

------
cottonseed
The author makes some good points, but what they don't realize is:

For an intellectually and professionally ambitious person, the the options
carry many of the same challenges, although the details might vary.

I'm in a PhD program right now, but I did startups in my 20s. I worked crazy
hours. I broke myself physically and mentally. Many relationships got
destroyed along the way. The money was bad (ramen) and uncertain -- when do
you give up when the salary stops but the idea still seems good? The ideas
were ambitious and open-ended. The goals were vague. We made mistakes, wasted
weeks and months, pivoted, failed. We were doing research.

The PhD has had its challenges (learning the literature has been hard for me),
but when I started research I thought, "Oh, right, I recognize this. This I
know how to do." The PhD isn't the problem.

What's the alternative?

~~~
pnathan
From a CS/software standpoint, I don't see a great deal of personal difference
between an aggressive industry position and PhD research. Both involve heavy
overtime, intense focus, and uncertain futures.

Financially, of course, there _is_ a difference, which will bleed out into
other areas... but this is less important after your needs & small wants are
covered.

Put another way, working 6-7 days/wk for 16 hour days in industry was not
meaningfully different from doing research; actually, research was more
pleasant IMO. In both scenarios you come home and zonk, but in one you have
the freedom to go wander around, stare at the clouds, and think, without
getting in trouble.

------
basseq
As the husband of a PhD (in the U.S.), I agree with many of the OP's points.
It was an arduous process with little in the way of internal controls or
milestones and subject to the whims of her adviser. I was struck at how
academia lacks the people and project management concepts that I've taken for
granted; it really is a fiefdom ("deeply dysfunctional training system").

She made the choice to move into industry and not academia a year before
graduation (because the concept of a post-doc, nontenured professorship, and
continued toiling at below-market rates [and other reasons] was...
unappetizing), and at that point was sort of sidelined.

She made it out in 4.5 years, where many of her peers are still in the
program. Which brings me to my main point of contention with the article:
"it's because you're brilliant that you're contemplating doing a PhD in the
first place". Not all PhDs are brilliant any more so than every brilliant
person considers doing one. As the OP points out, the key to PhD success is
self-motivation and a dedication to the field ("appetite for pain") rather
than any particular cognitive blessing.

As in all things, whether it's a PhD or the decision to go work in finance
(for a great salary but no personal life for several years) or doing a start-
up, you need to weigh your personal goals and limitations with the
expectations of your environment.

------
rdfi
While doing a PhD:

1\. You are very dependent on your supervisor. Not in terms of doing your
work, but in terms that s/he can make it impossible for you to get your degree

-This opens the door for abuse. If your supervisor asks you do to something, even if unrelated to your phd subject, you'll probably do it. If you supervisor is a decent person this won't happen, however if you decide to do a phd you will be in a position where this can happen.

2\. It's a huge vague task and even if you are extremely successful you will
have publications about it with many citations. You'll get some pats on the
back, and that's it. There's no real reward. The only reward is relief when
you finish.

3\. If an academic career is your goal, you have to be aware that it is not
very rewarding financially.

4\. Apart from the personal skills that you will most definitely acquire
(being able to learn more quickly and in-depth any new subject), the actual
knowledge that you acquire from doing a PhD will probably not be useful
outside the inevitably narrow subject your phd targets. And unless that
subject has demand in the industry, you will only be able to use it in
academia.

5\. Writing scientific papers is not fun, the review process is not fun. I
don't think I've met anyone that gets genuinely excited when they have to
review or write a paper.

I could go on, but let me tell you about the positives. If you can publish,
you can travel to conferences, get to know new places and meet interesting
people. And that's about it.

My personal opinion now (after leaving academics) is that if you really like a
subject you should pursue it on your own. The effort that you have to put in a
PhD is so big that if you used it for something else, you will probably end up
with something that you are really proud of. I say this because when you do
research, at least in my personal opinion, you don't always feel you are doing
it for yourself, you are doing it because you have to publish, because that's
the nature of the game in academics, you have to publish. And, again, writing
and reviewing papers is not fun.

Anyway, a couple of years ago there was an article in the economist named the
"The disposable academic" that neatly describes how the system is broken:
<http://www.economist.com/node/17723223>

------
geophile
My experience was quite different from that of OP, and I suspect most people
who walk that path. I'm 56 in a few days, and got my PhD in computer science
in 1983. I was lucky enough to go to a high school that had a real computer, a
PDP-8M, and I was hooked five minutes after I sat down at the DecWriter.

At college, I was theoretically pre-med. A month into my freshman year (1974),
I went to a party at the house of a revered EE professor, who happened to be a
friend of the family. I was talking with someone, another professor, about my
interest in computers, and he told me in no uncertain terms that there was no
future in that. I was crushed. I was seriously bummed out for weeks. But it
was what I loved to do, so I kept doing it, taking whatever courses were
available, and hacking on my own projects.

I cleverly sabotaged all my medical school interviews. My interviewers were
able to detect my lack of interest in medicine and my great enthusiasm about
computers, and wisely rejected me.

I graduated, and wanting to do nothing but play with computers, I got a job in
NYC, writing software, and because that wasn't enough, I also went to grad
school at night. I decided to do a PhD because that seemed like the best way
to keep playing with computers. My thought process was really that shallow. I
wasn't thinking about industry vs. academe, future earning potential, or any
other practical matters. I saw that I wouldn't finish my PhD while working, so
I decided to do grad school full time.

I was lucky enough to choose McGill for grad school, after leaving New York. I
sort of just fell into it, because I had gone there undergrad, I liked it, and
my girlfriend was going there for medical school. I was lucky in the sense
that it was perfectly suited to my personality. It wasn't a funding
powerhouse, but between teaching and research funds, a student could support
himself easily. My PhD adviser was a wonderful man, low-key, with some fun
things he was investigating, but he wasn't building an empire, built on the
backs of enslaved grad students. We were just looking at interesting problems
together.

I graduated, and taught at UMass/Amherst for two years. And then it hit me.
What a grad student was supposed to do, and what a faculty member was supposed
to do. A faculty member starts building his empire, with insane focus on
getting tenure. He or she gets tenure and builds a bigger empire, and spends
an inordinate amount of time chasing funding. Grad students do the fun work,
working very hard, for a very long time. I had no idea how to play this game,
and no interest.

I left, and a few years later found myself at my first startup. It was similar
to UMass. Instead of professors, there are entrepreneurs, insanely focused,
and whose main job it is to get money to fund the work. Instead of grad
students are the early employees, who make the vision real. I was much happier
as an early employee, being a low-key introvert, who loves technical problems
more than business problems. My PhD caused some large degree of distrust -- if
I have that background, I'm obviously interested in writing academic papers
more than writing software. But I still loved playing with computers, and
startups are a great place to do that. I wrote a lot of software.

Epilogue: At my current startup, a number of our customers have a problem that
happened to be exactly in the area of my PhD research. I spent a very
enjoyable few weeks implementing my PhD thesis for these customers. 30 years
later, my PhD ideas finally shipped.

tl;dr: I did a PhD to keep doing what I was drawn to. My career has been
incredibly rewarding, and even charmed, and it is so atypical (I think) that I
can't advise anyone to pursue a PhD based on my experience.

~~~
enjo
Another data point: My wife is a relatively recent PhD (6 years out). Her
experience has been nothing but amazing.

When it comes to academia your field of study matters. Alot. My wife is a
behavioral accounting researcher, which is a high-demand field with incredibly
low supply. Her experience, compared to other disciplines, just couldn't be
any more different. She's highly paid and does exactly what she loves.

It helps that she's really good at it I suppose. She received early tenure and
will likely be promoted to full professor early as well. She publishes
routinely and is active in service even though, given her discipline, she
really doesn't _need_ to be.

tldr; If your passion is accounting I'd highly recommend pursuing that PhD.

~~~
sjg007
Umm, so what is behavioral accounting? I did google it, and it suggests that
Steve Jobs (when he was alive) was a major asset of Apple and should be priced
into the company's stock value.

~~~
enjo
It's like behavioral economics (Freakonomics, Predictably Irrational, etc..)
but focused purely on how people are influenced by information, specifically
accounting information.

------
hcayless
A Ph.D. is not something to be entered into lightly (and many do). I don't
regret doing mine at all, but you shouldn't do it with the expectation that
you'll get a professorship at the end, and for God's sake, don't go into debt
to get one. Only do it if you want to spend a few years researching a subject
in depth. And realize that there's a big, big world outside the walls of
Academe :-).

------
10dpd
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.

------
wyinn
If you are going to do a PhD you should have a research project decided on
before you start and you should have your own funding from a grant that you
wrote yourself. If you are not ready to write a successful grant application
you should take some time to read and talk with people in your prospective
field, while having some other job.

------
stared
To start with, I recommend text: The Ph.D. Grind, A Ph.D. Student Memoir
<http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir.htm>. The good thing about it is that it
contains rather report, than merely a conclusion. Plus, it is written in a
neutral way, leaving judgement to the reader. When it comes to anecdotical
evidence (both the linked article + most of stories in this thread are one
data point) also <http://www.phdcomics.com/> (in short, equating PhD with
stress, procrastination and frustration) is popular for a reason.

Among my friends, ones doing their PhD are lot more depressive than
programers.

The "funny" thing is that (according to my observation) burnout and crisis
hits the most the most creative and ambitious ones (and often - talented). If
one starts with a world changer approach but then discovers that "you are free
as long as it contains keywords from the grant + will result in a popular
publication on a fashionable topic" is devastating. My friends who had
approach "OK, I don't have ambition to do anything beyond what my advisor
says" do much better, at least - psychologically.

One thing is that "the world is changed" - and no longer academia is the place
for the smartest and the most creative. There are other possibilities. And I
wish I had known that before.

Caveat: I'm in the middle of my PhD. Then going to data science or software
engineering, after finishing PhD... or instead of it.

------
pnathan
I just finished up a Master's in Computer Science. It took 5 years; my initial
advisor died and I had to find another one to step in. I went deep into debt
(no funding) and finally switched over to a part-time study while I worked
full time. Unfortunately, it was just that point when the real research was
ramping up. I remember nights where I would be falling asleep as I crammed my
code in to see it work. Then more nights as I wrote and wrote and wrote.
Generally my entire work took place after 5pm and continued until sometime
after 10 or 11. I spent hours reading papers in my field.

 _It was wonderful_.

I am not saying that I loved staying up late; I am not sure that I did great
in my day job. The experience of learning and studying for the sake of the
learning was one of the most fulfilling in my _entire academic career_.

Now, I want a PhD. Because I know of no other way forward to where I am tasked
with advancing our field, publishing the result, and building a _paying_
career on that. I want to take the knowledge of a field into the next place.
From what I can tell, generally you have to be "someone special" to do serious
(by which I mean paid) research without a PhD, particularly publishable
research (by which I mean serious work advancing the field), and I'm not
particularly special; just tenacious. I'm pretty sure I'm stupid enough to
launch onto the 4-7 year journey to get the drek piled higher and deeper.
Maybe I'm not smart enough to get in. That's OK. I'll still take my best shot,
and if I fail, so be it. I won't live with the regret of not having tried.

I think there's something amazing about the idea of creating an original work,
and then telling everyone who cares (a very small audience) about it. Part of
my task will be to open up the details of what I did and _tell_ people about
it; to publish this and move the world forward in knowledge, by a _very small
amount_. There is so much terrible crap involved in the academic world, but it
pales in comparison to industry. Some of the commentators lament being broken
and bitter due to the everlasting stress without any control over their
circumstance. I see this every day in industry. I might be naive, but I don't
think it can be worse in the PhD. My MS was pretty much lousy, but it was
better than seeing people get inculcated into industry and grow bitter and
tired.

I want a PhD.

~~~
denzil_correa
> I'm not particularly special; just tenacious.

It's a myth that you require to be "smart" to do a Ph.D. You just require few
basic skills, a good supervisor and persistence. You are good to go! Here's a
quote which is another version of what you said and you will realize it's
exactly the same. If this person could do it(with wide spread fame) why not
you?

    
    
        It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with 
        problems longer. - Albert Einstein

~~~
mcknight0219
You can't be serious when Dr.Einstein said he was not smart. He is pure
genius. Absolutely no doubt. He was saying that just to make ordinary people
feel good.

------
tryggvib
What a refreshing article when I'm about to defend my PhD this Friday :)

My experience of the PhD was that it didn't break me but I come out of my
studies having completely lost all respect for academia.

I finished my dissertation in about two and a half years (the main
contribution and content of it) and then I waited for about three years to be
able to defend it. No matter how often I pressed things and asked whether
something was missing or lacking nothing happened (I actually blame my
advisor). It wasn't until after I talked to the department head and said that
I would not university registration fees (we have to pay them every year)
unless something happened. Some other professor was put in charge and that
made my advisor angry and everything got delayed again and now I'm finally
finishing.

What bothers me is that I'm defending based on knowledge I had three years ago
and I'm not allowed to add to it since that's not a part of my dissertation
(and I've been really afraid of some other individual having published similar
or same finding in those three years - I haven't really been following all
research since I lost all interest in academia).

</rant> :)

~~~
dhimes
Hey, tryggvib. There are a lot of comments I can make in this thread (I'm 50
years old, Ph.D. in physics, despised classes but loved research), but I'm
only going to make this one, to you: Good luck Friday!! Remember, YOU are the
world's expert in this specialty. Remain calm, and don't let them rattle you.

~~~
tryggvib
Thank you dhimes!

On the bright side there is one thing my lack of respect for academia results
in (I hope I'm not offending anybody and I'm mostly directing this at my
university): I'm not at all stressed for the defense.

Thanks for the kind words.

~~~
dhimes
Congratulations?

------
tehwalrus
If you go into a PhD _not_ wanting to investigate a really specialist area for
3-4 years and then write 100,000 words about it that only 3 other people will
ever read, you've not understood the exercise.

Concentration and motivation come and go, but if you're curious enough about
the universe then investigating one tiny facet of it in minute detail will
always be something you come back to, especially if you'll get the credit for
"solving" it (even if only within a tiny crowd).

Plus, realising how little you've achieved (but how much you've learned) as
you enter your 3rd year is a real kicker.

Sincerely, a PhD student 1 month into my 3rd year.

Footnote: I'm at Imperial College London, which has a kick-ass transferable
skills programme which included (for me) a 4-day residential team skills
training course, a "Mini-MBA" (5 lectures, 2 seminars), competency analysis,
leadership training, MBTI self-analysis, and a couple of other courses I've
forgotten about. You had to attend like 4 credits' worth in the first year,
but the rest of that stuff I chose to learn. It was _all awesome_.

------
geebee
The most telling thing about PhD programs is the attrition rate compared to
elite professional programs. Attrition reates "for academic reasons" appear to
be under 2% in elite JD and MD programs.

<https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf>

The spread for law schools is much higher than for med schools, but for elite
schools, it is also exceptionally low, well under 2%.

[http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/law-
school-r...](http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/law-school-
ra-1.html)

(note - just realized these are only 1L attrition rates. It isn't going to
change much here).

Ph.D programs, even at elite schools and in science or engineering, are by
comparison a horror show of failure and attrition.

It looks like completion rates for engineering - best of the bunch, are around
65%. For mathematics and physical sciences, it's about 55%.

www.phdcompletion.org/resources/CGSNSF2008_Sowell.pdf

I know this is a trick, dividing by such a low number, but I suspect that the
PhD completion rate for the 3rd rated Engineering school (Berkeley) compared
to the 3rd ranked law schools (Columbia) is about .3/.003. About 100 times
higher. This is silly, because the attrition rate at Yale is zero, which means
it's actually impossible to compute how much higher the top rated Engineering
(MIT) PhD programs's attrition rate actually is. Or, as we said in grade
school but not grad school, "infinity higher".

There are a couple reasons for this. Speaking as a PhD dropout myself, half of
a PhD in engineering isn't as much of a loss as half of med school. I don't
need the PhD to be licensed, so nobody's going to put me in jail for writing
code. Completing 2 years of med school and dropping out is far worse than
Mastering out of engineering. I just got to earning more quickly. At the same
time, I think that many elite schools are able to suppress their true
attrition rates by counting MS students as having achieved their degree goal
(in short, I suspect the true attrition rate is higher than the already grim
numbers).

But our wise elders in government (almost always lawyers) who wring their
hands about the shortage of US students in PhD programs never seem to ask...
why is Berkeley's Engineering PhD attrition rate 100 times higher than an
elite law school. Are the magna cum laude applied math majors with 800/800 on
the GRE and specialized subject tests just dumber than lawyers?

In reality, Americans have pretty much given up on PhDs in engineering and
science. Sadly, this is rational for people who have the choice to go into the
professions. However, if you'd like to come to the US, and you're looking for
a way to sidestep our byzantine immigration system, a grad degree in a STEM
field from a good US based university can be a wise move, especially since the
professional schools are far less likely to admit large numbers of
international students.

------
army
The article is a pretty good account of the reasons why talented and capable
people drop out of Ph.D. programs (often for the best), but the reality is
that your mileage may vary - a lot depends on the fit between student and
advisor and department. It's definitely a major test of your time management
and self-motivation skills.

The battle to find a topic and convince people that your topic is relevant is
painful: contrary to popular belief, working in academia is in its own way far
more competitive than in the private sector: you're constantly evaluated and
critiqued.

------
therobot24
in my 3rd year as a PhD and couldn't have made a better decision - during my
last 2 years in undergrad i interned for an organization and even worked for
them after graduating for a year before transitioning to the PhD. Oddly i felt
the opposite affect - when working full time i was drained every day, weekends
were the only refresh, while on the PhD i work more (in terms of hours), but
feel more refreshed as i build my own schedule and get to focus more on what
i'm interested in as opposed to balancing paperwork, meetings, and politics.

------
Al-Khwarizmi
Wow, the pessimism.

I did my PhD and now have a tenure-track position. I can relate to all the
obstacles described in the post (except for discrimination - at least in my
country, if you want to find racist/sexist/homophobic employers, you'd better
go to the private sector, not academia). And it's good for people considering
a PhD to know that it's not a bed of roses. It does require working long hours
for little or no pay, with unclear goals and little feedback. It is a lonely
pursuit, requiring you to make an effort to keep your social life.

But what about the thrill of discovering new things? Of treading new territory
that no one has seen before? What about the moment where, after thinking about
a problem for hours or days or weeks, the pieces click together and you say "I
got it"? What about the pride of getting accepted at a top-tier international
conference/journal (depends on your field) and getting feedback directly from
the most prestigious researchers in your field? What about the satisfaction of
seeing your papers cited by other people that are using your research and
finding it helpful? What about the pleasure of going to bed every night
knowing that you are working to further human knowledge, rather than to
further the profit of some corporation that often may do more harm than good?

For me, those rewards of working in research are much more important than the
disadvantages pointed out in the post. Sorry if this sounds a bit
condescending, but I suspect that the author of the post just didn't have
enough vocation for research, or she wouldn't have such a negative opinion.

------
jboggan
This is a good warning, especially to bright pupils coming straight out of
undergraduate programs who are continuing upon the academic trajectory because
"it is what smart kids do". I know I was definitely in that boat once upon a
time, and it was rough sailing.

The problem in a lot of programs is that the outcome is so radically different
for nearly identical students, owing entirely to what advisor they end up
with. Often the most prestigious advisor is not the most nurturing or even
competent, and many successful PhD candidates look upon their flagging
comrades as somehow weak or defective for not replicating their own success in
superficially similar but immensely challenging situations across the hall.

I think that if I had done better research before entering a PhD program I
wouldn't have chosen one where 2 out of 3 students do not get their doctorates
after 10 years. There is a huge societal cost to not simply wasting the youth
of >50% of your brightest and most motivated students, but crushing their
spirits to the point that they not only fail to contribute but may also become
a burden on others. I've seen it too many times, and I don't really advise
people to undertake PhD studies unless they are older, accomplished in some
way, and absolutely need the doctorate to advance in their field.

------
arbuge
The reality is that alot of doing a PhD comes down to the choice of your PhD
advisor. You'll be intimately apprenticed to this person and his/her whims for
several years of your life, and your life for those several years could be
great or miserable (or somewhere in between, as mine was) as a result. Choose
wisely and listen to your gut. It's generally the best judge of character you
have.

Interview former students too (not current ones - you want the ones totally
free to speak their mind).

------
acuozzo
Here's a related but off-topic question: How does one earn a PhD in the US
while working a full-time job to support a family, including a wife, children,
and a home?

~~~
hardhead
Often, you don't. When I applied to graduate school I intended to keep my full
time "real pay" job. My PhD program only accepted students who would take a
graduate student stipend and commit full time to the "program." After going
through it, I understand why they want that commitment and I would not
recommend anyone try to get a PhD in the spare time.

~~~
acuozzo
That's a shame.

So, basically, choosing to start a family first keeps you out of academia
forever _by design_.

~~~
quanics
I think hardhead might have just been referring to keeping a "full time job"
which is impossible in many of the STEM PhD programs in the US. A lab-mate of
mine has a child, and I know a few others in my program that have children as
well. Almost all STEM PhD programs offer stipends for TAs and/or RAs, so you
might get on the order of 20K/year to be a student. That being said, there are
no shortage of people claiming the grad student -> postdoc -> nontenured prof.
-> tenured prof. route is hostile to those wanting a family.

~~~
hardhead
Quanics is correct. I would never recommend paying your own way at a graduate
program--go where you are funded. A graduate stipend will net to about
$20k/year (there are some amazing fellowships that will fund $50k+ but they
are very, very competitive). In a "real job" you'll often be making much more
than $20k, as I was when I was a higher ed IT professional (and could have
qualified for free tuition as an institutional employee). PhD programs are
rated by several factors including graduation rate and time to completion. It
is obvious to me now that the people who are choosing the students to fill the
very limited number of graduate student seats in any given year will choose
those who are committing to work full time on graduating.

Many people do complain about academia being hostile to family life (see
[http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2010/09/15-marriage-and-
family-u...](http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2010/09/15-marriage-and-family-
usually-wait.html) for a particularly negative view). However, many of my
colleagues had children during graduate school. They took time off classes but
then used their "down time" (e.g. child napping) to focus on writing and came
out ahead. I got married immediately before entering grad school and had my
first child as I was writing my dissertation. The timing worked really well
for me. I was lucky that my wife could support me through graduate school (on
top of my stipend).

------
k1m
_Disciplined Minds_ by Jeff Schmidt is an excellent book on this topic:
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742516857>

There's a review of it here: [http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/higher-
education-review.h...](http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/higher-education-
review.htm)

------
blablabla123
There are a lot of contradicting opinions about whether to do a PhD out there.
The article together with most comments I read, just makes the issue more
paradox.

I can only speak for myself, I studied swiftly Physics (diploma) in the number
of semesters I was supposed to. While doing so there were some twists and
turns in my private life, making my private life suck a lot when I finished my
degree. So after all I also did not get a top grade, making myself think,
screw the PhD thing. Anyway, I cannot tell how freed (and tiiiired) I felt
when I handed in my f __ __*g thesis.

Eventhough I did not go for the PhD for different reasons, I can understand
that a person with a private life and non-optimal environment can have a
"unpleasant" experience. On the other hand, I get the impression that top
employers are increasingly looking for PhDs. In particular on challenging
positions companies seem to love PhDs -- and not really like non-PhDs.

------
danieldk
I recently finished my PhD at a Dutch university. If I had to make the choice
again, I would accept it immediately. It was great to have the time to do in-
depth research and to be able to try practically any crazy idea I had. I had a
great and very bright supervisor, who I learnt a great deal from (and
hopefully work helped him). The colleagues were great and doing inspiring
things. I could practically arrive and leave at any time, as long as work was
done. And I got a good salary, holiday money, a bonus (1 month extra salary)
and more holiday hours than I could spend.

The only thing that was unfulfilling was writing the actual thesis. I'd rather
have spent my last year publishing two or three more articles than rehashing
what I had published already.

If you go for a PhD, be sure to accept a position with a proper pay, enough
holidays, and a good supervisor. Having the opportunity to teach a few weeks
per year is a nice bonus.

------
kriro
Too late (I wouldn't call myself brilliant though) :P

If anything the fact that so many people don't get there motivates me.

I've never belived in actually caring about the job market and such (or career
planning). If you're sufficiently motivated that usually takes care of itself.

I mean I'm mostly in it because I need to change the world a bit. Kind of the
whole "you just see the world in a different way" that gets brought up by
entrepreneurs all the time. Some research isn't the slow and incremental type
everyone keeps talking about in their "lol PhD/academics" rants :D

[Also getting a PhD here is vastly different. I get payed, teach classes and
tutor students and work on my PhD on the side. Basically all self
management/motivation and we don't take any classes and the like. Just
thesis+defend]

------
guylhem
I could not disagree more with the author - in fact at the moment I feel sorry
for her.

TLDR: PhD is not for whimps

Yes it has the potential to break you, yes you will have very or little
feedback loop and almost no money, and yes more people look forward being in
academia for the freedom to pursue whatever research they fancy.

But this whole interpretation is very very wrong.

A PhD is a life changing experience - you learn how to learn and discover new
knowledge - a process that can be extended to other disciplines and topics
(it's not unusual to find someone with a PhD in something doing research in
something very different).

It's the single best investment in yourself you can make - if you do value
your capacity to work and create value, not just being paid to do stuff other
people tell you to do, or what everybody has done in a given way for ages, and
so you keep it doing that way for tradition/lack of creativity/no reason
whatsoever.

Also, the biggest difference between the work you do during your PhD and the
other work is that you work effectively without any precise objective. You
learn to find inward motivation - which is the best replacement there is to
outward reward. The work you do is its own reward. With that, and the kind of
commitment you showed in the research-work you did alone for years, you can
take any challenge you want.

Certainly, you work will be dissected by the best experts in the domain, and
they will criticize it in any way they can - basically, you can't cheat. You
have to actually do something outstanding, for which you will be judged.

It seems to me that's what most people on HN love and value : being judged on
the merit of your work. At least that's why I love and value.

The only problem with all this is IMHO that many (most?) who do a PhD want to
work in academia afterwards, to have the freedom to work on the topics they
enjoy. I had the same failings - guilty as charged. I wanted to do something
great and then to keep improving it in ways I saw fit. But I changed my ways
(and got out of a tenure track in late 2012 - it's not for me)

I believe this is wrong, because anyone who wants to do that believes that its
own interests are for some reason better than what the market values. It's
good and all, do whatever you fancy, but not on my dime - not on public money.
Get a real job.

I learnt a lot during my PhD - but more importantly I bootstrapped unknown
capabilities to create knowledge - something that's bringing value in many
things I do.

EDIT: for anyone interested, my last post on the topic and how my PhD in CS is
currently coming into the real world 5 years later :
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4871888>

~~~
tripzilch
> I believe this is wrong, because anyone who wants to do that believes that
> its own interests are for some reason better than what the market values.
> It's good and all, do whatever you fancy, but not on my dime - not on public
> money. Get a real job.

If that's your chosen frame of reference, then that's not _your_ dime. Or the
_public_ 's dime. At that point it's the _market_ 's dime.

And the market doesn't particularly care if you believe it's wrong or not, or
whether its goals are in fact better than this particular individual's
interests.

~~~
guylhem
True, the market doesn't care. However, I do.

I just believe any given individual is less likely to be right that the
market, as an emanation of the will of many many people (at least on a
statistical basis)

Traditionally, academia wants to work on the problems it deems worth its time.
I don't like that - it's working on a fancy, on the public dime. My dime.

Working on the market dime on something the market fancies is totally
different.

Sure, sometimes it may not be the most ambitious for the long term worth of
the human race (so many social networks and ads placements out there), and
sometimes the plans of specific individuals are better.

But if such individuals can be rewarded by the market for their previous
efforts, they can then use their own money to work on their projects and
ideas. They will even be rewarded again if they did something the market
needed but didn't know it wanted.

Basically, I see that as doing real work (not in academia), and if this is
successful, using the surplus you made to work on your fancies - because then,
the kind of ideas you have and the kind of work you do have been validated by
the market.

In any case, you are not spending the public money, and you are redeemable
(you can be fired or run out of your own money) which discourages waste.

~~~
tripzilch
Yeah. I can probably see that point of view, but I do disagree with quite a
lot of the details--I believe a market works great in certain specific and
relatively small scale circumstances, especially since it's a relatively
effort-free system to set up, outside of those domains, the modus of "the
market" seems to starts diverging more and more wildly from what I consider
"good", or "to the benefit of those whose lives it affects"--but that becomes
a philosophical discussion that might be a bit OT here.

We can totally agree that academia's approach is similarly imperfect.

> They will even be rewarded again if they did something the market needed but
> didn't know it wanted.

Here you are conflating again "what the market needs/wants" with "good"

> In any case, you are not spending the public money, and you are redeemable
> (you can be fired or run out of your own money) which discourages waste.

That's not entirely fair reasoning. Just because what you describe here is the
way a market discourages waste, doesn't mean that a different system like
academia doesn't have its own ways in place to discourage waste. Which it
does. And both systems have their fair share of examples where these methods
fail spectacularly.

------
adviceforphd
I am approaching my final semester as a CS undergraduate and, to be totally
honest, I am more than a little nervous about my decision to go down the PhD
route. I've got a decent application, so I am less worried about getting into
a program and more worried about life in it. I appreciate the experiences
others have shared here, and I'd like to relate some of my thoughts and
concerns because am curious to know if (how) I'm being naive. So, while my
post here is mostly aimed at veterans who might dispel any illusions I hold, I
would value any input.

I've applied to CS PhD programs and intend to do research in AI/Machine
Learning. I am fascinated with the field, and though I have only a little
undergrad experience with it, I've loved it all so far.

One of my main goals in getting a PhD is to improve my future career
prospects, whether in academia or industry. I am ambivalent about going into
academia for a post-doc career, as I think a startup or even industry would
make better fits for me personally. I've noticed most industry jobs I'm
interested in require graduate education, and I expect the PhD will likely
over-qualify me for most startups. But more than all that, I want to make use
of my mind (I know, I know: its that tired cliche about changing the world...)
Though I enjoy coding, and I excel in my classwork and projects, I'm not a
programming genius (which, perhaps regrettably, is what some people seem to
expect from a top CS undergrad). I have had a taste of what it is like being a
professional software developer, which is what my friends are prepping to do
straight out of college, and I know it is not for me.

One qualm I have is that, as an undergraduate, I've had only one internship
relevant to AI/ML and only a taste of research (no publications, some lab
work), so the whole funding->research->publish sequence is still a little
unclear to me (although reading blogs like Philip Guo's helped demystify the
whole graduate experience). Another worry is that I do not want to put my life
on hold. I can tolerate living on little funds, but I can't accept being a
slave to my research: I want to have relationships and interests outside of
the lab. To this end, I plan to keep my act together, work smart and
effectively, and finish my PhD on time.

Does this seem like an unreasonable plan? Will I be facing jobless doldrums by
having a PhD? What more can I do to be prepared for graduate school? Is there
anything major I'm overlooking?

Also, thanks to HN in general for contributing - this has been a great thread.

EDIT: I neglected to mention I'm in the US.

------
derekja
After 15 years in industry (Compaq, Microsoft, a couple smaller shops) I'm now
back working on my PhD and enjoying the hell out of it. Totally different
experience than if I had gone straight out of undergrad, though.

------
adrianscott
Wow, I disagree with almost everything in the article. I finished up my Ph.D.
Math at age 20 in slightly more than 3 years. It was a challenge and it did
take focus to finish it, but by no means was it soul-destroying. And with the
fellowship (on top of the tuition coverage) I received, I felt rich... Yes,
you can end up with (choose) an advisor that is not a good match for you (or
for getting finished in a reasonable time), but still... It's so much easier
than doing a startup, for instance...

------
randomsearch
I did a PhD in Computer Science in the UK and whilst it is definitely an
emotional challenge, I mostly enjoyed the PhD and found it very rewarding. I
never found it overwhelmingly difficult, and I never considered giving up.

My advice for any new PhD starts is to treat it like a job, work 9-5 steadily
throughout your PhD, read as much as you can during your first year, and do
things outside of your degree to stay sane.

RS

------
InAnEmergency
> if you're expecting to work 40-hour weeks, you'd better be registered as a
> part-time student

Not all schools let you be registered part-time :'(

------
xijuan
I am so happy to see the positive comments here about PhD program. I will
start mine for quantitative psychology this Sept. I will be getting a master
and then a PhD. At least, that is the plan! WISH ME LUCK!!!!!

------
smky80
The OP didn't really go into the "malice" part of it. FYI if you do good
enough work your supervisor might be tempted to appropriate it. The process
for doing so might involve painting you as incompetent.

It's not pleasant.

------
segmond
Dear brilliant students, if you are truly brilliant, do what you wish to do
with your life. If you wish to study, by all means do so. Just don't equate
PhD with income earning ability.

------
goloxc
who has time for self-help books?

\- second-year CS PhD

------
gmac
TL;DR: PhDs are not for everyone, therefore PhDs are not for anyone.

------
alimoeeny
this is the twitter account of the original author
<https://twitter.com/individeweal>

------
ucee054
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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> 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
I hope you never have any students, because it sounds like the abused will
become the abuser.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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
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
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.

------
IheartApplesDix
As an individual with an IT Startup, I have to agree with this article. I
certainly don't have the money to pay for PhD-level talent, but I'm in dire
need of skilled individuals to implement the technical side of my business
plans and maintain them. I think it's critical that we stem the tide of over-
educated people entering the workforce in America and the best way to do it is
FUD-y articles like this that exaggerate every negative aspect of the academic
environment to the extreme. Just because you have the opportunity and
resources necessary to get a PhD, doesn't mean you should take advantage of
that and improve your possibility in life dramatically. Chances are you'll end
up moving to a European country where all the successful startups seem to be
based anymore.

------
michaelochurch
21.3: the type of person she's writing for. I might not call myself
"brilliant", but I was a good undergraduate student and a PhD seemed like the
next and most respectable step. Anything else was selling out.

21.4-22.0: usual pre-PhD stuff like GREs and those ungodly applications where
they make you list textbooks going back to freshman year calculus. Then there
were the rejections, the acceptances, and the prospective student meetings.
Those were fun.

22.1-23.2: in graduate program (math PhD) until internship on Wall Street
turned into full-time offer. Did not return for 2nd year.

23.2-29.6 (now): variety of experiences in industry, some good, some not-so-
good. Sometimes wish I could go back for a PhD in CS, but I realize that the
opportunity cost of 5 years' income is, at this point, a house everywhere
except Manhattan (where it's still a few decihouses).

Here are some observations:

If you're funded, a PhD program isn't _that_ bad. It can be stressful, or it
can be a lot of fun. You will probably fall behind with the opposite sex. Your
lifestyle will be lower-middle-class. Your social life will be weird. You
can't hang out with undergrads anymore, because the first thing you learn
(late September, usually) is that college was a different planet to which you
can never go back. I had an undergrad girlfriend for a little while, and the
contrast between her concerns and mine was stark. Grad school is part of the
Real World, and not a financially flush one. Hence, you don't really have much
in common with young professionals (who are enjoying having money until the
kids arrive and they're strapped again) either. Other grad students are your
social pool, and inter-departmental interaction is rare.

It's hard. Self-study in addition to courses is no longer optional.
Procrastination will ruin your life. College encourages specialization and
creativity: write for a sketch comedy group, go to poetry slams, play cards
till 5:00 in the morning, get sloppy drunk once a month (actually, you're not
missing out if you skip that). Grad school doesn't. You might have time for
_one_ extracurricular activity. Don't start it until you've had a successful
first year. You need to become an adult, and quickly. People who manage their
time and money like a 28-year-old seem to do OK. They aren't always happy, and
there's still a lot of opportunity cost in pursuing a graduate degree, but
these people manage to get through it and enjoy the process. People who try to
relive college do not.

I don't think graduate school is this horrible wringer for most people. Some
are unhappy, but many of them would be unhappy anywhere. Some love it. It
comes down to personal and technical maturity, as well as desires. To complete
a PhD, you really have to have to want a research career.

What _is_ horrible is the job market people face after their PhDs. That is an
outright disaster. But that's another topic.

~~~
_dps
> To complete a PhD, you really have to have to want a research career.

(disclosure: loved my Ph.D., was a professor, now doing a startup)

This is almost true, and I don't mean to quibble, but the slight inaccuracy is
an important one: to complete a PhD you have to want to _complete_ a body of
research-quality work that is recognized by experts in your field as a
meaningful advance over the current state of the art.

Everyone I know who did the Ph.D. wanting to have completed something (improve
file systems, discover a new alloy hardening process, etc.) had a great time
and reports it as among the best years of their life. But there are _lots_ of
people who just see it as the next credential to get, and for them the lack of
intrinsic motivation to complete specific independent work can make the
process quite depressing and disorienting.

It's an interesting environment because you have a lot of the
initiative/innovation challenges faced as an entrepreneur, but that part isn't
evident to everyone. It is absolutely not like a job where you will be given
responsibilities and expected to fulfill them.

