
So you want to do a PhD (2012) - shawndumas
http://youshottheinvisibleswordsman.co.uk//2012/02/06/so-you-want-to-do-a-phd.html
======
malrase
_Your supervisor is key. You have to like them, because they’ll be criticising
your work for the next 3-4 years._

This sentence resonates with me particularly. I was encouraged to choose my
PhD based on love of topic rather than supervisor. I had multiple topics I
enjoyed, but ended up going with a worse supervisor and a topic I thought more
interesting than a better supervisor and a slightly less enthralling topic.

After a year, I quit my program.

What I learnt: even though a topic might be slightly less interesting, the
people you work with (and in particular, your supervisor) can make you love
something more.

(NB: Obviously I wouldn't recommend choosing a topic you have no interest in
and/or hate just because you get along with the supervisor!)

~~~
xk_id
How do you know whether your supervisor is a good fit? I have heard this
advice, and similar stories, several times. But at the moment (I'm finishing
my undergrad), it is not clear how the student is matched to a supervisor. For
my dissertation, we were reandomly assigned teachers, and they insisted we
cannot change them, etc.

Do you normally have time to chat with your potential supervisor, before
deciding if you think it could work?

~~~
xijuan
I found it is a bit odd that you couldn't pick your supervisor. I think in
most universities who you want to work with are up to you and the supervisors
who wish to accept you. The best advice for finding a good supervisor is to
ask current graduate students. Some supervisors are well known to be good
supervisors among grad students whereas others are known for being super mean
to graduate students.. Current grad students usually know who are good at
supervising. Also ask about the style of supervising. Some supervisors are
very hand off but you get little support from them. Others can help you a lot
but may impose their ideas onto you.

------
ephermata
This is valuable advice. The supervisor is absolutely the most important
consideration. It is worth pointing out two things that are different in many
U.S. universities.

1) PhDs in the U.S. in CS take between 3-10 years to finish. Less if you are
in theory and have a strong set of results off the bat that align around a
single area. More if you need to build something with a long cycle time, such
as create a new architecture and build a chip.

The first 2-3 years will have classes and feel a little like undergrad. After
that it transitions into the free-form research as the post describes. Unlike
in the U.K., typically you do not have a hard stop at 4 years, and you can
find teaching assistantships or other sources of funding to keep going a year
or two at a time.

The good news is that you have more time with relative freedom. The bad news
is depending on your advisor, it is easy to drift for years without making
much progress.

2) In all the U.S. universities I know, the standard state is for you to be
employed by the university as a teaching assistant or a "graduate student
researcher." This has impact on intellectual property. For example, the
University of California used to ask and may still ask all employees to sign a
"Loyalty Oath and Patent Assignment Agreement."

------
greenyoda
As a PhD dropout (computer science) who knew a lot of other PhD dropouts, my
advice to anyone who thinks they want to do a PhD is to first have a very
clear idea of _why_ you want to do it. If you don't have that to motivate you,
it's not likely that you'll make it through all those years of hard work,
frustration, poverty and abuse.

Especially in computer science, there are lots of opportunities to work on
cool stuff without spending several years of your life to get a PhD.

~~~
Paul_D_Santana
I've always thought that Computer Science is a field best mastered through
experience in actually programming in your chosen language(s).

I wonder how many people do Master's or PhD programs simply because they want
to stay in school.

~~~
jamesrcole
That's if you want to be a good programmer. But I don't see how programming
experience is that relevant to solving a lot of the theoretical problems that
exist.

------
xijuan
Such a well written article on what doing a PhD is all about. Too bad that
people start focus on the whether-PhD-worths-the-time debate or the PhD-earns-
so-little-money talk again... That is not even the focus of the article

------
fixxer
Hedge your bets by doing a start-up in year 2, which will hopefully be
followed by the epiphany that a PhD is a poor metric of intelligence and
"permanent sabbatical" has a nice ring to it.

~~~
wellboy
So true, gave you an upboat. I can seriously try 5 startups in 4 years and I'm
a millionaire afterwards, can research on whatever I want and don't have to
prove myself to nobody ever again. If you choose to do a PhD, you're still
nothing afterwards and you still have to prove yourself to everybody, uargh...

Also, when I talk to PhDs, they seem like little kids who don't have an idea
of anything in comparison to startup founders. --> Do a startup

~~~
khawkins
Startup founders are usually discussing consumer products which are by
neccessity easy to comprehend. Research students usually delve into issues of
high complexity for the task of progressing the state of the art. They don't
often have to communicate the importance of their work to people like you.

~~~
wellboy
Yeah easy to comprehend in hindsight, obviously. Sorry didn't want to hate
against PhD students, but I don't like the institution of a PhD. Most PhD
thesises I have seen are just a waste of time of the PhD students. Less in
science PhDs, more so in social studies, business...

~~~
yid
> Most PhD thesises I have seen are just a waste of time of the PhD students

I'm curious why you feel qualified to judge the quality of PhD theses, or
whether they were worth the authors' time. There's obviously a gradient in
quality, but your post is overly dismissive.

------
leishulang
most importantly, have the ability to focus on your paper while same-
age/younger folks around you are earning way better salary and banging much
prettier girls.

~~~
tdees40
Because clearly money and girl-banging are the only reasons to choose a
career.

~~~
dsfasfasf
No they are not, but they sure are important. Anybody who says otherwise is
lying or being naive. We all want to find a mate, is in our genes. Those that
profess not to want sex are either lying or are sick.

