
The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. - jmduke
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
======
jamesrcole
I really dislike this diagram. I think it just perpetuates a damaging
stereotype about research, one that makes it harder for people trying to do
(entirely valid) types of research that fall outside of the stereotype.

The stereotype is that research is about making every-more specialised
contributions that extend existing work in finer and finer-grained ways.

What research falls outside of this stereotype? Synthesis. Theorising deeper
foundations that connect disparate bits of knowledge and gives a deeper
understanding of them.

Why is the stereotype damaging? It equates research with simply making more
specialised extensions to existing research, which means that it's seen as "a
good thing" for research to be sharply-focused on a very specific topic. In a
slogan: narrowness good, breadth bad. Breadth is seen as lack of focus, trying
to take on too much.

But breadth is not always bad. It depends on what kind of research you are
doing. Breadth can actual simplify the task and make it easier, if your task
is developing a deeper, underlying theory.

And if someone can develop a deeper theory, that work can have -- to relate
this back to the diagram -- an impact that projects across and reshapes whole
segments of the circle.

~~~
michaelhoffman
The diagram isn't about "research." It is about doing a PhD. And for better or
for worse, doing a PhD in the sciences usually involves making an improvement
in a narrow area rather than something that addresses multiple areas. Frankly,
doing that is much more difficult and often not really an appropriate topic
for a PhD student because it is more likely to fail.

~~~
acgourley
What's so wrong with failure?

~~~
CognitiveLens
failure to get your PhD after 4-8 years of work is a pretty big risk to take
(it generally means you will never get your PhD), particularly since you
generally have much more freedom to pursue "risky" approaches to research
after you have the degree, and even more so after you have tenure.

~~~
fatjokes
you have freedom after you receive tenure, but virtually no freedom before
that.

during your phd and postdoc, and certainly while you're tenure-track, you want
to be pursuing projects that will nearly guarantee you publications at top-
tier conferences / journals. so you don't want to be too risky, lest you go a
few years without any good publications.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
You can always do it the wrong way and just research what you want.
Surprisingly, I haven't starved to death yet.

~~~
fatjokes
You have a very lenient advisor.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Well, I've been out for more than 7 years, but I think my adviser was pretty
patient. I'm lucky that my current research boss is cool about what I do.

------
mxfh
For the people who changed their career in the last two years; here is the old
HN-thread with some 42 comments:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588727>

~~~
denzil_correa
How do these double submissions creep in?

~~~
RaSoJo
The previous one was almost 3 years back. A few of us wouldn't discovered this
post without the double submission having occurred...Am thankful cos it is a
pretty neat illustration.

~~~
denzil_correa
Good point! In that case, I wouldn't mind double submissions as well.

------
jostmey
Does anyone realize that this document is not meant to describe what it is
like to get a Ph.D. but instead meant to encourage people in science to
continue there research?

At the very end of the document, the Author explains that his son is ill from
a rare genetic disorder, and wishes that a cure existed.

~~~
ams6110
As I was scrolling down, and saw the "Related Posts" heading, I assumed that
the actual content part of the page was at an end and the remainder was just
footer material, links, etc.

If the author wishes to make this point more obvious, he shoudn't be
effectively burying it in a footnote.

~~~
alaskamiller
He's being classy by showing you the goods first before asking you for a tip
at the end.

------
jostmey
The diagram makes one mistake. Just as how learning to play the piano might
stretch someone's mind in a positive way, helping to improve their thought
processes, so to does specializing in a particular area of human knowledge.
The knowledge itself may be limited to a specific field, but it will help that
person approach new problems in the future.

I myself have found this to be the case. Learning computer programming taught
me about "debugging" experiments when they fail in the lab. We should not be
afraid to immediately embrace and learn new areas of knowledge, even when we
know that it may take much effort to master that new knowledge.

WOW: I just read the end of the document. Just plain "WOW".

------
arkitaip
Very true. Only thing I can object to is that the size of the blue dot should
be just barely visible, maybe 1px in size.

------
omnisci
My YC application is specifically to get around this issue. I've been in
science for 8 years now and this article is absolutely correct. Our whole
system isn't helping this process either. From funding agencies to the "peer
review" system, scientists are almost forced into this situation. Also, we are
so separated from one another (via specialized publications, jargon, lack of
consistency between fields etc) that it's going to continue to happen until
someone tries to break that system. That's my goal:) One of my major goals is
to use technology to bring the larger perspective back into science so we can
focus on our little parts, but continue to see the big picture.

~~~
irollboozers
I didn't get from your paragraph what it is you are doing. Care to elaborate?

~~~
omnisci
Sure, I'm working on a process to bring linked open data model to scientific
raw data sets. While this has been done before, it hasn't been across related
research fields. I'm looking to link environmental science with neurogenetics
and everything in between.This will allow from the tiny "PhD" portion of the
graph in the OP with the rest of the circle:)

------
ndessaigne
Best illustration I've seen. It's not only useful for fresh batches of Ph.D.
students, it's perfect to educate friends and family too!

------
zmmmmm
I didn't quite understand his "why biology" section. From what he describes it
was advances in sequencing and bioinformatics that helped his child, not
biology per se (though I would never want to play down how important biology
is in underpinning these two). Perhaps he has a broader definition of biology
than a specialist in bioinformatics like myself.

------
tocomment
Is it possible to expand human knowledge without a phd? Does anyone know?

~~~
mattmight
Yes, of course it is.

It is necessary to extend human knowledge to get a Ph.D.

It is not necessary to get a Ph.D. to extend human knowledge.

/article author

~~~
Tenoke
*It is necessary to seem like you are extending human knowledge to get a Ph.D

------
smallegan
A professor once told me that a PhD is someone who learns more and more about
less and less until they know everything about nothing. I later found out this
was a quote from Gandhi about experts.

------
niggler
I wish this were coupled with a Huygens wavelet effect to say that knowledge
is advanced over time by many small contributions at the frontiers of various
disciplines.

------
hopeless
A PhD is about _learning_ to conduct research — whether or not you actually
discover anything meaningful during the PhD is largely consequential.

------
huherto
Just curious. This sort of describes a PhD in sciences. What would a PhD in
philosophy, literature would described.

~~~
rmk2
Why would that diagram be any different?

~~~
huherto
May be ignorance on my part. But I don't feel like they are expanding human
knowledge. I guess, I really don't understand what they do.

~~~
snowwrestler
Philosophy and literature are artifacts of human culture--that is, they can
only be understood in the context of human culture and society. In contrast,
scientific facts like the mass of the proton are exactly the same everywhere
in the universe (or so we presume).

That doesn't mean that philosophy and literature--and art, and music, and
film, and all the other "humanities"--aren't part of human knowledge. They
are, and they can have profound impacts on human society, which in turn, has
significant impacts on the physical world on the Earth's surface.

When humans interact with the physical environment, we use heuristics to model
the physical realities of nature in a usable way. Think of catching a
baseball; we have an internal model of the Earth's gravitational field that
allows us to predict the path of the ball, and place our hand in just the
right spot to catch it.

When we interact with other humans we use heuristics too. These are affected
by the cultural experiences we have, which include art, stories, movies, etc.
When we evaluate a politician, for example, we are applying the heuristics
developed by hearing, seeing, and telling stories. We think one guy looks
creepy, and another trustworthy...why? Because of what we've learned about
humans so far, and a lot of that comes from literature, art, philosophy, etc.

------
buk1998
The stupidest thing I have ever read. What do you say about all those
inventors and thinkers, who did not get a Ph.D., but contributed to human
knowledge in major ways....

~~~
mccr8
It is a description of what a PhD is, not what not a PhD isn't.

~~~
buk1998
Why should there be any need to explain what Ph.D. is to your own Ph.D.
students? May be, they should not be doing Ph.D. in the first place if they
don't know what it is that they are doing. Ph.D. is the new BS and that's
that...most of the thesis coming out of schools are worthless (literally).
There is an inflation (big time) in academia. You would know it if you
interviewed any Ph.D student on a technical topic.

~~~
oscilloscope
This is addressed in the second to last diagram, "the world looks different to
you now". Once you've specialized so much, you can lose sight of the bigger
picture.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9formation_professionnell...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9formation_professionnelle)

