
Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students - EvgeniyZh
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11D3kHElzS2HQxTwPqcaTnU5HCJ8WGE5brTXI4KLf4dM/edit
======
supernova87a
I will just offer some unsolicited advice about PhDs, as it came up a few
weeks ago also. And the author touches on this. Of course this mostly applies
to empirical sciences, but maybe some theoretical ones too.

An effective PhD advisor/thesis isn't wandering the woods to find something.
It's a guided coaching exercise, with an outcome in mind. Test whether the PhD
advisor you select knows this and has a history of taking this approach with
former students.

An advisor (and the PhD research he/she guides you on) should be targeting a
very conscious choice of incremental versus breakthrough research results. And
for most students, you're not going to have a whole lot of mindblowingly
field-changing results -- as much as you may think you're a rockstar. So it's
just sensible or an insurance policy to make sure you've got solid steady work
that you're progressing on.

Learn to enable your research to have visible incremental gains on a known
path every day, rather than hoping for some breakthrough at the end. Amazing
breakthroughs have high risk, and make it highly likely you'll have a crisis
when it doesn't happen.

Concretely, even if you don't know what the answer is going to be at the end
of your research, you must think about, or have an idea about, the format of
what that amazing answer is going to be. Write the outline of your thesis and
"ghost out" what the major charts will be. Write the intro sentences of each
chapter -- what are they? (and I don't just mean the boring review of the
field part, but your findings part)

You should know what major type of finding, plot, or table your research is
going to output. What are the columns and rows of that table, or axes of that
plot? How many data points are required? How many of them can already be
guessed? Where is the surprise going to be? What is the conclusion going to
be?

Draw out the answer you're aiming for, now. If you can't even articuate what
the answer will look like, you may be in for a bad time, so work on fixing
that. It will also push you and your advisor to be specific about what the
output of your thesis will be -- and set you up for a much better PhD
experience.

~~~
n3ur0n
As a rising 5th year PhD in ML -- I could not agree with this advice more! I
have very hands-off advisors. I spent the first 3 years "wandering the woods
to find something". Last year, I really had to sit down and think about how I
can finish up my PhD on time. I pretty much did what you outline here. A lot
of tools I used were organization tools I learned from my business
school/product manager friends.

I honestly think the PhD system needs to be overhauled. even at a "top-tier"
program like mine, it is amazing to me that at no point do we receive any
training regarding practical components of research. 100 years ago, the way
you became a physician was to follow around a physician and one day you were
ready to be a physician yourself. In the year 2020, this is how PhDs are
trained. I do realize that a PhD is not a "professional" degree like MD or JD,
however, given that most PhD grads will 1) go to industry 2) go into academia,
we need to teach students about project management, planning etc.

~~~
ta1234567890
> we need to teach students about project management, planning etc.

This is a problem with education in general. Those things should be taught in
middle/high school as essential tools for modern life. Same as personal
finances, effective strategies for team/group work, overcoming social anxiety,
managing stress and building/maintaining relationships (personal and
professional).

~~~
HenryBemis
Project Management. I once was working with two CS professors in a UK
university. One was full of words (let's call him A). The other was one of the
brilllian minds in UI science that helped design the Nokia phones' keypads
(let's call her B). Most people disliked B because she had a start, middle,
end. She required timelines, milestones, deliverables. Because of that
everyone working with her was getting better grades, was more productive,
because she was helping people manage themselves better. Prof A had the lazy
ones the "deep thinkers, but not the doers.

One thing that (many) academics lack is project management skills. This is why
many (that I know) sit on a desk, with a mountain of papers, having a thousand
things unfinished. Try doing that in an actual business and see how it plays
out..

Being a good teacher doesn't make you a good project manager.

~~~
ta1234567890
Project management is definitely very important. As a group/team manager where
do you put the "deep thinkers, not doers" though? What is their place in
business or society?

I personally identify with being a thinker instead of a doer and for most of
my professional life struggled trying to find a position from where to
contribute without feeling inadequate for not doing/executing.

~~~
HenryBemis
I don't feel you "push them" to a specific slot. Thinking is good but
something needs to come out. A book, a paper, a.. something. A number of
people thinking for a common subject need to produce something, not think for
3 months and then start thinking of something else.

The PM skills is to get them to produce efficiently and effectively. Not
perpetuate the "sitting and thinking".

------
dude_bro
I think a point of tension for grad students is that many don't realize a PhD
program is more so a job than it is another part of your education. Your
advisor is generally paying for you with their hard earned grant money and
relies on your results for their own success. In typical 9-5 job terms, the
advisor is the manager and the PhD students are the individual contributors.

It's a harsh realization that many grad students come to, but unless your grad
student is getting some level of results then the advisor will feel his/her
grant money isn't going to good use. It's essentially the same thought process
a manager goes through when they feel they are paying somebody a salary but
that person is not contributing.

This is why independence is so critical and one of the most important traits
of a grad student. Time spent telling a student exactly what to do, again, is
not always a resource well spent.

Anyways, this is just my perspective on things based on conversations with a
couple of my immediate family members who are professors. I went into the
normal job market after getting my bachelor's, and I see a lot of parallels
between the world of academia and the rest of us. There are different titles
and the work is different, but much of the structure and politics are the
same.

~~~
feral
Nooo :-) If you find yourself in a PhD program with an advisor who thinks like
the above, it's really important to not internalize their viewpoint.

It's not a job. A job would pay much better!

It's not your advisors money, and they aren't paying you to advance their
career.

Independence is critical, but so that you can avoid becoming someone else's
cheap labor, and can instead focus on doing work that educates you and moves
you forward.

(Thankfully I had a great advisor, but many try and just take advantage of the
power imbalance to exploit students).

~~~
xab31
Hard disagree. I made every possible mistake that can be made related to being
too idealistic about grad school; for example, I believed:

\- My advisor and collaborators have my best interests at heart

\- My primary role in graduate school is to develop novel, useful,
reproducible ideas

\- Grants, fellowships, and stipends are generous donations freely given in
order to enable the above

\- Quality is more important than quantity

These kinds of sentiments caused more damage to my career than any other
mistakes I have made (fortunately, I survived...so far). When someone gives
you money, they definitely expect something in return, even if that something
is not always clearly stated, and that something is almost always related to
the donor's own career advancement.

There are PIs who absolutely _prey_ on this kind of idealism. They can find
certain kinds of idealistic students, use them up, and discard them. Graduate
students should be told from day one that they need to look out for their own
interests, because no one else will. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they
are just that.

The best that can be reasonably hoped for from an advisor-advisee relationship
is a clear understanding that it is a mutually beneficial transaction with
bidirectional expectations. It makes me uncomfortable that the OP document
obscures this fact.

> they aren't paying you to advance their career

What are they paying you for, then?

~~~
voxl
I think your perspective is very pragmatic and reasonable. However, I think it
still highlights only the _worst_ kinds of advisers, and if we're talking
about looking out for your own self interests, then picking a good adviser is
your highest priority.

There are two kinds of advisers I think are missing in your analysis. First,
are the idealists, the probably newly minted professors who view there
students fondly and their mentorship responsibilities very seriously. These
are bad for you too, because you need to be pushed to obtain results on
occasion, you can't always have someone who is feeling guilty about their own
efforts and not being straight with you about your weakness.

Second, is, in my opinion, the ideal adviser. One who views the relationship
as an apprenticeship more so then a manager/employee or mentor/mentee. An
apprentice has to learn the craft, but they're still producing work for the
artisan (adviser). If the student fucks something up they need to be told,
because learning the craft is the highest priority.

The "manager" type of adviser is in my opinion the worst. A good manager is
only a useful adviser if a PhD is otherwise a waste of time for you anyway
(because you already can do research). Moreover, most manager-types are bad at
being managers as well, compounding the horrible situation.

~~~
xab31
To avoid giving the impression that I had a horrible advisor who twisted me
into cynicism, I should say:

My advisor was definitely one of the "idealists". I was his first graduate
student. He always treated me well, with respect and reasonable expectations,
and we are friends to this day. He did have some of the weaknesses you
mention. He looked out for me as well as could reasonably be expected, but he
did occasionally throw me to the wolves if the stakes were high enough -- for
example, if we had a collaborator who was giving us substantial money, and
they asked me to do the impossible or the unreasonable, he'd tell me to grin
and bear it, and do my best, rather than informing the collaborator about
reality.

In short, he was way above average, but still, his interests and mine
occasionally came into conflict. But it can get so much worse -- I have seen
numerous graduate students and postdocs absolutely exploited (department
chairs and big shots are the most frequent offenders), and the most vulnerable
targets were always those who assumed that we are all but brothers-in-arms in
the great Scientific Enterprise.

What I mean to say is that even if a grad student lucks into or intelligently
selects a good advisor, idealism is still a problem because as your
collaborations and career expand, the probability approaches 1 that you will
run into someone who will absolutely exploit you if given the chance. Someone
who has enough leverage on an otherwise good advisor can also exploit a
student by proxy. Students should be prepared for this inevitability.

In my view, when we read a document like the OP, what we are mainly getting is
a window into _how a PI likes to view himself_ \-- i.e., the benevolent master
lovingly and altruistically shepherding his apprentices into independence --
rather than any relevant form of reality. I'm sure OP came by this delusion
honestly, but one of the primary qualifications to become a PI is the ability
to spin, and no one is easier to spin than oneself.

~~~
voxl
I definitely think there is a grain of truth to everything you've said, but I
do have to comment that the diction used is a bit dramatic.

For instance, I 100% agree that the posted document is how the PI views
himself, without question. I also agree that this probably doesn't perfectly
reflect reality.

But, at the same time, I think this is more just a human problem, not a PI
specific problem. Moreover, I think a lot can still be gained from such a
document, especially when the document is made public. It lets you point out
inconsistencies and in the worst case share a negative experience with
evidence to back it up.

~~~
xab31
> I do have to comment that the diction used is a bit dramatic.

Fair. I wouldn't use this kind of language when talking to colleagues in
person, for sure. In fact, I wouldn't address the subject at all.

> But, at the same time, I think this is more just a human problem, not a PI
> specific problem. Moreover, I think a lot can still be gained from such a
> document...

Absolutely. I think the OP has good intentions and believes what he writes.
But I wanted to warn prospective grad students not to take this kind of thing
completely at face value.

------
dwrodri
For those who don't know like myself, I'm pretty confident "Eric" is Dr. Eric
Gilbert, current associate professor at the University of Michigan and former
lead of the comp.social lab at Georgia Tech. His personal website is here:
[http://eegilbert.org](http://eegilbert.org)

~~~
swyx
@dang - maybe worth considering adding the last name to the title, so it
doesnt look like we are supposed to know who this Eric is

------
pmohun
This is a fascinating look inside the academic system.

Eric, a question if I may:

Is there room for a modern PhD that values breadth over depth?

The goal of completing a Ph.D. program is to become the most knowledgable
person in the world about a specific topic. While this is a valuable goal for
disciplines that reward specialization, it does not provide enough flexibility
for autodidacts with a range of interests.

A P.h.D. typically takes between 3 and 6 years of self-directed study. If
candidates spend between 35 to 70 hours per week, this amounts to 5,250 hours
on the low-end and 21,000 hours at the extreme end.

Of course, not all of this time is spent on research. In fact, modern P.h.D.
students spend more time than necessary dealing with administrative functions
like teaching, grading, and paperwork for the university.

What would you recommend to someone planning their own "personal PhD"? That
is, four to six years of self-directed research on a specific topic.

This is something I think about often. Many citizen scientists like Franklin,
Edison, and Darwin were not the result of PhD programs but instead curious
professionals who conducted independent research.

Other specific questions:

\- What is a suitable replacement for the role of advisor? Is there a
representative person outside of academia who would provide the same type of
advice?

\- What type of fields are best suited to personal PhDs? Low capital
investment (ie, no expensive lab equipment) seems like a constraint?

Like I said, I think about this often and have written more on the topic here:
[https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/the-lifetime-
curriculum...](https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/the-lifetime-curriculum-
revisited)

~~~
angrais
FYI: neither of those three well known individuals were regarded as what we
now call citizen scientists. They were a politician, inventor, and an
academic. This is very very different to citizen science.

~~~
fuzzfactor
I would regard them as prominent gentlemen scientists of their time, to say
the least.

For every prominent man or woman of science, there have always been countless
others having equal or better technology, whose recognition falls below an
arbitrary media-determined threshold for eminence, whether or not eminence was
on the agenda.

That much of it is a popularity contest.

There's rock stars and there's all the rest of the loud guitar players.

I accept a citizen scientist as toward the lesser end of academic credentials
and lacking widespread recognition of their leadership or capability, but no
shortage of talent or potential. And perhaps leveraging lesser resources or
overcoming the same common limitations that otherwise encumber their equally
ambitious peers, who do not become scientists at all even if they wanted to.
By good fortune or not.

The citizen-scientist is an everyman of some kind.

Well, you gotta draw the line somewhere.

At the interface between citizen-scientists and citizen-not-quite-scientists,
its a pretty fuzzy line and there's equal talent on both sides.

Similar talent but the more rarefied community has the actual accomplishments.

OTOH at the other end of the spectrum are the most prominent scientists and
the fuzzy interface between the few of them and the next tier of equal talents
having top credentials but insignificant recognition by comparison.

Similar accomplishments but the more rarefied community has the actual
recognition.

It's much less common for the most prominent in the 21st century to be a
gentleman scientist of our time anyway.

In between the top credentials and the lesser ones there's got to be an even
more fuzzy line where the gentleman scientist and the citizen scientist can't
tell which side of the line they're on their dang self.

------
logifail
My relationship with my (PhD) advisor was beyond dysfunctional. I complained
at the time that it was just wrong for one human to have so much power over
another, not that anyone was listening.

However, the three and a half years I spent in his group were some of the best
years of my life, I got to do so much "cool stuff" with some pretty
unique/expensive kit, was privileged to teach dozens of talented - and some
not _quite_ so talented - undergraduates. Every single one of them passed "my"
course, and with the benefit of hindsight, I cared more about that than about
the research in our lab...

~~~
supernova87a
Maybe that's one reason why it's all the more important that you go into grad
school with some strength of opinion and position on what you want to achieve.
As opposed to "just more of the same" \-- because random walking your way
into/through grad school, you're much more likely to be jerked around and find
yourself on the wrong end of a relationship.

~~~
logifail
> it's all the more important that you go into grad school with some strength
> of opinion and position on what you want to achieve

Indeed.

I stayed on to do a PhD at the same institution where I did my undergraduate
degree, with hindsight I think this might be a poor choice. There was very
much a feeling of prospective grad students competing (indeed begging) for PhD
places, with not much in the way of due diligence...

------
BeetleB
While I agree with his perspective on classes, some departments are hostile to
this.

When I was in grad school, I was required to take a ridiculous number of
course credits to satisfy the requirements. Moreover, if you wanted to pass
the qualifying exam, you had to know the material in some of those courses
really well. The professors always complained that the requirements were too
high and many of their students would lose 2-3 years just satisfying them. But
... professors are the ones who made those requirements to begin with!

~~~
eegilbert
Some of my immediate colleagues are hostile to this!

Agree with the substance of your point: often the importance of classes varies
with the structure of the program (e.g., quals).

------
shahinrostami
I quite like this comic, it offers some perspective
[http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-
pictures/](http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/)

------
fergie
Quite liked this -> "I believe the world needs far more thoughtful, critical,
evidence-based technologists—and far fewer VC-backed tech founders."

------
natch
I take it something that Google Docs is doing makes those inline screenshots
(like the year long todo) unreadable? Would love to be able to read those.

And love the paper algorithm btw.

I haven’t been through this journey myself but (to the author, who is here,
not the poster) reading through how you have laid things out so clearly, your
students are lucky to have you.

~~~
eegilbert
I need to fix that. Apologies. Somebody already caught it an earlier round of
feedback, and I just haven't gotten to it yet with the pandemic. But will
soon.

------
mellosouls
This is a very interesting and thorough document but seems more of a
philosophical guide to studying with Professor Gilbert - plus general research
study advice - than an actual syllabus; although perhaps due to the more open-
ended nature of PhDs that is usual (I don't have an academic background)?

I ask because I clicked on it expecting some technical list of topic areas,
though I did find it instructive and useful despite that.

------
supernova87a
By the way, for people's entertainment -- a couple weeks ago we also shared a
bunch of comments about what happens to grad students' productivity when they
get married and have a kid:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24049428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24049428)

------
superhuzza
Eric Gilbert is a fairly well known person, but I still think the title should
mention the full name as opposed to just "Eric".

There are probably hundreds (more?) of professors called "Eric" in Computer
Science alone.

------
kome
my PhD advisor forgot I exists

~~~
riyakhanna1983
Just like mine :)

------
hank_z
I really admire students who have Eric during their academic journey.

------
zanecraw
Interesting!

