I think this also highlights the differences in PhD programs between countries (but also within a single University - our lab participates in a couple of schemes that vary significantly). I completed my PhD in the UK and although the program is shorter than the USA (mine was 3 years, and it's unusual to go over 4) we still have these interim checks. If a program doesn't have one, I think it's a bad setup. We had our quals equivalent at the end of year 1 with the option to write up as an MSc if we/the committee felt it was not in our best interests to continue, and then an additional meeting at the end of the 2nd year to outline the plans for completion & submission.
The degree of difficulty in projects and administration is so inconsistent between PhDs and I completely agree that we need to take a more holistic approach to assessing competencies that are relevant to the task required. All PhDs are equal, but some are more equal than others?
In my view, this is a much more accurate and representative take of what a PhD is and what it is not. It’s good that you took the time to address it. I love your concise writing too, by the way.
I wouldn't say getting a PhD is easy in itself, though the defense part is probably easier than people think it will be before grad school. Maybe some people get PhDs who don't deserve it, but that's not the same as saying they had an easy time. They probably didn't, either. I think the biggest influence on the difficulty of your PhD experience is your adviser. Some of the biggest complaints about grad school are probably linked to the adviser (at least in my experience). If you get along with your adviser, things will be easier. If your adviser is around regularly and has a vested interest in your research and your professional development, it will be easier but not necessarily "easy." Even if they have all the good qualities, your adviser has to do all this while managing everything from publishing, teaching, funding, and lab space. If you work for an untenured professor, go ahead and throw that stress into the mix. How they handle all of this can affect your experience for better or worse.
But can it be a mostly fun and enjoyabke process and not have to consume your life? And it doesn't hurt your overall physical drive or energy level? And you have a good amount of time for vacation and travel?
Depends on what you are doing and who you work for. There were good moments and fun times, for sure. I loved doing research even though it could be time-consuming. There were also bad moments, though. Your adviser makes a big difference. I worked for an adviser with high expectations. He could be a really nice guy one time and then a jerk the next. There were late nights. You didn't have the full weekend off. If I wanted to go on vacation, I technically needed his permission to do so. Having to be a TA did not get you out of any research expectations, either.
Speaking as a UK professor, there are a few relevant differences between the US and the UK. Number one, the selection of students is more haphazard on the UK, as students traditionally are admitted to work with a particular professor rather than as a cohort reviewed by a single panel; particularly if they have external funding. (This is slowly changing.) Second, there is much more pressure to get students finished on a fixed timetable. Third, in my experience there are no qualifying exams. Students come in with more specialised education than is typical in the US, but the presumption is that they have completed their general education in the subject before beginning. They are typically examined on their progress at a couple of points, and they can fail these, but it is not common.
Thank you for this much needed rebuttal! My PhD was one of the harder things I’ve done in my life, and I’ve climbed mountains, performed surgery, and started and sold multiple businesses
I don’t think it’s true that faculty will do anything to pull a student over the finish line. In some fields it’s pretty sink or swim.
I don’t even think it’s always the case that no one wants to see the student fail, particularly when they have their own priorities that conflict with the student succeeding.
One famous example: At Columbia in the 1950s, Arthur Burns repeatedly blocked acceptance of Rothbard’s dissertation (later published as The Panic of 1819). Rothbard’s PhD went through only after Burns left for the Council of Economic Advisers. My understanding is that Burns had very strong ideological disagreements with Rothbard and used his influence to override everyone else on the faculty.
This of course strengthens your claim that getting a PhD is not easy!
i think almost everyone with a PhD that I know (one glaring exception and she didn’t attend a highly regarded school, another had a middle class rich spouse) had one or more parents with PhDs.
PhDs without PhD parents definitely exist. Neither my spouse nor I have a PhD parent. It's also not that uncommon in my experience to supervise a graduate student without a PhD parent.
How can a student who, by nature of being new and lacking research taste within their field, identify a good advisor? Reading this passage makes me think we’d be better served asking experts “What do you think of Dr. ___’s lab?” Rather than asking the PI or their students themselves. Am I catching the right gist?
“A PhD is an individualized apprenticeship program under the tutelage of an expert scientist or academic. So who you’re doing your PhD with matters. What you’re doing during your PhD matters also. And the people who routinely hire PhDs (such as professors hiring postdocs, staff scientists, or faculty members) know this. For example, I wouldn’t hire somebody just because they have a PhD in computational biology. That’s literally the minimum requirement for me to even look at their CV. What I’d really want to know is who have they trained with, and then of course, what research they have done.”
Many PhD programs have rotation systems where students can spend a few weeks in different labs to get to know them. In my experience this works very well. By contrast, programs that admit students directly into particular labs tend to experience many more issues with poor advising, students that are unhappy, etc.
I would tend to agree with this. I really wish there had been a rotation system in my program. Instead, we had to basically fight for slots in a lab group. I knew someone who got the lab of her choice only to find out that the atmosphere there was toxic and full of harassment (from fellow students). She left grad school because of her experience in that group. I'd like to think a rotation system would have given her a better idea of just what she was getting into.
It seems to me that you and the person you are reaponding to are speaking about different things. Of course anyone for whom evaluating PhD holders is an integral part of their job should be able to do so based on their record, and not just the Dr. in their name. But if we're talking about the broader social status of PhDs, if we want people to "trust science" and show respect when an "expert here" tweets at them, then obviously the minimum requirements for being a PhD matter.
> I would never let a student schedule their defense if I felt they weren’t ready and there was a risk that they could fail.
That's fair, but it leaves open the possibility of dissuading a student from defending indefinitely, or until they drop out.
This isn't just about having a credential that strongly signals competence. What scientists do is publish papers, and there's a huge amount of low quality papers, some of them useless, some of them enormously flawed. I've heard the suggestion of limiting the number of papers you can publish a year, but I also think reducing the number of scientists would be a positive step. I don't think the world needs this many scientists.
Great perspective!
I think this also highlights the differences in PhD programs between countries (but also within a single University - our lab participates in a couple of schemes that vary significantly). I completed my PhD in the UK and although the program is shorter than the USA (mine was 3 years, and it's unusual to go over 4) we still have these interim checks. If a program doesn't have one, I think it's a bad setup. We had our quals equivalent at the end of year 1 with the option to write up as an MSc if we/the committee felt it was not in our best interests to continue, and then an additional meeting at the end of the 2nd year to outline the plans for completion & submission.
The degree of difficulty in projects and administration is so inconsistent between PhDs and I completely agree that we need to take a more holistic approach to assessing competencies that are relevant to the task required. All PhDs are equal, but some are more equal than others?
In my view, this is a much more accurate and representative take of what a PhD is and what it is not. It’s good that you took the time to address it. I love your concise writing too, by the way.
I wouldn't say getting a PhD is easy in itself, though the defense part is probably easier than people think it will be before grad school. Maybe some people get PhDs who don't deserve it, but that's not the same as saying they had an easy time. They probably didn't, either. I think the biggest influence on the difficulty of your PhD experience is your adviser. Some of the biggest complaints about grad school are probably linked to the adviser (at least in my experience). If you get along with your adviser, things will be easier. If your adviser is around regularly and has a vested interest in your research and your professional development, it will be easier but not necessarily "easy." Even if they have all the good qualities, your adviser has to do all this while managing everything from publishing, teaching, funding, and lab space. If you work for an untenured professor, go ahead and throw that stress into the mix. How they handle all of this can affect your experience for better or worse.
But can it be a mostly fun and enjoyabke process and not have to consume your life? And it doesn't hurt your overall physical drive or energy level? And you have a good amount of time for vacation and travel?
Depends on what you are doing and who you work for. There were good moments and fun times, for sure. I loved doing research even though it could be time-consuming. There were also bad moments, though. Your adviser makes a big difference. I worked for an adviser with high expectations. He could be a really nice guy one time and then a jerk the next. There were late nights. You didn't have the full weekend off. If I wanted to go on vacation, I technically needed his permission to do so. Having to be a TA did not get you out of any research expectations, either.
Speaking as a UK professor, there are a few relevant differences between the US and the UK. Number one, the selection of students is more haphazard on the UK, as students traditionally are admitted to work with a particular professor rather than as a cohort reviewed by a single panel; particularly if they have external funding. (This is slowly changing.) Second, there is much more pressure to get students finished on a fixed timetable. Third, in my experience there are no qualifying exams. Students come in with more specialised education than is typical in the US, but the presumption is that they have completed their general education in the subject before beginning. They are typically examined on their progress at a couple of points, and they can fail these, but it is not common.
I should say that, those differences aside, I fundamentally agree with this essay, and also find it engagingly written.
Very well-written. I am making it a must-read for my students.
Thank you for this much needed rebuttal! My PhD was one of the harder things I’ve done in my life, and I’ve climbed mountains, performed surgery, and started and sold multiple businesses
I'm at my low point right now so I really needed to read this. I'm so worried my experiment won't go right 😔
I think what may need to be added is having a spouse or some other emotional support. my sense is that PhD work is quite lonely.
I don’t think it’s true that faculty will do anything to pull a student over the finish line. In some fields it’s pretty sink or swim.
I don’t even think it’s always the case that no one wants to see the student fail, particularly when they have their own priorities that conflict with the student succeeding.
One famous example: At Columbia in the 1950s, Arthur Burns repeatedly blocked acceptance of Rothbard’s dissertation (later published as The Panic of 1819). Rothbard’s PhD went through only after Burns left for the Council of Economic Advisers. My understanding is that Burns had very strong ideological disagreements with Rothbard and used his influence to override everyone else on the faculty.
This of course strengthens your claim that getting a PhD is not easy!
i think almost everyone with a PhD that I know (one glaring exception and she didn’t attend a highly regarded school, another had a middle class rich spouse) had one or more parents with PhDs.
PhDs without PhD parents definitely exist. Neither my spouse nor I have a PhD parent. It's also not that uncommon in my experience to supervise a graduate student without a PhD parent.
How can a student who, by nature of being new and lacking research taste within their field, identify a good advisor? Reading this passage makes me think we’d be better served asking experts “What do you think of Dr. ___’s lab?” Rather than asking the PI or their students themselves. Am I catching the right gist?
“A PhD is an individualized apprenticeship program under the tutelage of an expert scientist or academic. So who you’re doing your PhD with matters. What you’re doing during your PhD matters also. And the people who routinely hire PhDs (such as professors hiring postdocs, staff scientists, or faculty members) know this. For example, I wouldn’t hire somebody just because they have a PhD in computational biology. That’s literally the minimum requirement for me to even look at their CV. What I’d really want to know is who have they trained with, and then of course, what research they have done.”
Many PhD programs have rotation systems where students can spend a few weeks in different labs to get to know them. In my experience this works very well. By contrast, programs that admit students directly into particular labs tend to experience many more issues with poor advising, students that are unhappy, etc.
I would tend to agree with this. I really wish there had been a rotation system in my program. Instead, we had to basically fight for slots in a lab group. I knew someone who got the lab of her choice only to find out that the atmosphere there was toxic and full of harassment (from fellow students). She left grad school because of her experience in that group. I'd like to think a rotation system would have given her a better idea of just what she was getting into.
thanks!
It seems to me that you and the person you are reaponding to are speaking about different things. Of course anyone for whom evaluating PhD holders is an integral part of their job should be able to do so based on their record, and not just the Dr. in their name. But if we're talking about the broader social status of PhDs, if we want people to "trust science" and show respect when an "expert here" tweets at them, then obviously the minimum requirements for being a PhD matter.
> I would never let a student schedule their defense if I felt they weren’t ready and there was a risk that they could fail.
That's fair, but it leaves open the possibility of dissuading a student from defending indefinitely, or until they drop out.
This isn't just about having a credential that strongly signals competence. What scientists do is publish papers, and there's a huge amount of low quality papers, some of them useless, some of them enormously flawed. I've heard the suggestion of limiting the number of papers you can publish a year, but I also think reducing the number of scientists would be a positive step. I don't think the world needs this many scientists.