Is my PhD supervisor taking the ****?

[A.N.Other]

I do agree with D.P., I have to say.

Yeah, so I don't do my own ordering, but tbh that wouldn't be much of my day anyway. However, as above, a PhD is more than just yourself. The lab you come from will be known in the field, including how it operates. The smooth running of your lab should be a priority, as it does impact your career. Since being here, I've set up VNC control of communal computers, bought, installed and configured an automatic backup server for all members of the lab, configured circa 7 laptops for use, helped the head of my department and her lab with similar computer issues etc etc. I'm an immunologist, not a IT technitian, and tbh they're not even in my lab, but it's still in my interest to help.

Work on being efficient and you can get by. I generally work a 9:30 - 6:30 day and then go home to cook for the gf. I'm starting a PostDoc in a different lab in September that's highly computational, so for the last few months (and for the next few months coming) I've then worked 2-4 hours coding, debugging and fault finding whilst attempting to get everything up and running for a smooth start. During this time, my current supervisior would like me to write a review on a topic I know virtually nothing about, and my future supervisior would like a preliminary paper in collaboration with a lab in the States.

Basically, life ain't easy, and a PhD isn't for everyone. There's no shame in that, but if you stick, then you have to take the rough with the smooth. Few will have to put up with a lot ****, only to discover a huge and cripplingly expensive assay hasn't worked, but then few will get to present their data to a Nobel prize winner.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Am I being unreasonable to tell my supervisor I am here for my PhD and I will not act as his admin bitch?

You have the right to do what you feel is right. People get walked all over every day just because they will do something for someone.

 

[D.P.]

I admit that through much of the PHD I was fairly annoyed at the amount of extra activities to be done and would sometimes complain, but looking back in hindsight those extra activities were by far the most valuable lessons learned during my PhD that have the most real world value.

 

[spp]

Perhaps it has already been mentioned in this thread, but D.P, didn't you get a larger stipend than what is offered in the UK? If I remember it was quite a bit more than what I was getting in the UK, and that being the case, I'd have done whatever was asked of me too

From my own experience, and speaking with several colleagues at work today, when we did our PhDs we never really did any extra stuff unless we volunteered.

I'd agree though that a PhD is more than just the research; I don't work in the same area as my PhD was in (cosmology) but the skills I acquired while completing it have been invaluable.

 

[w11tho]

Just to give this thread a little balance...

The actual thesis writing and research that goes into that is not that important overall.

That's absolutely not what our department would consider to be the case! We would be far more interested in the standard of academic research than we would be in anything else. Perhaps this was said from from the point of view of leaving academia after the PhD?

To anyone hoping to make a career academia my advice would be: make sure your work is top notch and enough people know about it. Lots and lots and lots of people do a PhD, but by-and-large the work in those PhDs isn't very impressive. If you want to work at a decent department then you'll want to make sure your research stands out.

 

[JKD]

Embezzle and when you've had enough tell your supervisor to GTFO.

 

[D.P.]

Just to give this thread a little balance...

That's absolutely not what our department would consider to be the case! We would be far more interested in the standard of academic research than we would be in anything else. Perhaps this was said from from the point of view of leaving academia after the PhD?

To anyone hoping to make a career academia my advice would be: make sure your work is top notch and enough people know about it. Lots and lots and lots of people do a PhD, but by-and-large the work in those PhDs isn't very impressive. If you want to work at a decent department then you'll want to make sure your research stands out.

The work you put into a thesis will be largely similar to what other people with a PhD do and doesn't require any particular techniques and skills you would not have learnt on a good Undergrad or Masters project, just bigger in scope and deeper in content. Most people will have similar numbers of publications and have work of a similar quality. Some will do much better of course, thats the few % of gifted individuals with a particular insight.

The differentiating factors that will help you progress are ll the additional skills and experience. Did you co-organize a special symposium or workshops for a conference?, write funding for an EU grant, did you assist in editorial work for a journal, patent your work to secure potential financial rewards??????
If you wont to continue in academia then teaching experience is paramount so you have a serious limitation when competing with other doctorates for positions if you have none.

From my time in my lab we had 2 people go on to do a post-doc at MIT, 1 at Harvard, 1 at Stanford, 1 at Berkley, 1 at Oxford, 1 at CMU. 2 began a start-up being awarded nearly a million euros in venture capital, 1 earns well over 250,000 CHF a year at McKinsey. I had an invitation to do a post doc at Harvard but decided to go into industry due to various factors (academic politics mainly, plus I prefer applying state of the art research to real world grounded problems rather than theoretical models with no basis in reality)

How many people who did their PhD 9-5 in private without significantly helping their collegues or professors have carried on their academic life in south prestigious universities?

 

[D.P.]

Perhaps it has already been mentioned in this thread, but D.P, didn't you get a larger stipend than what is offered in the UK? If I remember it was quite a bit more than what I was getting in the UK, and that being the case, I'd have done whatever was asked of me too

From my own experience, and speaking with several colleagues at work today, when we did our PhDs we never really did any extra stuff unless we volunteered.

I'd agree though that a PhD is more than just the research; I don't work in the same area as my PhD was in (cosmology) but the skills I acquired while completing it have been invaluable.

I mentioned already in this thread that I had a generous stipend but that was irrelevant to extra work required for the most part. the only exception being teaching where 25% f the stipend was of teaching load. The rest of the stipend was for doing a PhD, and doing a PhD involves so much more than merely conducting scientific research.

 

[w11tho]

Most people will have similar numbers of publications and have work of a similar quality.

You're right, most people will look similarly mediocre, and to add to that: most people don't manage to get academic positions at top departments. I'm letting you know that your assertion about the relative importance of the content of a PhD isn't really on the money.

The quality of the research is by far the most important factor, at least at the departments and positions I have experience with.

How many people who did their PhD 9-5 in private without significantly helping their collegues or professors have carried on their academic life in south prestigious universities?

Plenty! Of the all the people I know who managed to land prestigious places after their PhD the common factor was that they were all very good at what they did. I think your opinion has been tainted a little because you had to do so many extra jobs while you were a student!

 

[D.P.]

You're right, most people will look similarly mediocre, and to add to that: most people don't manage to get academic positions at top departments. I'm letting you know that your assertion about the relative importance of the content of a PhD isn't really on the money.

The quality of the research is by far the most important factor, at least at the departments and positions I have experience with.

Plenty! Of the all the people I know who managed to land prestigious places after their PhD the common factor was that they were all very good at what they did. I think your opinion has been tainted a little because you had to do so many extra jobs while you were a student!

I have sat through interviews for 7-8 tenture-track positions seeing the presentations for 4-6 applicants for each position, something like 35-40 presentations in total. All their research was of much the same quality, similar numbers of publications in similar journals. I know for a fact that those that were offered the tenure-track position did so based on factors their experience of teaching and successful grant applications.
My prof was on the committee for deciding the candidates and would give all of us his comments so that we would know what it took to be accepted for an assistant prof position. Anyone with poor teaching experience and without having been awarded grant money in the past is very unlikely to ever be accepted for a tenure position where they are expected to teach to the highest standards and eventually become self-sufficient in finding their own funding.

My girlfriend is an assistant professor of management and has spent the last weeks interviewing many candidates for a couple of tenure positions. Prior teaching experience is an absolute necessity and the main factor being used to differentiate between candidate because again, they all have a dozen or more publications of similar good quality.

 

[D.P.]

You're right, most people will look similarly mediocre, and to add to that: most people don't manage to get academic positions at top departments. I'm letting you know that your assertion about the relative importance of the content of a PhD isn't really on the money.

The quality of the research is by far the most important factor, at least at the departments and positions I have experience with.

Plenty! Of the all the people I know who managed to land prestigious places after their PhD the common factor was that they were all very good at what they did. I think your opinion has been tainted a little because you had to do so many extra jobs while you were a student!

I am not saying that you don't have to be very good at your research, but that is just one aspect and wont be the deciding factor when multiple candidates turn up with identical research ability and publications.

 

[w11tho]

I am not saying that you don't have to be very good at your research, but that is just one aspect and wont be the deciding factor when multiple candidates turn up with identical research ability and publications.

Well yes, if identical people show up you inevitably look for something else -- perhaps who bakes the best bread or who can do a one-handed push up. But identical people don't show up! The standard of research, and ability to do that research, varies hugely. The idea that all people produce similar levels of mediocrity is crazy! Some people have more talent others.

If a student doesn't produce outstanding work, or show the potential to produce outstanding work during the PhD, they wont then land a position at any of the prestigious departments I have experience with. These departments want to know that you'll uphold the high level of research produced there. I work in a Maths department, and remarkably enough, we're fairly keen on people being good at Maths!

Anyway, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems we've wandered away from the original topic of the thread.

 

[Jack Bauer]

The quality of the research is by far the most important factor, at least at the departments and positions I have experience with.

This is true, but at least in my area/department no one cares about the thesis. Is all about the publications (this includes work that may not have gone into your thesis) and the grants you get.

 

[w11tho]

This is true, but at least in my area/department no one cares about the thesis. Is all about the publications (this includes work that may not have gone into your thesis) and the grants you get.

Absolutely. It doesn't really matter what medium the work is communicated by, as long as it's impressive and people are aware of it.

 

[D.P.]

Well yes, if identical people show up you inevitably look for something else -- perhaps who bakes the best bread or who can do a one-handed push up. But identical people don't show up! The standard of research, and ability to do that research, varies hugely. The idea that all people produce similar levels of mediocrity is crazy! Some people have more talent others.

If a student doesn't produce outstanding work, or show the potential to produce outstanding work during the PhD, they wont then land a position at any of the prestigious departments I have experience with. These departments want to know that you'll uphold the high level of research produced there. I work in a Maths department, and remarkably enough, we're fairly keen on people being good at Maths!

Anyway, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems we've wandered away from the original topic of the thread.

We can agree to disagree then since you don't seem to be taking the discussion seriously (ref. "who bakes the best bread").

I will point out that I never said anything about levels of mediocrity. Quite the opposite in fact. People obtaining a PhD are at similar levels of excellency. For starters typically PhD applicants will have a first class undergrad, masters with distinction or equivalent, putting them automatically in the top 5% of all graduating students. Next only the best applicants will get accepted to do a PhD, and of those that get accepted many will fail at their qualifications exams a year or 2 into their PhD. Drop out rates around the qualification period can be up to 50% in some universities, and that is if they even lasted that long with many people dropping out in the first 6 months. Post quals you still get a lot of drop out from people that cannot manage the 70 hour weeks or who's research is not progressing sufficiently. So after 5 to 7 years of PhD only the best candiates form the already best of the best have survived. They then have to face their oral defense which puts another level of selection to ensure those with a PhD are of exceptional standards. Then those that are applying for post-docs and tenure track professorships at the top world-ranked universities will be further likely to be of even higher standards.
Hence when it comes to review such candidates they are all of absolutely exceptional ability otherwise they wouldn't even have got to the interview stage in the first place.

As I said before, features that do distinguish these candidates will be things like teaching experience, patents awarded, management of research teams, awards for recognition of excellence in teaching, organizing symposiums and workshops, editorial work, track record of successfully fund applications.


There are really only 2 things professor must do, teach to the highest standards and receive project funding to hire PhD students to conduct research to generate papers. Scientific output is of the utmost importance but this arises by securing sufficient money and good management techniques. this involves only selecting the PhD candidates of the highest ability so their investment is likely to maximize their paper production, which goes back to my point above about levels of excellence.

The university cares about the scientific output of a professor's lab but ultimately wont do that much if the scientific output is mediocre but the prof brings in sufficient external funding. What will get a professor dismissed from the university is poor teaching results.
And it is the teaching that has the most number of critiques, e.g.g all the students.



As evidence of my opinion my girlfriend was offered a tenture-track assistant professorship at a top rated private university in the US without having a single publication. The deciding factor was that she spent the previous year teaching 30 hours a week at a prestigious private Grande Ecole Commerce in Paris giving her teaching expertise well above other candidates with dozens of publications and 10-15 years more experience.

Her students pay $56,000 a year to get lectured by professors like her. You can be sure that if the students don't think they will get their moneys worth then they will complain. And complaints are bad. She is guaranteed employment more or less for 6 years irrespective of academic output until the tenure review, but she can get dismissed at any time due to poor teaching reviews.

 

[int]

We can agree to disagree then since you don't seem to be taking the discussion seriously (ref. "who bakes the best bread").

I will point out that I never said anything about levels of mediocrity. Quite the opposite in fact. People obtaining a PhD are at similar levels of excellency. For starters typically PhD applicants will have a first class undergrad, masters with distinction or equivalent, putting them automatically in the top 5% of all graduating students. Next only the best applicants will get accepted to do a PhD, and of those that get accepted many will fail at their qualifications exams a year or 2 into their PhD. Drop out rates around the qualification period can be up to 50% in some universities, and that is if they even lasted that long with many people dropping out in the first 6 months. Post quals you still get a lot of drop out from people that cannot manage the 70 hour weeks or who's research is not progressing sufficiently. So after 5 to 7 years of PhD only the best candiates form the already best of the best have survived. They then have to face their oral defense which puts another level of selection to ensure those with a PhD are of exceptional standards. Then those that are applying for post-docs and tenure track professorships at the top world-ranked universities will be further likely to be of even higher standards.
Hence when it comes to review such candidates they are all of absolutely exceptional ability otherwise they wouldn't even have got to the interview stage in the first place.

As I said before, features that do distinguish these candidates will be things like teaching experience, patents awarded, management of research teams, awards for recognition of excellence in teaching, organizing symposiums and workshops, editorial work, track record of successfully fund applications.


There are really only 2 things professor must do, teach to the highest standards and receive project funding to hire PhD students to conduct research to generate papers. Scientific output is of the utmost importance but this arises by securing sufficient money and good management techniques. this involves only selecting the PhD candidates of the highest ability so their investment is likely to maximize their paper production, which goes back to my point above about levels of excellence.

The university cares about the scientific output of a professor's lab but ultimately wont do that much if the scientific output is mediocre but the prof brings in sufficient external funding. What will get a professor dismissed from the university is poor teaching results.
And it is the teaching that has the most number of critiques, e.g.g all the students.



As evidence of my opinion my girlfriend was offered a tenture-track assistant professorship at a top rated private university in the US without having a single publication. The deciding factor was that she spent the previous year teaching 30 hours a week at a prestigious private Grande Ecole Commerce in Paris giving her teaching expertise well above other candidates with dozens of publications and 10-15 years more experience.

Her students pay $56,000 a year to get lectured by professors like her. You can be sure that if the students don't think they will get their moneys worth then they will complain. And complaints are bad. She is guaranteed employment more or less for 6 years irrespective of academic output until the tenure review, but she can get dismissed at any time due to poor teaching reviews.

Where on earth are you doing your PhD? 50% drop-out rate by 1-2 years?! That's going to be an awfully big black mark on the university and the professors running these projects.

What happens to the research that PhD student was carrying out? Surely driving your students into the ground to the point of them dropping out isn't entirely productive, especially if the majority of their time is taken up doing non-research activities...

5-7years, 70+ hours a week...sounds like an awful way to conduct research.

 

[D.P.]

I did my PhD in Switzerland and my opinion was in reference to the systems in place in Switzerland and the US.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/s_smallwood.html

In some humanities programs, only one of every three entering students goes on to earn a doctorate. No comprehensive national statistics are available, but studies suggest that the attrition rate for Ph.D. programs is 40 percent to 50 percent

In fact just search google for "phd drop out rate", almost every result is suggesting ~50% drop out rates overall. Within the first 1-2 years most candidates will have had to pass qualification exams which typically see about a 25-30% failure rate and then their PhD proposal needs to be appraised which also sees a lot of failures (probably again 25-30%. Sometimes quals and proposals are lumped together and usually you can resit the qual exams so the overall failure rate is not going to be 50% from this alone but it is substantial. And then there is the simple fact that not many peeople can hack 70 hour weeks for 5-7 years, which is how long it takes for a majority of PhDs in the world.


From my personal experience I know around 1/3rd of my friends dropped out or were dismissed from their PhD. The lucky ones ran to the hills within the first 6 months, the unlucky ones were 3 years in before being kicked out or having a nervous break down.
I kid you not, a friend of my girlfriends ended up in a mental institute after 3 years of her PhD.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

Where on earth are you doing your PhD? 50% drop-out rate by 1-2 years?! That's going to be an awfully big black mark on the university and the professors running these projects.

What happens to the research that PhD student was carrying out? Surely driving your students into the ground to the point of them dropping out isn't entirely productive, especially if the majority of their time is taken up doing non-research activities...

5-7years, 70+ hours a week...sounds like an awful way to conduct research.

I agree. Where I am the dropout rate is far lower - I would guess <10%. Every single PhD student at my Unviersity is bright enough to do a PhD as they require 1st class BEng or a strong 2.1 MEng (strong meaning not scraping the 2.1).

I really do find this 70 hours a week thing pure madness. Say your PhD took 5 years then by the time you have finished it I bet you aged 10 years.

 

[D.P.]

here is a depressing table:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/07/doctoral

Cumulative 10-Year Completion Rates for Students Who Entered Ph.D. Programs 1992-3 through 1994-5

Year in Program 	% Who Earned Doctorate
3 	                                 4.5%
4	                               10.5%
5 	                       	       22.5%
6 	                       	       36.1%
7 	                       	       45.5%
8 		                       50.9%
9 	                               54.6%
10 		                       56.6%

 

[D.P.]

I agree. Where I am the dropout rate is far lower - I would guess <10%. Every single PhD student at my Unviersity is bright enough to do a PhD as they require 1st class BEng or a strong 2.1 MEng (strong meaning not scraping the 2.1).

I really do find this 70 hours a week thing pure madness. Say your PhD took 5 years then by the time you have finished it I bet you aged 10 years.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/02/a_terrible_time_for_new_phds.html

High dropout rates? Fewer than half of entering graduate students in the humanities make it all the way to their doctoral hooding ceremonies (the rate is slightly higher for doctoral students overall)

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001064.html

Nationwide, about half of doctoral students drop out, many after devoting years to their studies and spending tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and fellowships.

http://www.benchfly.com/blog/are-we-failing-our-graduate-students/

According to data from the Ph.D. Completion Project conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)—the main organization representing graduate institution deans in the United States—fewer than 60 percent of students entering graduate school in the sciences will complete their doctoral degree within a 10-year time frame.

http://www.colorado.edu/pba/degrees/ttd/gr_intro.htm

450-500 students begin doctoral work each fall.
Doctoral students generally take 5-8 years from entry to graduate.
A few graduate sooner, a few in 9-10 years.
About 60% of entering doctoral students receive PhD's within 8 years of entering.
30-40% leave UCB without a degree.