phd survival guide

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Your PhD Survival Guide

DOI link for Your PhD Survival Guide

Get Citation

Accessible, insightful and a must-have toolkit for all final year doctoral students, the founders of the ‘Thesis Boot Camp’ intensive writing programme show how to survive and thrive through the challenging final year of writing and submitting a thesis.

Drawing on an understanding of the intellectual, professional, practical and personal elements of the doctorate to help readers gain insight into what it means to finish a PhD and how to get there, this book covers the common challenges and ways to resolve them. It includes advice on:

• Project management skills to plan, track, iterate and report on the complex task of bringing a multi-year research project to a successful close
• Personal effectiveness and self-care to support students to thrive in body, mind and relationships, including challenging supervisor relationships.
• The successful ‘generative’ writing processes which get writers into the zone and producing thousands of words; and then provides the skills to structure and polish those words to publishable quality.
• What it means to survive a PhD and consider multiple possible futures.

Written for students in all disciplines, and relevant to university systems around the world, this unique book expertly guides students through the final 6–12 months of the thesis.

The 'Insider Guides to Success in Academia' offers support and practical advice to doctoral students and early-career researchers. Covering the topics that really matter, but which often get overlooked, this indispensable series provides practical and realistic guidance to address many of the needs and challenges of trying to operate, and remain, in academia.

These neat pocket guides fill specific and significant gaps in current literature. Each book offers insider perspectives on the often implicit rules of the game -- the things you need to know but usually aren't told by institutional postgraduate support, researcher development units, or supervisors -- and will address a practical topic that is key to career progression. They are essential reading for doctoral students, early-career researchers, supervisors, mentors, or anyone looking to launch or maintain their career in academia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter | 8  pages, introduction, part i | 48  pages, focusing on the project, chapter 1 | 9  pages, defining the project, chapter 2 | 8  pages, getting through the crunch, chapter 3 | 19  pages, practical project management, chapter 4 | 10  pages, working with your strengths and weaknesses, part ii | 49  pages, focusing on the person, chapter 5 | 13  pages, ‘no pain, no gain’ and other unhelpful myths, chapter 6 | 14  pages, your harshest critic, chapter 7 | 4  pages, getting unstuck, chapter 8 | 16  pages, working with your supervisor, part iii | 70  pages, focusing on the text, chapter 9 | 17  pages, getting words down, chapter 10 | 34  pages, making the thesis into a coherent work, chapter 11 | 15  pages, making the words good, part iv | 22  pages, finishing the phd, chapter 12 | 4  pages, reflecting on what it means to be a researcher, chapter 13 | 8  pages, do you actually want to finish the phd, chapter 14 | 8  pages, relief and grief of finishing a phd.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Select your cookie preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie notice . We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie notice . Your choice applies to using first-party and third-party advertising cookies on this service. Cookies store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. The 103 third parties who use cookies on this service do so for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalized ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click "Decline" to reject, or "Customise" to make more detailed advertising choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie preferences , as described in the Cookie notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy notice .

• Education Studies & Teaching
• School Education & Teaching
• Classroom Management

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Your PhD Survival Guide: Planning, Writing, and Succeeding in Your Final Year (Insider Guides to Success in Academia) Paperback – 22 Dec. 2020

Accessible, insightful and a must-have toolkit for all final year doctoral students, the founders of the ‘Thesis Boot Camp’ intensive writing programme show how to survive and thrive through the challenging final year of writing and submitting a thesis.

Drawing on an understanding of the intellectual, professional, practical and personal elements of the doctorate to help readers gain insight into what it means to finish a PhD and how to get there, this book covers the common challenges and ways to resolve them. It includes advice on:

• Project management skills to plan, track, iterate and report on the complex task of bringing a multi-year research project to a successful close
• Personal effectiveness and self-care to support students to thrive in body, mind and relationships, including challenging supervisor relationships.
• The successful ‘generative’ writing processes which get writers into the zone and producing thousands of words; and then provides the skills to structure and polish those words to publishable quality.
• What it means to survive a PhD and consider multiple possible futures.

Written for students in all disciplines, and relevant to university systems around the world, this unique book expertly guides students through the final 6–12 months of the thesis.

The 'Insider Guides to Success in Academia' offers support and practical advice to doctoral students and early-career researchers. Covering the topics that really matter, but which often get overlooked, this indispensable series provides practical and realistic guidance to address many of the needs and challenges of trying to operate, and remain, in academia.

These neat pocket guides fill specific and significant gaps in current literature. Each book offers insider perspectives on the often implicit rules of the game -- the things you need to know but usually aren't told by institutional postgraduate support, researcher development units, or supervisors -- and will address a practical topic that is key to career progression. They are essential reading for doctoral students, early-career researchers, supervisors, mentors, or anyone looking to launch or maintain their career in academia.

• ISBN-10 0367361841
• ISBN-13 978-0367361846
• Edition 1st
• Publication date 22 Dec. 2020
• Language English
• Dimensions 12.3 x 1.27 x 18.6 cm
• Print length 222 pages
• See all details

Product description

About the author.

Katherine Firth manages the academic programs of a residential college at the University of Melbourne, Australia and founded the Research Insiders Blog which has been running since 2013.

Liam Connell has worked in research training and education since the late 2000s. He works in research development at La Trobe University, Australia.

Peta Freestone has worked in higher education for over 15 years, creating award-winning initiatives including Thesis Boot Camp, founded in 2012. She designs and delivers writing and productivity programmes for universities and other organisations around the world.

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 1st edition (22 Dec. 2020)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 222 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0367361841
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0367361846
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 12.3 x 1.27 x 18.6 cm
• 1,110 in Teaching in Higher & Further Education
• 1,642 in Teacher Training

About the author

Katherine firth.

Katherine Firth specialises in writing, and how people write. She also works on poetry, translation and working with doctoral students to complete their theses.

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.

15 Tips on Surviving Your PhD Program

15 tips and advice on making it through a phd.

It can be extremely challenging to complete a PhD program while maintaining physical and emotional health. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that 50 percent of all doctoral students drop out of graduate school without completing their degree. Some schools report a 90 percent attrition rate. Common reasons for dropping out include academic shortcomings, students who change their career path, or those who lose interest in their pursuit. Some students have the ability to complete their degree but opt not to. One cause is the discovery of a poor job market for professors or private organizations in their fields. The Chronicle reports that math and science students leave in their third year. Some 25 percent of dropouts in Arts and Humanities occur after three years, potentially leaving candidates with high student debt and despair. This guide offers examples of concrete, accessible, and practical actions that can alleviate many problems that overwhelm doctoral students.

15 Tips on Surviving Your PhD

There is a legion of experts that offer advice on making it through the years of your PhD program. Many agree on the necessities of maintaining a balance of academic pursuits against routine personal outside activities that foster physical and emotional health. Here are 15 suggestions:

1. Establish a routine you can follow.

It’s crucial to stay on track. Your best option to do so and keep peace of mind is to create a schedule that you can follow – and commit to following it. Get up and do your work on schedule, just as you’d report for a job. Devote segments of your routine for research and reading pertinent literature in your field. Add time in your schedule to include sound sleep, good nutrition, exercise, socializing and recreation. Remember you’ll have other obligations such as attending lectures, symposia, commuting, parking, cleaning your living space, shopping for supplies, meeting with study groups and peer collaborators. At the same time, build a realistic schedule so you won’t work yourself into fear frenzy.

2. Start writing from day one.

Your writing practice and research methodology can put you ahead of schedule on your dissertation. That’s because learning to write comfortably in a scholarly fashion should become a second nature. To eliminate last-minute furies, organize your research times, round up and cite sources properly, and create a number of drafts. Writing at least 30 minutes daily can allow you to consolidate your notes and findings, and note discovery of areas that require additional research. Plus, much of what you write goes directly toward your understanding of your subject matter. Because of your other commitments to teaching, collaboration, and outside activities, keep a writing routine and stick to it. At the same time, read smarter, understanding how the literature fits to your purposes. In reading and writing, look for key points, not bulk.

3. Create a positive community.

Decide from the begging that you can’t afford to collaborate or socialize with friends or peers that exude negativity. Braggards or chronic complainers can sap your energy or even cause you to adopt negative thinking or comparisons with the progress of other PhD candidates. Lead your own research, but seek advisement from people that you can trust, who have your best interests at heart. Join groups involved in your major field of study with which you can share academic as well as social issues. A positive community can bring you out of isolation, and isolation can foster fear or despair.

4. Build effective networks.

Along with creating a positive community, get on with networking from the very beginning of your program. You’re going to spend four or five years at the university, giving you ample time to forge and grow partnerships with working professionals, educators, junior faculty, and peers that contribute to your evolving knowledge base. They can offer suggestions to explorer literature, research trends, and potential opportunities for publications, conferences, and workshops. Remember to investigate online tools and communities as part of your networking as a way to make yourself known as a colleague. Create your professional/research profile at places like LinkedIn or join a LinkedIn Discussion Group. Speak with presenters at seminars. Connect with authors you discover in your literature research and participate in career groups outside your usual sphere at the university. Finally, consider taking informational interviews as a means of understanding the workplace, getting your name out there, and connecting with potential employers.

5. Put money woes to rest.

Having ample money to get you through your program can be difficult, even excruciating. But just knowing solid funding resources can give you some comfort and save precious time. Have a financial plan and do the legwork vital to your economic survival. Don’t let finances overwhelm your primary purpose of discovering your interests, focusing on your expertise, and making progress. Financial aid options for doctoral students are available at the U.S. Department of Education . You may need to combine several opportunities to cover your total expenses, including grants, scholarships, loans, fellowships, housing costs, and securing teaching and research assistantships. Some grad students make money tutoring but you’ll have to consider the time against your routine and academic schedule. GoGrad provides detailed PhD cost estimates broken down by professional field, along with scholarship/grant/fellowship search tools.

6. Make sound nutrition your ally.

Rutgers University advises students to find other ways to palliate stress than by overeating – even healthy foods. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables and all your meals at the right portion sizes. Cut out junk food and sugary treats that create the craving to keep eating them. That goes for alcohol, too, which can contribute to a decline in your health and create another source of worry. Student and faculty events often include drinking, so proceed wisely, even if peers call you a wimp. Vary your meals and include a free day for eating what you want without guilt. WebMd suggests that students include berries, oats, milk or yogurt, salmon, dark green veggies, walnuts, beans, and dark chocolate. Coffee is okay in small doses (8 oz) and without lots of sugar. Latte and mocha drinks are satisfying but often contain large amounts of sugar. Green tea can wake you up, if you don’t want to overdo coffee, but eschew energy drinks or other stimulants that make you jittery.

7. Add exercise to your routine.

Exercise, even moderate, can do wonders for both your physical and emotional wellbeing. Among its benefits, regular exercise fights stress, improves memory retention, and boosts your mood (particularly in winter). Researchers at Colorado Tech report that exercise increases “the number of brain cells in the hippocampus, which controls the formation, retention and recall of memories – all essential for student success. In most adults, the hippocampus starts to shrink in the late twenties, leading to memory loss over time.” Exercise can also add to your social bandwidth if you have regular workout partners or participate in intramural team activities. Remember to stretch. Consider taking a yoga class or Pilates workout. Do some running, weight lifting, swimming, or join a rowing group. Hike with friends or colleagues. Get out the mountain bike. For best results, get in a 30-minute workout at least three times a week. Time Magazine reports that cardiovascular exercise can positively affect depression, anxiety and mood disorders. And you’ll sleep better, too.

8. Learn how to deal with rejection.

Rejection in an PhD program is a routine, unwanted emotional downer. But how you react to it is crucial. Unsolicited advice can feel abusive. Competition for internships, fellowships and publications can stress you out to the point of collapse. Coping tools include not taking rejection or undue criticism personally and chalking it up to experience. It can soften the blows as they come. Comparing yourself to other candidates can be toxic. As with athletics, there will always be someone better than you. But you’re not pursuing your colleagues’ goals, dissertations, or even the identical degree – you’re pursuing personalized knowledge and skills for your life after the doctorate. Barbara Robson, an Associate Editor for two academic journals, writes in Quora that most papers (80 percent or more) are rejected and that there’s an element of luck in getting published. If your paper is rejected by a journal, find another suitable place to submit it. If you’re passed over for a conference, don’t sent a hate letter or academic rebuttal. Move on.

9. Choose a qualified graduate advisor and mentor.

Finding the right mentor and dissertation advisor is pivotal to your academic success and survival. The Gradhacker Blog at Inside Higher Ed suggests that you choose an advisor that shares your research interests and career path. Ask about their success rate in graduating students that they mentor. Check out whether they walk the walk by viewing their list of publications, conference presentations, and other research accomplishments. Find out if they’re available for ongoing advising. Explore their aptitude as a mentor and the personal chemistry toward working together. Are they hard to communicate with, abusive or condescending? Are they unable to otherwise maintain a productive and respectful relationship during the time you’ll be in the program? Not all accomplished professors make for good advisors. Some may be too wrapped up in publishing or attending conferences to meet with you. You should leave advising sessions feeling more focused, energetic about your research and dissertation, and armed with strategies for accomplishment.

10. Build in time for family and friends.

There’s an old joke where a friend asks if you can hang out and you say, “I’m in a PhD program so ask me again in five years.” It’s vital to maintain relationships with family and friends. They can sustain you and keep you from deadly isolation. At the same time, they can be distracting. It’s useful to maintain balance by scheduling time with family and friends while sticking to the need to bear down on research and writing. The PhDStudent Forum says when possible to combine family or friend events around studying. For example, take study time for yourself during a longer visit to family to keep your academic momentum. Visit a coffeehouse where you can study along with family and friends that also like reading in public. Be sure to communicate clearly about your schedule and find ways to book in indispensable phone calls and visits. Join friends for exercise or recreation.

11. Set aside time to pursue non-academic interests.

Yeah right, when is that supposed to happen? It happens when you make it happen. To maintain a sane equilibrium, devote some time to routinely indulge in things you like doing. For example, work in the garden, take a massage class, learn photography, play live music, go kayaking, join a cooking class, volunteer in civic or advocacy activities or learn a foreign language. Build something with your hands. Play scrabble. Paint to indulge your playful or creative side. Take a dance class. Learn meditation or improve your ping pong game. Because it can be near impossible to turn off your PhD brain, relegate it to background noise. That way you might have breakthroughs or discoveries that emerge when you return to work.

12. Arrange and maintain a peaceful learning environment.

Living alone may create a peaceful learning atmosphere, but not if you have noisy neighbors above, next door, or below you. Yet you can develop a horrible sense of cabin fever if you isolate at home. Wherever you reside should be comfortable and workable. Clutter can be a source of stress. According to Inside Higher Ed , living with roommates can save on expenses, but comes along with its own set of challenges. Roommates can have other routines and schedules that introduce unwanted noise, emotional drama, unwanted guests, or social habits that can send you off the edge. Research potential housemates carefully, allowing a back-up plan for dealing with inevitable problems. Developing a friendly but direct communication strategy can help. Or, you can create a work zone in your bedroom that lends for privacy. If necessary, you can find a quiet study environment in a library carrel or small café. The same suggestions apply if you’re living with family.

13. Address your emotional health.

According to Inside Higher Ed , there is a mental health crisis in graduate education. Grad students are six times more susceptible to anxiety and depression than in the general population. The study found that “transgender and gender-nonconforming graduate students, along with women, were significantly more likely to experience anxiety and depression” than their straight or male counterparts. A poor work-life balance can be a powerful contributor to burnout and depression. The worst thing you can do when you experience mental health issues is to keep them to yourself or feel like a failure for having them. Seek out the campus counseling center (student health center) or a trusted outside mental health organization for personal counselling. Join their emotional support groups. The National Grad Crisis Line (877 472-3457) provides free intervention services, confidential telephone counseling, suicide prevention assistance, and referral services. Look into NAMI on Campus Clubs which are student-run mental health support organizations.

14. Deal with expectations

Who you are, ultimately, is not a PhD student. Your grad program is what you’re currently pursuing. The Indiana University guide to thriving in graduate school suggests that you shrink overwhelming expectations into bite-size challenges. It’s normal for doctoral students to think that they’re an imposter among experts. Johns Hopkins University found that striving to meet your expectations can cause low self-esteem, procrastination, guilt and depression. You may find yourself unable to meet your expectations for perfectionism, so modify your plans to hit deadlines with your best effort. The guide further advises to straighten out the expectations that others may have for you. This can be especially true with families and people who provide financial or emotional support.

15. Make conferences a part of life.

Opportunities to attend conferences and presentations are richly rewarding. First, you become part of the greater community in your research niche and you can build a lifetime network of colleagues. You can also gain a greater understanding of the professional options available to you. Even attending conferences out of your niche area can stimulate ideas and send you home refreshed. Participating in panels is a great way to network and demonstrate your expertise. Attending job fairs is another way to network while exploring the professional environment. By networking at conferences, you can set up additional meetings with experts by phone, virtually, or before the next conference. It doesn’t hurt to cite conferences and your own presentations on your CV.

From the Expert

What are PhD students afraid to talk about?

The number one thing that PhD students are afraid to talk about is the lack of progress that they are making on their PhD dissertation. This was certainly true in my case and also in the case of many of my classmates whom I spoke with. The dissertation is such a big project with different stages in it and requires such self-discipline over a sustained period of time. When I got past my embarrassment about it and started speaking to others about it helped a lot and I found a way forward.

Another thing that PhD students are afraid to discuss is their ambivalence about being in a doctoral program and whether they've done the right thing and whether they should continue. These are all important questions that such students need to be aware of and speak to others (counsellor, friends, etc.) about.

What was your greatest challenge and how did you succeed?

As mentioned, my greatest challenge in relation to completing my PhD was getting through the dissertation process. Two things really helped me get over the line (and came from speaking to friends and classmates). (1) Since my dissertation was quantitative, I hired a statistics advisor that I met with on a regular (weekly or fortnightly) basis and this helped me make good progress in that it served to provide much needed structure (and assistance with statistical analysis). (2) I fired my dissertation chair and found a new one that I had a much better working relationship with. My new chair was more knowledgeable about my dissertation subject area and also he was much more supportive. I made significant progress with him and thereafter completed my dissertation in a relatively short time frame.

What are good ways to alleviate stress and anxiety?

There are a number of ways that I think will help with stress while working on one's phd. The usual suspects are approaches such as regular exercise, good diet, fun activities (e.g. movies), counselling and/or talking to friends and/or family.

However, I think the best approach that one can take is to get steadily work through each aspect one-by-one of the PhD program towards completing it. A useful way to think about it (with both the dissertation and the PhD program itself), is to not get overwhelmed by the size of this enormous project but instead cut it up into separate pieces and focus on each piece at a time, complete it, and then move on to the next piece.

How did you handle the challenges of extreme competition?

My tip for students who are experiencing high levels of competition is to try put it all into perspective: Do your best to get the finest resources (internships, grades, etc) that you can but know that once you're out in the profession, some of those things might really matter that much in the bigger picture. So, one can be just a 'pass' in your doctoral program but then get out into their profession and make a big splash.

What can you recommend to keep interest or inertia up so you’ll finish the PhD/Dissertation?

‘Cut up the sausage' and focus on/work on it a piece at a time; Locate assistance or supportive individuals and meet with them regularly and ongoing throughout; Create 'deadlines' and milestones for yourself to work towards and have these other (helpful) individuals assist in keeping you accountable.

Find ways that work for you that help to bring structure into this enormous unstructured (or scantily structured) project called a PhD -- and especially its dissertation. At the end of the day, it's really about just getting through it and into the next (and bigger) stage of your profession. Just do your best while you're in it and don't get too caught up in the moment.

Additional Resources & Help for PhD Students

You should realize that you can’t do everything on your own. To do so is a recipe for financial despair, insurmountable academic challenges and poor overall wellbeing. At the same time, you may need to sift through the wealth of outside resources to find the one that addresses your concerns. The following links will connect you with financial options, bulletin boards in your field, and academic resources. Find tips for time management, exam preparation, and help with emotional issues that can and will arise:

• GoGrad Guide to Paying for Your PhD : Students are currently paying upwards of $80,00 in tuition to complete their PhD. Use our guide to research your financial aid options.
• PhinisheD : This free, comprehensive bulletin board is devoted to PhD students struggling with completing their degree. Find links for reference guides, financial aid, health and well-being tips, and writing guides.
• National Grad Crisis Line : It’s for when the going gets rough. The National Grad Crisis Line at (877) 472-3457 was founded in 1988 to provide free mentoring, confidential counseling, and referral services.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention : The CDC offers a pithy, wide-ranging college resource for maintaining wellness through sound nutrition and exercise. It offers diet plans, activity guidelines, and stress-prevention tips.
• U.S. Department of Education : Learn about financial aid for graduate or professional students including grants, loans and scholarships. The page links to government sites for applications and additional financial resources.
• ThoughtCo : This site is packed with articles on graduate school written by experts. Topics include prepping for comprehensive exams, time-management skills, and dealing with procrastination.
• Meetup : Student Meetups provide free, online listings for students to connect PhD candidates seeking peer support. Join an existing group or start one at your university.
• GoGrad : Discover tips for PhD students who want to complete their degrees online. Featured affordable online doctoral fields include business, computer science, criminal justice, education, nursing and psychology.
• The Grad Café : As host of graduate-school forums, the Grad Café operates a peer-run group that discusses the advantages and negative aspects of living alone or sharing housing.
• PhDJobs : Register for free and post your VC. Search among 1,600 current listings for PhDs and sign up for job alerts or information about post-doc programs.

101 Health and Wellness Tips for College Students Rutgers University

12 Tips for Surviving and Thriving in Grad School PsychCentral

CAPS Grad School Survival Guide Indiana University

Mental Health Crisis for Grad Students Inside Higher Ed

Modest Advice for New Graduate Students Medium.com

Surviving PhD and Postdoctoral Programs: Tips to Guarantee Success! Enago Academy

The Crucial Issue of Doctoral Non-completion The Chronical of Higher Education

Top 10 Smart Foods for College Students WebMD

A Survival Guide to a PhD

Sep 7, 2016

This guide is patterned after my “Doing well in your courses” , a post I wrote a long time ago on some of the tips/tricks I’ve developed during my undergrad. I’ve received nice comments about that guide, so in the same spirit, now that my PhD has come to an end I wanted to compile a similar retrospective document in hopes that it might be helpful to some. Unlike the undergraduate guide, this one was much more difficult to write because there is significantly more variation in how one can traverse the PhD experience. Therefore, many things are likely contentious and a good fraction will be specific to what I’m familiar with (Computer Science / Machine Learning / Computer Vision research). But disclaimers are boring, lets get to it!

Preliminaries

First, should you want to get a PhD? I was in a fortunate position of knowing since young age that I really wanted a PhD. Unfortunately it wasn’t for any very well-thought-through considerations: First, I really liked school and learning things and I wanted to learn as much as possible, and second, I really wanted to be like Gordon Freeman from the game Half-Life (who has a PhD from MIT in theoretical physics). I loved that game. But what if you’re more sensible in making your life’s decisions? Should you want to do a PhD? There’s a very nice Quora thread and in the summary of considerations that follows I’ll borrow/restate several from Justin/Ben/others there. I’ll assume that the second option you are considering is joining a medium-large company (which is likely most common). Ask yourself if you find the following properties appealing:

Freedom. A PhD will offer you a lot of freedom in the topics you wish to pursue and learn about. You’re in charge. Of course, you’ll have an adviser who will impose some constraints but in general you’ll have much more freedom than you might find elsewhere.

Ownership. The research you produce will be yours as an individual. Your accomplishments will have your name attached to them. In contrast, it is much more common to “blend in” inside a larger company. A common feeling here is becoming a “cog in a wheel”.

Exclusivity . There are very few people who make it to the top PhD programs. You’d be joining a group of a few hundred distinguished individuals in contrast to a few tens of thousands (?) that will join some company.

Status. Regardless of whether it should be or not, working towards and eventually getting a PhD degree is culturally revered and recognized as an impressive achievement. You also get to be a Doctor; that’s awesome.

Personal freedom. As a PhD student you’re your own boss. Want to sleep in today? Sure. Want to skip a day and go on a vacation? Sure. All that matters is your final output and no one will force you to clock in from 9am to 5pm. Of course, some advisers might be more or less flexible about it and some companies might be as well, but it’s a true first order statement.

Maximizing future choice. Joining a PhD program doesn’t close any doors or eliminate future employment/lifestyle options. You can go one way (PhD -> anywhere else) but not the other (anywhere else -> PhD -> academia/research; it is statistically less likely). Additionally (although this might be quite specific to applied ML), you’re strictly more hirable as a PhD graduate or even as a PhD dropout and many companies might be willing to put you in a more interesting position or with a higher starting salary. More generally, maximizing choice for the future you is a good heuristic to follow.

Maximizing variance. You’re young and there’s really no need to rush. Once you graduate from a PhD you can spend the next ~50 years of your life in some company. Opt for more variance in your experiences.

Personal growth. PhD is an intense experience of rapid growth (you learn a lot) and personal self-discovery (you’ll become a master of managing your own psychology). PhD programs (especially if you can make it into a good one) also offer a high density of exceptionally bright people who will become your best friends forever.

Expertise. PhD is probably your only opportunity in life to really drill deep into a topic and become a recognized leading expert in the world at something. You’re exploring the edge of our knowledge as a species, without the burden of lesser distractions or constraints. There’s something beautiful about that and if you disagree, it could be a sign that PhD is not for you.

The disclaimer . I wanted to also add a few words on some of the potential downsides and failure modes. The PhD is a very specific kind of experience that deserves a large disclaimer. You will inevitably find yourself working very hard (especially before paper deadlines). You need to be okay with the suffering and have enough mental stamina and determination to deal with the pressure. At some points you will lose track of what day of the week it is and go on a diet of leftover food from the microkitchens. You’ll sit exhausted and alone in the lab on a beautiful, sunny Saturday scrolling through Facebook pictures of your friends having fun on exotic trips, paid for by their 5-10x larger salaries. You will have to throw away 3 months of your work while somehow keeping your mental health intact. You’ll struggle with the realization that months of your work were spent on a paper with a few citations while your friends do exciting startups with TechCrunch articles or push products to millions of people. You’ll experience identity crises during which you’ll question your life decisions and wonder what you’re doing with some of the best years of your life. As a result, you should be quite certain that you can thrive in an unstructured environment in the pursuit research and discovery for science. If you’re unsure you should lean slightly negative by default. Ideally you should consider getting a taste of research as an undergraduate on a summer research program before before you decide to commit. In fact, one of the primary reasons that research experience is so desirable during the PhD hiring process is not the research itself, but the fact that the student is more likely to know what they’re getting themselves into.

I should clarify explicitly that this post is not about convincing anyone to do a PhD, I’ve merely tried to enumerate some of the common considerations above. The majority of this post focuses on some tips/tricks for navigating the experience once if you decide to go for it (which we’ll see shortly, below).

Lastly, as a random thought I heard it said that you should only do a PhD if you want to go into academia. In light of all of the above I’d argue that a PhD has strong intrinsic value - it’s an end by itself, not just a means to some end (e.g. academic job).

Getting into a PhD program: references, references, references. Great, you’ve decided to go for it. Now how do you get into a good PhD program? The first order approximation is quite simple - by far most important component are strong reference letters. The ideal scenario is that a well-known professor writes you a letter along the lines of: “Blah is in top 5 of students I’ve ever worked with. She takes initiative, comes up with her own ideas, and gets them to work.” The worst letter is along the lines of: “Blah took my class. She did well.” A research publication under your belt from a summer research program is a very strong bonus, but not absolutely required provided you have strong letters. In particular note: grades are quite irrelevant but you generally don’t want them to be too low. This was not obvious to me as an undergrad and I spent a lot of energy on getting good grades. This time should have instead been directed towards research (or at the very least personal projects), as much and as early as possible, and if possible under supervision of multiple people (you’ll need 3+ letters!). As a last point, what won’t help you too much is pestering your potential advisers out of the blue. They are often incredibly busy people and if you try to approach them too aggressively in an effort to impress them somehow in conferences or over email this may agitate them.

Picking the school . Once you get into some PhD programs, how do you pick the school? It’s easy, join Stanford! Just kidding. More seriously, your dream school should 1) be a top school (not because it looks good on your resume/CV but because of feedback loops; top schools attract other top people, many of whom you will get to know and work with) 2) have a few potential advisers you would want to work with. I really do mean the “few” part - this is very important and provides a safety cushion for you if things don’t work out with your top choice for any one of hundreds of reasons - things in many cases outside of your control, e.g. your dream professor leaves, moves, or spontaneously disappears, and 3) be in a good environment physically. I don’t think new admits appreciate this enough: you will spend 5+ years of your really good years living near the school campus. Trust me, this is a long time and your life will consist of much more than just research.

Student adviser relationship . The adviser is an extremely important person who will exercise a lot of influence over your PhD experience. It’s important to understand the nature of the relationship: the adviser-student relationship is a symbiosis; you have your own goals and want something out of your PhD, but they also have their own goals, constraints and they’re building their own career. Therefore, it is very helpful to understand your adviser’s incentive structures: how the tenure process works, how they are evaluated, how they get funding, how they fund you, what department politics they might be embedded in, how they win awards, how academia in general works and specifically how they gain recognition and respect of their colleagues. This alone will help you avoid or mitigate a large fraction of student-adviser friction points and allow you to plan appropriately. I also don’t want to make the relationship sound too much like a business transaction. The advisor-student relationship, more often that not, ends up developing into a lasting one, predicated on much more than just career advancement.

Pre-vs-post tenure . Every adviser is different so it’s helpful to understand the axes of variations and their repercussions on your PhD experience. As one rule of thumb (and keep in mind there are many exceptions), it’s important to keep track of whether a potential adviser is pre-tenure or post-tenure. The younger faculty members will usually be around more (they are working hard to get tenure) and will usually be more low-level, have stronger opinions on what you should be working on, they’ll do math with you, pitch concrete ideas, or even look at (or contribute to) your code. This is a much more hands-on and possibly intense experience because the adviser will need a strong publication record to get tenure and they are incentivised to push you to work just as hard. In contrast, more senior faculty members may have larger labs and tend to have many other commitments (e.g. committees, talks, travel) other than research, which means that they can only afford to stay on a higher level of abstraction both in the area of their research and in the level of supervision for their students. To caricature, it’s a difference between “you’re missing a second term in that equation” and “you may want to read up more in this area, talk to this or that person, and sell your work this or that way”. In the latter case, the low-level advice can still come from the senior PhD students in the lab or the postdocs.

Axes of variation . There are many other axes to be aware of. Some advisers are fluffy and some prefer to keep your relationship very professional. Some will try to exercise a lot of influence on the details of your work and some are much more hands off. Some will have a focus on specific models and their applications to various tasks while some will focus on tasks and more indifference towards any particular modeling approach. In terms of more managerial properties, some will meet you every week (or day!) multiple times and some you won’t see for months. Some advisers answer emails right away and some don’t answer email for a week (or ever, haha). Some advisers make demands about your work schedule (e.g. you better work long hours or weekends) and some won’t. Some advisers generously support their students with equipment and some think laptops or old computers are mostly fine. Some advisers will fund you to go to a conferences even if you don’t have a paper there and some won’t. Some advisers are entrepreneurial or applied and some lean more towards theoretical work. Some will let you do summer internships and some will consider internships just a distraction.

Finding an adviser . So how do you pick an adviser? The first stop, of course, is to talk to them in person. The student-adviser relationship is sometimes referred to as a marriage and you should make sure that there is a good fit. Of course, first you want to make sure that you can talk with them and that you get along personally, but it’s also important to get an idea of what area of “professor space” they occupy with respect to the aforementioned axes, and especially whether there is an intellectual resonance between the two of you in terms of the problems you are interested in. This can be just as important as their management style.

Collecting references . You should also collect references on your potential adviser. One good strategy is to talk to their students. If you want to get actual information this shouldn’t be done in a very formal way or setting but in a relaxed environment or mood (e.g. a party). In many cases the students might still avoid saying bad things about the adviser if asked in a general manner, but they will usually answer truthfully when you ask specific questions, e.g. “how often do you meet?”, or “how hands on are they?”. Another strategy is to look at where their previous students ended up (you can usually find this on the website under an alumni section), which of course also statistically informs your own eventual outcome.

Impressing an adviser . The adviser-student matching process is sometimes compared to a marriage - you pick them but they also pick you. The ideal student from their perspective is someone with interest and passion, someone who doesn’t need too much hand-holding, and someone who takes initiative - who shows up a week later having done not just what the adviser suggested, but who went beyond it; improved on it in unexpected ways.

Consider the entire lab . Another important point to realize is that you’ll be seeing your adviser maybe once a week but you’ll be seeing most of their students every single day in the lab and they will go on to become your closest friends. In most cases you will also end up collaborating with some of the senior PhD students or postdocs and they will play a role very similar to that of your adviser. The postdocs, in particular, are professors-in-training and they will likely be eager to work with you as they are trying to gain advising experience they can point to for their academic job search. Therefore, you want to make sure the entire group has people you can get along with, people you respect and who you can work with closely on research projects.

Research topics

So you’ve entered a PhD program and found an adviser. Now what do you work on?

An exercise in the outer loop. First note the nature of the experience. A PhD is simultaneously a fun and frustrating experience because you’re constantly operating on a meta problem level. You’re not just solving problems - that’s merely the simple inner loop. You spend most of your time on the outer loop, figuring out what problems are worth solving and what problems are ripe for solving. You’re constantly imagining yourself solving hypothetical problems and asking yourself where that puts you, what it could unlock, or if anyone cares. If you’re like me this can sometimes drive you a little crazy because you’re spending long hours working on things and you’re not even sure if they are the correct things to work on or if a solution exists.

Developing taste . When it comes to choosing problems you’ll hear academics talk about a mystical sense of “taste”. It’s a real thing. When you pitch a potential problem to your adviser you’ll either see their face contort, their eyes rolling, and their attention drift, or you’ll sense the excitement in their eyes as they contemplate the uncharted territory ripe for exploration. In that split second a lot happens: an evaluation of the problem’s importance, difficulty, its sexiness , its historical context (and possibly also its fit to their active grants). In other words, your adviser is likely to be a master of the outer loop and will have a highly developed sense of taste for problems. During your PhD you’ll get to acquire this sense yourself.

In particular, I think I had a terrible taste coming in to the PhD. I can see this from the notes I took in my early PhD years. A lot of the problems I was excited about at the time were in retrospect poorly conceived, intractable, or irrelevant. I’d like to think I refined the sense by the end through practice and apprenticeship.

Let me now try to serialize a few thoughts on what goes into this sense of taste, and what makes a problem interesting to work on.

A fertile ground. First, recognize that during your PhD you will dive deeply into one area and your papers will very likely chain on top of each other to create a body of work (which becomes your thesis). Therefore, you should always be thinking several steps ahead when choosing a problem. It’s impossible to predict how things will unfold but you can often get a sense of how much room there could be for additional work.

Plays to your adviser’s interests and strengths . You will want to operate in the realm of your adviser’s interest. Some advisers may allow you to work on slightly tangential areas but you would not be taking full advantage of their knowledge and you are making them less likely to want to help you with your project or promote your work. For instance, (and this goes to my previous point of understanding your adviser’s job) every adviser has a “default talk” slide deck on their research that they give all the time and if your work can add new exciting cutting edge work slides to this deck then you’ll find them much more invested, helpful and involved in your research. Additionally, their talks will promote and publicize your work.

Be ambitious: the sublinear scaling of hardness. People have a strange bug built into psychology: a 10x more important or impactful problem intuitively feels 10x harder (or 10x less likely) to achieve. This is a fallacy - in my experience a 10x more important problem is at most 2-3x harder to achieve. In fact, in some cases a 10x harder problem may be easier to achieve. How is this? It’s because thinking 10x forces you out of the box, to confront the real limitations of an approach, to think from first principles, to change the strategy completely, to innovate. If you aspire to improve something by 10% and work hard then you will. But if you aspire to improve it by 100% you are still quite likely to, but you will do it very differently.

Ambitious but with an attack. At this point it’s also important to point out that there are plenty of important problems that don’t make great projects. I recommend reading You and Your Research by Richard Hamming, where this point is expanded on:

If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work. It’s perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem’ must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn’t work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It’s not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important.

The person who did X . Ultimately, the goal of a PhD is to not only develop a deep expertise in a field but to also make your mark upon it. To steer it, shape it. The ideal scenario is that by the end of the PhD you own some part of an important area, preferably one that is also easy and fast to describe. You want people to say things like “she’s the person who did X”. If you can fill in a blank there you’ll be successful.

Valuable skills. Recognize that during your PhD you will become an expert at the area of your choosing (as fun aside, note that [5 years]x[260 working days]x[8 hours per day] is 10,400 hours; if you believe Gladwell then a PhD is exactly the amount of time to become an expert). So imagine yourself 5 years later being a world expert in this area (the 10,000 hours will ensure that regardless of the academic impact of your work). Are these skills exciting or potentially valuable to your future endeavors?

Negative examples. There are also some problems or types of papers that you ideally want to avoid. For instance, you’ll sometimes hear academics talk about “incremental work” (this is the worst adjective possible in academia). Incremental work is a paper that enhances something existing by making it more complex and gets 2% extra on some benchmark. The amusing thing about these papers is that they have a reasonably high chance of getting accepted (a reviewer can’t point to anything to kill them; they are also sometimes referred to as “ cockroach papers ”), so if you have a string of these papers accepted you can feel as though you’re being very productive, but in fact these papers won’t go on to be highly cited and you won’t go on to have a lot of impact on the field. Similarly, finding projects should ideally not include thoughts along the lines of “there’s this next logical step in the air that no one has done yet, let me do it”, or “this should be an easy poster”.

Case study: my thesis . To make some of this discussion more concrete I wanted to use the example of how my own PhD unfolded. First, fun fact: my entire thesis is based on work I did in the last 1.5 years of my PhD. i.e. it took me quite a long time to wiggle around in the metaproblem space and find a problem that I felt very excited to work on (the other ~2 years I mostly meandered on 3D things (e.g. Kinect Fusion, 3D meshes, point cloud features) and video things). Then at one point in my 3rd year I randomly stopped by Richard Socher’s office on some Saturday at 2am. We had a chat about interesting problems and I realized that some of his work on images and language was in fact getting at something very interesting (of course, the area at the intersection of images and language goes back quite a lot further than Richard as well). I couldn’t quite see all the papers that would follow but it seemed heuristically very promising: it was highly fertile (a lot of unsolved problems, a lot of interesting possibilities on grounding descriptions to images), I felt that it was very cool and important, it was easy to explain, it seemed to be at the boundary of possible (Deep Learning has just started to work), the datasets had just started to become available (Flickr8K had just come out), it fit nicely into Fei-Fei’s interests and even if I were not successful I’d at least get lots of practice with optimizing interesting deep nets that I could reapply elsewhere. I had a strong feeling of a tsunami of checkmarks as everything clicked in place in my mind. I pitched this to Fei-Fei (my adviser) as an area to dive into the next day and, with relief, she enthusiastically approved, encouraged me, and would later go on to steer me within the space (e.g. Fei-Fei insisted that I do image to sentence generation while I was mostly content with ranking.). I’m happy with how things evolved from there. In short, I meandered around for 2 years stuck around the outer loop, finding something to dive into. Once it clicked for me what that was based on several heuristics, I dug in.

Resistance . I’d like to also mention that your adviser is by no means infallible. I’ve witnessed and heard of many instances in which, in retrospect, the adviser made the wrong call. If you feel this way during your phd you should have the courage to sometimes ignore your adviser. Academia generally celebrates independent thinking but the response of your specific adviser can vary depending on circumstances. I’m aware of multiple cases where the bet worked out very well and I’ve also personally experienced cases where it did not. For instance, I disagreed strongly with some advice Andrew Ng gave me in my very first year. I ended up working on a problem he wasn’t very excited about and, surprise, he turned out to be very right and I wasted a few months. Win some lose some :)

Don’t play the game. Finally, I’d like to challenge you to think of a PhD as more than just a sequence of papers. You’re not a paper writer. You’re a member of a research community and your goal is to push the field forward. Papers are one common way of doing that but I would encourage you to look beyond the established academic game. Think for yourself and from first principles. Do things others don’t do but should. Step off the treadmill that has been put before you. I tried to do some of this myself throughout my PhD. This blog is an example - it allows me communicate things that wouldn’t ordinarily go into papers. The ImageNet human reference experiments are an example - I felt strongly that it was important for the field to know the ballpark human accuracy on ILSVRC so I took a few weeks off and evaluated it. The academic search tools (e.g. arxiv-sanity) are an example - I felt continuously frustrated by the inefficiency of finding papers in the literature and I released and maintain the site in hopes that it can be useful to others. Teaching CS231n twice is an example - I put much more effort into it than is rationally advisable for a PhD student who should be doing research, but I felt that the field was held back if people couldn’t efficiently learn about the topic and enter. A lot of my PhD endeavors have likely come at a cost in standard academic metrics (e.g. h-index, or number of publications in top venues) but I did them anyway, I would do it the same way again, and here I am encouraging others to as well. To add a pitch of salt and wash down the ideology a bit, based on several past discussions with my friends and colleagues I know that this view is contentious and that many would disagree.

Writing papers

Writing good papers is an essential survival skill of an academic (kind of like making fire for a caveman). In particular, it is very important to realize that papers are a specific thing: they look a certain way, they flow a certain way, they have a certain structure, language, and statistics that the other academics expect. It’s usually a painful exercise for me to look through some of my early PhD paper drafts because they are quite terrible. There is a lot to learn here.

Review papers. If you’re trying to learn to write better papers it can feel like a sensible strategy to look at many good papers and try to distill patterns. This turns out to not be the best strategy; it’s analogous to only receiving positive examples for a binary classification problem. What you really want is to also have exposure to a large number of bad papers and one way to get this is by reviewing papers. Most good conferences have an acceptance rate of about 25% so most papers you’ll review are bad, which will allow you to build a powerful binary classifier. You’ll read through a bad paper and realize how unclear it is, or how it doesn’t define it’s variables, how vague and abstract its intro is, or how it dives in to the details too quickly, and you’ll learn to avoid the same pitfalls in your own papers. Another related valuable experience is to attend (or form) journal clubs - you’ll see experienced researchers critique papers and get an impression for how your own papers will be analyzed by others.

Get the gestalt right. I remember being impressed with Fei-Fei (my adviser) once during a reviewing session. I had a stack of 4 papers I had reviewed over the last several hours and she picked them up, flipped through each one for 10 seconds, and said one of them was good and the other three bad. Indeed, I was accepting the one and rejecting the other three, but something that took me several hours took her seconds. Fei-Fei was relying on the gestalt of the papers as a powerful heuristic. Your papers, as you become a more senior researcher take on a characteristic look. An introduction of ~1 page. A ~1 page related work section with a good density of citations - not too sparse but not too crowded. A well-designed pull figure (on page 1 or 2) and system figure (on page 3) that were not made in MS Paint. A technical section with some math symbols somewhere, results tables with lots of numbers and some of them bold, one additional cute analysis experiment, and the paper has exactly 8 pages (the page limit) and not a single line less. You’ll have to learn how to endow your papers with the same gestalt because many researchers rely on it as a cognitive shortcut when they judge your work.

Identify the core contribution . Before you start writing anything it’s important to identify the single core contribution that your paper makes to the field. I would especially highlight the word single . A paper is not a random collection of some experiments you ran that you report on. The paper sells a single thing that was not obvious or present before. You have to argue that the thing is important, that it hasn’t been done before, and then you support its merit experimentally in controlled experiments. The entire paper is organized around this core contribution with surgical precision. In particular it doesn’t have any additional fluff and it doesn’t try to pack anything else on a side. As a concrete example, I made a mistake in one of my earlier papers on video classification where I tried to pack in two contributions: 1) a set of architectural layouts for video convnets and an unrelated 2) multi-resolution architecture which gave small improvements. I added it because I reasoned first that maybe someone could find it interesting and follow up on it later and second because I thought that contributions in a paper are additive: two contributions are better than one. Unfortunately, this is false and very wrong. The second contribution was minor/dubious and it diluted the paper, it was distracting, and no one cared. I’ve made a similar mistake again in my CVPR 2014 paper which presented two separate models: a ranking model and a generation model. Several good in-retrospect arguments could be made that I should have submitted two separate papers; the reason it was one is more historical than rational.

The structure. Once you’ve identified your core contribution there is a default recipe for writing a paper about it. The upper level structure is by default Intro, Related Work, Model, Experiments, Conclusions. When I write my intro I find that it helps to put down a coherent top-level narrative in latex comments and then fill in the text below. I like to organize each of my paragraphs around a single concrete point stated on the first sentence that is then supported in the rest of the paragraph. This structure makes it easy for a reader to skim the paper. A good flow of ideas is then along the lines of 1) X (+define X if not obvious) is an important problem 2) The core challenges are this and that. 2) Previous work on X has addressed these with Y, but the problems with this are Z. 3) In this work we do W (?). 4) This has the following appealing properties and our experiments show this and that. You can play with this structure a bit but these core points should be clearly made. Note again that the paper is surgically organized around your exact contribution. For example, when you list the challenges you want to list exactly the things that you address later; you don’t go meandering about unrelated things to what you have done (you can speculate a bit more later in conclusion). It is important to keep a sensible structure throughout your paper, not just in the intro. For example, when you explain the model each section should: 1) explain clearly what is being done in the section, 2) explain what the core challenges are 3) explain what a baseline approach is or what others have done before 4) motivate and explain what you do 5) describe it.

Break the structure. You should also feel free (and you’re encouraged to!) play with these formulas to some extent and add some spice to your papers. For example, see this amusing paper from Razavian et al. in 2014 that structures the introduction as a dialog between a student and the professor. It’s clever and I like it. As another example, a lot of papers from Alyosha Efros have a playful tone and make great case studies in writing fun papers. As only one of many examples, see this paper he wrote with Antonio Torralba: Unbiased look at dataset bias . Another possibility I’ve seen work well is to include an FAQ section, possibly in the appendix.

Common mistake: the laundry list. One very common mistake to avoid is the “laundry list”, which looks as follows: “Here is the problem. Okay now to solve this problem first we do X, then we do Y, then we do Z, and now we do W, and here is what we get”. You should try very hard to avoid this structure. Each point should be justified, motivated, explained. Why do you do X or Y? What are the alternatives? What have others done? It’s okay to say things like this is common (add citation if possible). Your paper is not a report, an enumeration of what you’ve done, or some kind of a translation of your chronological notes and experiments into latex. It is a highly processed and very focused discussion of a problem, your approach and its context. It is supposed to teach your colleagues something and you have to justify your steps, not just describe what you did.

The language. Over time you’ll develop a vocabulary of good words and bad words to use when writing papers. Speaking about machine learning or computer vision papers specifically as concrete examples, in your papers you never “study” or “investigate” (there are boring, passive, bad words); instead you “develop” or even better you “propose”. And you don’t present a “system” or, shudder , a “pipeline”; instead, you develop a “model”. You don’t learn “features”, you learn “representations”. And god forbid, you never “combine”, “modify” or “expand”. These are incremental, gross terms that will certainly get your paper rejected :).

An internal deadlines 2 weeks prior . Not many labs do this, but luckily Fei-Fei is quite adamant about an internal deadline 2 weeks before the due date in which you must submit at least a 5-page draft with all the final experiments (even if not with final numbers) that goes through an internal review process identical to the external one (with the same review forms filled out, etc). I found this practice to be extremely useful because forcing yourself to lay out the full paper almost always reveals some number of critical experiments you must run for the paper to flow and for its argument flow to be coherent, consistent and convincing.

Another great resource on this topic is Tips for Writing Technical Papers from Jennifer Widom.

Writing code

A lot of your time will of course be taken up with the execution of your ideas, which likely involves a lot of coding. I won’t dwell on this too much because it’s not uniquely academic, but I would like to bring up a few points.

Release your code . It’s a somewhat surprising fact but you can get away with publishing papers and not releasing your code. You will also feel a lot of incentive to not release your code: it can be a lot of work (research code can look like spaghetti since you iterate very quickly, you have to clean up a lot), it can be intimidating to think that others might judge you on your at most decent coding abilities, it is painful to maintain code and answer questions from other people about it (forever), and you might also be concerned that people could spot bugs that invalidate your results. However, it is precisely for some of these reasons that you should commit to releasing your code: it will force you to adopt better coding habits due to fear of public shaming (which will end up saving you time!), it will force you to learn better engineering practices, it will force you to be more thorough with your code (e.g. writing unit tests to make bugs much less likely), it will make others much more likely to follow up on your work (and hence lead to more citations of your papers) and of course it will be much more useful to everyone as a record of exactly what was done for posterity. When you do release your code I recommend taking advantage of docker containers ; this will reduce the amount of headaches people email you about when they can’t get all the dependencies (and their precise versions) installed.

Think of the future you . Make sure to document all your code very well for yourself. I guarantee you that you will come back to your code base a few months later (e.g. to do a few more experiments for the camera ready version of the paper), and you will feel completely lost in it. I got into the habit of creating very thorough readme.txt files in all my repos (for my personal use) as notes to future self on how the code works, how to run it, etc.

Giving talks

So, you published a paper and it’s an oral! Now you get to give a few minute talk to a large audience of people - what should it look like?

The goal of a talk . First, that there’s a common misconception that the goal of your talk is to tell your audience about what you did in your paper. This is incorrect, and should only be a second or third degree design criterion. The goal of your talk is to 1) get the audience really excited about the problem you worked on (they must appreciate it or they will not care about your solution otherwise!) 2) teach the audience something (ideally while giving them a taste of your insight/solution; don’t be afraid to spend time on other’s related work), and 3) entertain (they will start checking their Facebook otherwise). Ideally, by the end of the talk the people in your audience are thinking some mixture of “wow, I’m working in the wrong area”, “I have to read this paper”, and “This person has an impressive understanding of the whole area”.

A few do’s: There are several properties that make talks better. For instance, Do: Lots of pictures. People Love pictures. Videos and animations should be used more sparingly because they distract. Do: make the talk actionable - talk about something someone can do after your talk. Do: give a live demo if possible, it can make your talk more memorable. Do: develop a broader intellectual arch that your work is part of. Do: develop it into a story (people love stories). Do: cite, cite, cite - a lot! It takes very little slide space to pay credit to your colleagues. It pleases them and always reflects well on you because it shows that you’re humble about your own contribution, and aware that it builds on a lot of what has come before and what is happening in parallel. You can even cite related work published at the same conference and briefly advertise it. Do: practice the talk! First for yourself in isolation and later to your lab/friends. This almost always reveals very insightful flaws in your narrative and flow.

Don’t: texttexttext . Don’t crowd your slides with text. There should be very few or no bullet points - speakers sometimes try to use these as a crutch to remind themselves what they should be talking about but the slides are not for you they are for the audience. These should be in your speaker notes. On the topic of crowding the slides, also avoid complex diagrams as much as you can - your audience has a fixed bit bandwidth and I guarantee that your own very familiar and “simple” diagram is not as simple or interpretable to someone seeing it for the first time.

Careful with: result tables: Don’t include dense tables of results showing that your method works better. You got a paper, I’m sure your results were decent. I always find these parts boring and unnecessary unless the numbers show something interesting (other than your method works better), or of course unless there is a large gap that you’re very proud of. If you do include results or graphs build them up slowly with transitions, don’t post them all at once and spend 3 minutes on one slide.

Pitfall: the thin band between bored/confused . It’s actually quite tricky to design talks where a good portion of your audience learns something. A common failure case (as an audience member) is to see talks where I’m painfully bored during the first half and completely confused during the second half, learning nothing by the end. This can occur in talks that have a very general (too general) overview followed by a technical (too technical) second portion. Try to identify when your talk is in danger of having this property.

Pitfall: running out of time . Many speakers spend too much time on the early intro parts (that can often be somewhat boring) and then frantically speed through all the last few slides that contain the most interesting results, analysis or demos. Don’t be that person.

Pitfall: formulaic talks . I might be a special case but I’m always a fan of non-formulaic talks that challenge conventions. For instance, I despise the outline slide. It makes the talk so boring, it’s like saying: “This movie is about a ring of power. In the first chapter we’ll see a hobbit come into possession of the ring. In the second we’ll see him travel to Mordor. In the third he’ll cast the ring into Mount Doom and destroy it. I will start with chapter 1” - Come on! I use outline slides for much longer talks to keep the audience anchored if they zone out (at 30min+ they inevitably will a few times), but it should be used sparingly.

Observe and learn . Ultimately, the best way to become better at giving talks (as it is with writing papers too) is to make conscious effort to pay attention to what great (and not so great) speakers do and build a binary classifier in your mind. Don’t just enjoy talks; analyze them, break them down, learn from them. Additionally, pay close attention to the audience and their reactions. Sometimes a speaker will put up a complex table with many numbers and you will notice half of the audience immediately look down on their phone and open Facebook. Build an internal classifier of the events that cause this to happen and avoid them in your talks.

Attending conferences

On the subject of conferences:

Go. It’s very important that you go to conferences, especially the 1-2 top conferences in your area. If your adviser lacks funds and does not want to pay for your travel expenses (e.g. if you don’t have a paper) then you should be willing to pay for yourself (usually about $2000 for travel, accommodation, registration and food). This is important because you want to become part of the academic community and get a chance to meet more people in the area and gossip about research topics. Science might have this image of a few brilliant lone wolfs working in isolation, but the truth is that research is predominantly a highly social endeavor - you stand on the shoulders of many people, you’re working on problems in parallel with other people, and it is these people that you’re also writing papers to. Additionally, it’s unfortunate but each field has knowledge that doesn’t get serialized into papers but is instead spread across a shared understanding of the community; things such as what are the next important topics to work on, what papers are most interesting, what is the inside scoop on papers, how they developed historically, what methods work (not just on paper, in reality), etcetc. It is very valuable (and fun!) to become part of the community and get direct access to the hivemind - to learn from it first, and to hopefully influence it later.

Talks: choose by speaker . One conference trick I’ve developed is that if you’re choosing which talks to attend it can be better to look at the speakers instead of the topics. Some people give better talks than others (it’s a skill, and you’ll discover these people in time) and in my experience I find that it often pays off to see them speak even if it is on a topic that isn’t exactly connected to your area of research.

The real action is in the hallways . The speed of innovation (especially in Machine Learning) now works at timescales much faster than conferences so most of the relevant papers you’ll see at the conference are in fact old news. Therefore, conferences are primarily a social event. Instead of attending a talk I encourage you to view the hallway as one of the main events that doesn’t appear on the schedule. It can also be valuable to stroll the poster session and discover some interesting papers and ideas that you may have missed.

It is said that there are three stages to a PhD. In the first stage you look at a related paper’s reference section and you haven’t read most of the papers. In the second stage you recognize all the papers. In the third stage you’ve shared a beer with all the first authors of all the papers.

Closing thoughts

I can’t find the quote anymore but I heard Sam Altman of YC say that there are no shortcuts or cheats when it comes to building a startup. You can’t expect to win in the long run by somehow gaming the system or putting up false appearances. I think that the same applies in academia. Ultimately you’re trying to do good research and push the field forward and if you try to game any of the proxy metrics you won’t be successful in the long run. This is especially so because academia is in fact surprisingly small and highly interconnected, so anything shady you try to do to pad your academic resume (e.g. self-citing a lot, publishing the same idea multiple times with small remixes, resubmitting the same rejected paper over and over again with no changes, conveniently trying to leave out some baselines etc.) will eventually catch up with you and you will not be successful.

So at the end of the day it’s quite simple. Do good work, communicate it properly, people will notice and good things will happen. Have a fun ride!

EDIT: HN discussion link .

1st Edition

Your PhD Survival Guide Planning, Writing, and Succeeding in Your Final Year

• Taylor & Francis eBooks (Institutional Purchase) Opens in new tab or window

Description

Accessible, insightful and a must-have toolkit for all final year doctoral students, the founders of the ‘Thesis Boot Camp’ intensive writing programme show how to survive and thrive through the challenging final year of writing and submitting a thesis. Drawing on an understanding of the intellectual, professional, practical and personal elements of the doctorate to help readers gain insight into what it means to finish a PhD and how to get there, this book covers the common challenges and ways to resolve them. It includes advice on: Project management skills to plan, track, iterate and report on the complex task of bringing a multi-year research project to a successful close Personal effectiveness and self-care to support students to thrive in body, mind and relationships, including challenging supervisor relationships. The successful ‘generative’ writing processes which get writers into the zone and producing thousands of words; and then provides the skills to structure and polish those words to publishable quality. What it means to survive a PhD and consider multiple possible futures. Written for students in all disciplines, and relevant to university systems around the world, this unique book expertly guides students through the final 6–12 months of the thesis. The 'Insider Guides to Success in Academia' offers support and practical advice to doctoral students and early-career researchers. Covering the topics that really matter, but which often get overlooked, this indispensable series provides practical and realistic guidance to address many of the needs and challenges of trying to operate, and remain, in academia. These neat pocket guides fill specific and significant gaps in current literature. Each book offers insider perspectives on the often implicit rules of the game -- the things you need to know but usually aren't told by institutional postgraduate support, researcher development units, or supervisors -- and will address a practical topic that is key to career progression. They are essential reading for doctoral students, early-career researchers, supervisors, mentors, or anyone looking to launch or maintain their career in academia.

Table of Contents

Katherine Firth manages the academic programs of a residential college at the University of Melbourne, Australia and founded the Research Insiders Blog which has been running since 2013. 　 Liam Connell has worked in research training and education since the late 2000s. He works in research development at La Trobe University, Australia. Peta Freestone has worked in higher education for over 15 years, creating award-winning initiatives including Thesis Boot Camp, founded in 2012. She designs and delivers writing and productivity programmes for universities and other organisations around the world.

About VitalSource eBooks

VitalSource is a leading provider of eBooks.

• Access your materials anywhere, at anytime.
• Customer preferences like text size, font type, page color and more.
• Take annotations in line as you read.

Multiple eBook Copies

This eBook is already in your shopping cart. If you would like to replace it with a different purchasing option please remove the current eBook option from your cart.

Book Preview

The country you have selected will result in the following:

• Product pricing will be adjusted to match the corresponding currency.
• The title Perception will be removed from your cart because it is not available in this region.

Managing your Mental Health during your PhD

A Survival Guide

• © 2022
• Zoë J. Ayres 0

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Provides tips and tricks on mental health management
• Explores environmental factors that impact mental health
• Examines the research culture we work in

108k Accesses

4 Citations

750 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

This book explores the PhD experience as never before and provides a “survival guide” for current and prospective PhD students. The book investigates why mental health issues are so common among the postgraduate population, going beyond the statistics, looking at lived experience of both the author and as well as current PhD students, who have found balancing mental wellness with the PhD endeavour challenging.

The author discusses tips and tricks she wished she had known at the start of her PhD process for managing mental health, such as managing imposter feelings, prioritising workload, and self-care strategies to help others throughout their own journey.

Finally, the book is a call to action, providing tangible improvements from the author’s perspective that university institutions can make to ensure that academia is a place for all to thrive.

Similar content being viewed by others

Intrapersonal Wellbeing and the Academic Mental Health Crisis

Evaluating Mental Health and Wellbeing of Postgraduate Researchers: Prevalence and Contributing Factors

Student wellness trends and interventions in medical education: a narrative review

• Mental Health
• Postgraduate
• #AcademicMentalHealth
• Workplace Stress

Table of contents (12 chapters)

Front matter, defining the problem, introduction.

Zoë J. Ayres

Challenging Perceptions: What Is Mental Health Anyway?

Setting the scene: understanding the phd mental health crisis, mindset matters, self-care: without you there is no phd, not another yoga session: university wellbeing programs and why they so often miss the mark, “i’ll read it later” and other lies we tell ourselves: managing expectations and guilt, why you earned it: fighting the impostor, environmental stressors, dismantling the ivory tower: systemic issues that might impact your mental health, perhaps it’s not you it’s them: phd student-supervisor relationships, publish or perish: on the myth of meritocracy, the high-walled rose garden: understanding there is life outside the academy, seeking help, thriving, not just surviving, back matter, authors and affiliations, about the author.

Zoë Ayres (PhD) is an analytical scientist by background, with a PhD in electrochemical sensor development. After spending several years as a postdoctoral researcher in academia post-PhD, she now works in industry as a Senior Scientist. Additionally, Zoë is a mental health advocate, spurred on by experiencing mental illness herself during her PhD. Her advocacy work focuses on improving mental health in research settings, primarily focusing on PhD mental health. She raises awareness of the common issues PhD students face through various campaigns and initiatives, and can be found under the handle @zjayres on Twitter.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Managing your Mental Health during your PhD

Book Subtitle : A Survival Guide

Authors : Zoë J. Ayres

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences , Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-031-14193-5 Published: 15 September 2022

eBook ISBN : 978-3-031-14194-2 Published: 14 September 2022

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XIX, 199

Number of Illustrations : 1 b/w illustrations

Topics : Clinical Psychology , Psychotherapy and Counseling , Biomedicine, general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

PhD Survival Guide – Survive And Thrive During Your PhD

$ 19.99

Learn all of the insider secrets to surviving and thriving during your PhD.

Learn what to do before your PhD and how to tackle the most common issues faced by PhD students during their PhD.

* Satisfaction guaranteed or get your money back – no questions asked

Description

This ebook will cover:

• Why people end up hating their PhD
• Supervisor choice
• Topic Choice
• University Choice
• Mental health
• Working without structure
• Common supervisor issues
• Dealing with criticism
• The apprentice mindset
• Tips for international students
• Escaping academia safely
• And so much more…

It is fully linked with the most important and relevant videos from my Youtube Channel.

You may also like…

Ebook Bundle

Related products.

The Ultimate Academic Writing Toolkit

Thank you for visiting academia insider..

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

25 episodes

Are you a first year PhD student trying to figure out how to navigate grad life? Or maybe you're a fifth year looking for the motivation to write out the last chapter of your dissertation? Regardless of where you are or where you want to be, this is the podcast that talks all things grad school! The purpose of this podcast is to highlight some of the things that I, and others, wish they knew prior to starting their grad school journey. We will be covering a multitude of topics such as mental health, good practices, how to ace your first seminar, and much much more!

The PhD Survival Guide Podcast Ferass

• 4.8 • 8 Ratings
• JUN 17, 2024

24. Casual Conversations: Exploring non-academic paths in the PhD - With Dakota, PhD

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! As we always say here on the podcast, every PhD journey is unique. I worked full-time in the laboratory and had the privilege of dedicating the majority of my time to my experiments. While I have talked in depth about the pros and cons of this, not all of you have the same experience. In this episode, I spoke to Dakota, a recent PhD graduate who juggled a full-time PhD with a full-time job outside of academia. We spoke about various topics, such as the challenges she faces, ways to expand on your research and experiences, and how to navigate non-academic careers during, and after, your PhD! As always, we hope you enjoy this episode! Dr. Dakota: Dakota is a recent PhD graduate who studied the experiences of Latino young adults using dating apps, their identity construction, partner preferences, and conceptions of happily ever after. She has six years of research experience in both the non-profit and tech sectors and currently works as a mixed methods User Researcher for a tech company. Dakota has previously worked at Facebook studying online connection and community in Facebook groups. In her past in non-profit research, she studied foster youth outcomes at the City University of New York (CUNY)’s Accelerated Studies in Associate’s Programs as well as social welfare intervention analysis for low-income Latino families at the National Hispanic Research Center. She earned her M.A. in Sociology and B.A. in American Studies from Columbia University and is a former Fulbright Spain grantee.  Connect with Dakota: Twitter: @dakotazrc Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! ⁠⁠⁠@PhDSG_Pod ⁠⁠⁠ DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

• 1 hr 43 min
• MAY 15, 2024

23. Casual Conversations: From diverse roots, to doctorate - Crossing academic origins - With Cristina, MPH and Sarah, BS

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! In the recent past, some of you have reached out asking these key questions: Does it really make a big difference to have a Master's degree? Or does the research experience you completed in your Bachelor's degree really prepare you for the research burdens in a PhD? What if you don't have either of these things, will you be at a severe disadvantage? In this episode, we tackle the origin stories of Cristina (who has an MPH), Ferass (who has a BS with lab experience), and Sarah (who has a BS with no lab experience). We talked about how how our previous experiences before our PhDs may have impacted or prepared our journies throughout our degrees. As always, we hope you enjoy this episode! Connect with Cristina on LinkedIn! Connect with Sarah on LinkedIn! Connect with Ferass on LinkedIn! Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! ⁠⁠⁠@PhDSG_Pod ⁠⁠⁠ DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

• 1 hr 54 min
• APR 11, 2024

22. Casual Conversations: How to navigate relationships in the PhD - Creating sustainable connections - With Dr. Victoria Godieva

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! Pursuing a PhD can be a very isolating experience. You may soon come to realize that the demands of being a PhD student can consume your time. This drastic shift in your work-life balance can also significantly affect your relationships, including family, friends, and significant others. In this episode we talk with Dr. Victoria Godieva about how starting and pursuing our PhDs changed the relationships around us. We also talked about the qualities we looked for in relationships and how to create sustainable connections. As always, we hope you enjoy this episode! Dr. Victoria Godieva: Dr. Victoria Godieva is a recent PhD graduate in biochemistry from Florida International University. During her time in her PhD, Victoria worked diligently towards unraveling the mysteries of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK3) in the brain. While juggling her own personal projects, she was also a dedicated mentor to various masters and undergraduate level students within her laboratory, as well as various students in her teaching assistant position at FIU. She has been awarded with multiple honors including the transdisciplinary biomolecular and biomedical sciences fellowship, the Sylvia Turman scholarship, and the dissertation year fellowship. Outside of the laboratory, she is a strong advocate for female representation in STEM and has grown her public platform to voice her opinions on these important topics as well as student life, transparency on a day in the life, and mental health. Victoria will be continuing her academic journey at the prestigious Yale University. Connect with Victoria: Instagram: @Vicky.The.Scientist LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-godieva-4b73abaa/ Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! ⁠⁠@PhDSG_Pod ⁠⁠ DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

• 1 hr 46 min
• APR 1, 2024

21. NOTHING IS WORKING!!! - How to properly troubleshoot - Don't be the definition of insanity

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! In my PhD, behind every single successful experiment, there were multiple (and I mean a ton) of failed experiments. That's totally normal! It's through failure that we learn how to find success, and you're going to fail a lot in your PhD. As such, it's important to learn how to properly troubleshoot an experiment or procedure. This also applies to those students that are doing their PhDs outside of STEM. So in this episode, I lay out a 6 step (technically 7 but whatever) guide as to how to generally tackle any troubleshooting procedures. So before you go back to banging your head against the wall, please listen in! I hope you enjoy the episode! Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! @PhDSG_Pod  DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

• MAR 25, 2024

20. Casual Conversations: Transforming your notes to transform your PhD - Tending to the knowledge garden - With Jorge Arango

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! In this episode, I talk to author Jorge Arango about his book - Duly Noted: Extend your mind through connected notes. This episode is packed with information on how to think differently about notes as well as how to use notes as tools to progress your research. As always, we hope you enjoy this episode! Get Duly Noted: Extend your mind through connected notes from Rosenfeld today with discount code PHDPOD for a limited time! Jorge Arango: Jorge Arango is an information architect, author, and educator. For the past three decades, he has used architectural thinking to bring clarity and direction to digital projects for clients ranging from non-profits to Fortune 500 companies. He’s the author of Duly Noted: Extend Your Mind Through Connected Notes, Living in Information: Responsible Design for Digital Places, co-author of Information Architecture: for the Web and Beyond, and host of The Informed Life podcast. Besides consulting, writing, and podcasting, Jorge also teaches in the graduate interaction design program at the California College of the Arts. Connect with Jorge Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! ⁠@PhDSG_Pod ⁠ DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

• 1 hr 17 min
• FEB 26, 2024

19. Casual Conversations: Recruitment limitations, online PhD, working full-time - With Vinita Puri

Welcome to the PhD Survival Guide Podcast! In this episode, I had the opportunity to talk about so many different topics and issues that various students face, but I never had to deal with personally. I spoke to Vinita Puri, an international online PhD student from Canada doing her research in the United States. Vinita covers her experiences with recruiting for her research, what it's like to do an online PhD, having a full-time job while being a full-time student, and so much more. Vinita has a robust background in academia and considers herself a lifelong learner. Her passion for her research is exemplified in this episode as well as in her bio below. Vinita Puri: Dr. Vinita Puri is a highly experienced Registered Social Worker, Accredited Mediator and Industrial/Organizational Coach that provides evidence-based and solution-focused services to support positive outcomes for individuals, families and groups. Over the past 20 years, she has gained expertise in alternative dispute resolution and clinical psychotherapy which has enhanced her ability to support individuals as they navigate through life transitions and develop resiliency in the face of adversity. Her passion for social justice fueled her desire to advocate for disability prevention and anti-oppressive policies/procedures in the workplace. Over the last 6 years, Dr. Puri has been providing consulting and coaching services to a wide range of organizations and human resource teams on change management, crisis/conflict management, addressing barriers to inclusion and employee engagement. Her expertise in mediation and clinical psychotherapy facilitates her ability to help individuals identify their unique strengths so they can remove barriers that impede personal growth and development. Dr. Puri holds a Doctorate (Honoria Causa) in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a Master’s in Criminological Research, a Master’s in Social Work, and a Specialized Honours B.A. in Sociology. At the present time, she is completing her PhD at Walden University in Psychology (Self Design) while owning and operating a clinical practice. She is the Clinical Director of Resilience Counselling and Coaching Services which provides a range of specialty mental health services and programs that include mindfulness based training and cognitive psychotherapy. Dr. Puri is a Board Member of the Ontario Association of Family Mediators (OAFM) and on the Diversity Advisory Committee (DAC) of the Psi Chi International Honorary Society in Psychology. Most recently, she has joined Western State University as a Faculty Member for the MS. in Psychology Program at Western State University (USA). Connect with Vinita: Instagram: @Resilience_16 Twitter/X: twitter.com/vinita_puri LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-vinita-puri-7647b7 Want to be a guest or send me a voice message? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our linktree!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoy this podcast and want to tune in as more episodes of the PhD Survival Guide come out, please leave the podcast a like or follow! This way, you will be notified every time a new episode airs. Please share us with your friends! Don't forget to leave us a review! If you have any suggestions for future episodes or topics you would like to hear about, please let me know in the Q&A section below!  Follow us on Instagram! @PhDSG_Pod  DISCLAIMER: This podcast was written, produced, and hosted by myself, Ferass. While we do the best we can to gather information from various sources, it is important to remember that everything we say here is of our own opinions and inferences. All PhD students, mentors, and programs are unique and the advice may not always apply. We implore you to think with an open mind. The purpose of this podcast is to help guide and empower current and prospective students throughout their journeys. We appreciate your time. We are also on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts! 

Customer Reviews

General topics helpful for any phd.

I’m a second year art history PhD, so some of the STEM specific topics are less relatable, but general topic episodes are super helpful! Really appreciate the time the host spends making these! This is maybe too far out of the STEM wheelhouse, but one of the things I see a lot of my peers struggle with is getting a PhD in a field that has very poor financial/job prospects (most humanities phds, tbh!), and how to stay motivated and excited about our work despite this. Would really appreciate an episode on anxiety about what comes next once the phd is nearing its end 🙂

Top Podcasts In Education

You might also like.

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Education & Teaching

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

• Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
• In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition

Rent $12.97

Today through selected date:

Rental price is determined by end date.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Your PhD Survival Guide: Planning, Writing, and Succeeding in Your Final Year (Insider Guides to Success in Academia) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

Accessible, insightful and a must-have toolkit for all final year doctoral students, the founders of the ‘Thesis Boot Camp’ intensive writing programme show how to survive and thrive through the challenging final year of writing and submitting a thesis.

Drawing on an understanding of the intellectual, professional, practical and personal elements of the doctorate to help readers gain insight into what it means to finish a PhD and how to get there, this book covers the common challenges and ways to resolve them. It includes advice on:

• Project management skills to plan, track, iterate and report on the complex task of bringing a multi-year research project to a successful close
• Personal effectiveness and self-care to support students to thrive in body, mind and relationships, including challenging supervisor relationships.
• The successful ‘generative’ writing processes which get writers into the zone and producing thousands of words; and then provides the skills to structure and polish those words to publishable quality.
• What it means to survive a PhD and consider multiple possible futures.

Written for students in all disciplines, and relevant to university systems around the world, this unique book expertly guides students through the final 6–12 months of the thesis.

The 'Insider Guides to Success in Academia' offers support and practical advice to doctoral students and early-career researchers. Covering the topics that really matter, but which often get overlooked, this indispensable series provides practical and realistic guidance to address many of the needs and challenges of trying to operate, and remain, in academia.

These neat pocket guides fill specific and significant gaps in current literature. Each book offers insider perspectives on the often implicit rules of the game -- the things you need to know but usually aren't told by institutional postgraduate support, researcher development units, or supervisors -- and will address a practical topic that is key to career progression. They are essential reading for doctoral students, early-career researchers, supervisors, mentors, or anyone looking to launch or maintain their career in academia.

• ISBN-13 978-0367361839
• Edition 1st
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publisher Routledge
• Publication date December 21, 2020
• Language English
• File size 786 KB
• See all details

Kindle E-Readers

• Kindle Paperwhite
• Kindle Paperwhite (5th Generation)
• Kindle Touch
• Kindle Voyage
• Kindle Oasis
• All new Kindle paperwhite
• All New Kindle E-reader
• Kindle Oasis (9th Generation)
• Kindle Paperwhite (10th Generation)
• Kindle Paperwhite (11th Generation)
• All New Kindle E-reader (11th Generation)
• Kindle Scribe (1st Generation)
• Kindle (10th Generation)
• Kindle Oasis (10th Generation)

Fire Tablets

• Fire HD 8 (8th Generation)
• Fire 7 (9th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 (9th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 (10th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 (11th Generation)
• Fire HD 10 Plus
• Fire 7 (12th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 (12th Generation)
• Fire HD 8 Plus

Free Kindle Reading Apps

• Kindle for Android Phones
• Kindle for Android Tablets
• Kindle for iPhone
• Kindle for iPad
• Kindle for Mac
• Kindle for PC
• Kindle for Web

Customers who bought this item also bought

Editorial Reviews

About the author.

Katherine Firth manages the academic programs of a residential college at the University of Melbourne, Australia and founded the Research Insiders Blog which has been running since 2013.

Liam Connell has worked in research training and education since the late 2000s. He works in research development at La Trobe University, Australia.

Peta Freestone has worked in higher education for over 15 years, creating award-winning initiatives including Thesis Boot Camp, founded in 2012. She designs and delivers writing and productivity programmes for universities and other organisations around the world.

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08NRPYWW2
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 1st edition (December 21, 2020)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 21, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 786 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Up to 4 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 221 pages
• Page numbers source ISBN ‏ : ‎ 0367361841
• #1,211 in Education Philosophy & Social Aspects
• #4,160 in College & University Education
• #4,470 in Philosophy & Social Aspects of Education

About the author

Katherine firth.

Katherine Firth specialises in writing, and how people write. She also works on poetry, translation and working with doctoral students to complete their theses.

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

Report an issue.

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

A computer science graduate school survival guide, intended for prospective or novice graduate students. This guide describes what I wish I had known at the start of graduate school but had to learn the hard way instead. It focuses on mental toughness and the skills a graduate student needs. The guide also discusses finding a job after completing the Ph.D. and points to many other related web pages.

• This guide covers the traits and skills that separate the star graduate students from the ordinary ones.
• If you don’t have a good reason for pursuing the Ph.D., then get a Master’s degree instead.
• A Ph.D. program is very different from getting a Bachelor’s degree, and you must treat it as a strange type of job. Initiative, tenacity, flexibility, interpersonal skills, organizational skills, and communication skills are all critical and not things that universities typically test for in selecting incoming students.
• A Ph.D. is a means to an end: employment in a startup, commercial business, government or industrial research lab, or academia. This guide explains the characteristics of these four career choices.
• If you spend 15 minutes reading the rest of this guide, you might increase your chances of successfully completing the Ph.D. and finishing earlier.

- Chinese proverb

In February 1995, on a beautiful sunny day with clear Carolina blue skies, I turned in the final, signed copy of my dissertation. The graduate school staff member did some last-minute checks on the document and pronounced it acceptable. After six and a half years of toil and sweat, I was finally done! While walking back to the C.S. department building, I was sorely disappointed that the heavens didn‘t part, with trumpet-playing angels descending to announce this monumental occasion. Upon hearing this observation, Dr. Fred Brooks (one of my committee members) commented, “And the sad fact is, you’re no smarter today than you were yesterday.” “That’s true,” I replied, “but the important thing is that I am smarter than I was six and a half years ago.”

I wrote the first version of this guide two years after graduating, after reflecting upon my graduate student career. One thought that has repeatedly struck me is how much easier graduate school might have been if somehow, magically, some of the things I knew when I turned in my dissertation I could have known when I first entered graduate school. Instead, I had to learn those the hard way. Of course, for many topics this is impossible: the point of graduate school is to learn those by going through the experience. However, I believe other lessons can be taught ahead of time. Unfortunately, such guidance is rarely offered. While I had to learn everything the hard way, new graduate students might benefit from my experiences and what I learned. That is the purpose of this guide.

Very little of this guide discusses technical matters. Technical skills, intelligence and creativity are certainly strong factors for success in graduate school. For example, I doubt there is a C.S. graduate student who didn’t at one point wish he or she had a stronger mathematical background. However, it’s beyond the scope of this guide to tell you how to be technically brilliant, as the following joke implies:

3) Write down the solution.

You don’t have to be a genius to do well in graduate school. You must be reasonably intelligent, but after a certain point, I think other traits become more important in determining success.

This guide covers the character traits and social skills that often separate the “star” graduate students from the ordinary ones. Who are the students who are self-motivated, take initiative, find ways around obstacles, communicate well both orally and in writing, and get along well enough with their committee and other department members to marshal resources to their cause? Which students seem to know “how the system works” and manage to get things done? These traits are hardly unique to succeeding in graduate school; they are the same ones vital to success in academic or industrial careers, which is probably why many of the best graduate students that I knew were ones who had spent some time working before they came back to school.

This document is aimed at junior C.S. graduate students, but these observations are probably broad enough to apply to graduate education in other technical fields. My conclusions are certainly colored by my particular experiences (doing my dissertation work in interactive computer graphics in the Computer Science department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ) but I think they are fairly general in application and should be of interest to readers at other schools and other C.S. specialties. Obviously, these are only my opinions and may not represent the views of other sane individuals or organizations. Some points may be controversial, but if they weren’t this would not be interesting reading. Parts of this document come from two informal talks I gave at UNC about “the Ph.D. job hunt” and “observations from spending one year in industrial research.” Both talks had larger audiences than any informal technical talk I gave at UNC, which told me that students are definitely interested in these subjects!

This guide does not discuss how to be accepted for admission into graduate school. I have never been a professor, so I do not have insights to share on how professors decide which students to admit. For one professor’s view, read Matt Might’s advice on getting into graduate school.

- yours truly

The most basic question every Ph.D. student must know the answer to is: “Why the hell am I doing this?”

It’s a good question. The hours are long. The pay is low, with minimal benefits. After graduation, Ph.D. salaries are higher than B.S. and M.S. salaries, but the difference doesn’t make up for the income lost by staying in school longer. The M.S. has a better “bucks for the time invested” ratio than the Ph.D. does. And in terms of social status, a graduate student doesn’t rank very high on the ladder.

If you do not have an acceptable answer to this question, then don’t get a Ph.D. I repeat: if you do not have a rock-solid reason for getting the Ph.D., then it is better that you leave with a Master’s.

Why? Completing a Ph.D. is a long, hard road with many potholes and washed out bridges along the way. You may run over some land mines and have to stop and turn around and explore other routes. If the goal is important enough to you, then these obstacles will not prevent you from completing your journey. But if you don’t know why you are on this road, then you will get discouraged and will probably leave without finishing, having wasted years of your life.

I faced this situation after the first time I took the Doctoral Written Exam (which at the time was the entrance examination into the Ph.D. program). I missed passing it by just 4 percentage points. I then had to decide whether or not to try again next semester (committing myself again to spending months getting ready for the test) or to just leave with an M.S. degree.

I didn’t come to graduate school with the Ph.D. as the primary goal. So this test result forced me to answer the basic question “Why the hell am I doing this?” After much soul searching, I found my answer and decided to take the test again, passed it, and went on to get my Ph.D.

I got the Ph.D. because I wanted to get a research position after leaving graduate school. I wanted to work with the state of the art and extend it. I did not want to “bring yesterday’s technology one step closer to tomorrow.” I wanted a job that would I find interesting, challenging and stimulating. While an M.S. would give me a chance at landing a research position, the Ph.D. would give me a much better chance. And I did not want to live with regrets. If I took the Doctoral Written Exam again and failed again, then I could say that it wasn’t meant to be and move on with my life. I would have no regrets because I had given it my best shot and was not able to make it. However, if I left with an M.S. without taking the test a second time, and five years later I was in a job that was boring and uninteresting, then I would have to lie awake every night for the rest of my life wondering “What if?” What if I had taken the test again and passed? Would I then be in the job that I really wanted? That was not a situation I wanted to be in. I did not want to live the rest of my life regretting what might have been.

In hindsight, I think one of the main reasons I successfully completed the Ph.D. was the fact that I didn’t pass the exam on the first try. It’s ironic, but life sometimes works in strange ways. That initial failure caused me to answer the basic question, providing the mental fortitude to keep going despite the hurdles and problems I would later face.

My answer is you should get a Ph.D. if it is required for your goals after graduate school, such as becoming a professor or a researcher in academia, government or industry. Your answer may differ from mine. As long as you have an answer that you believe in passionately, then that’s enough. If you don’t have an answer, then save yourself a lot of grief and don't get the Ph.D.

The best answer to this question I have ever seen comes from William Lipscomb , a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. He said, “With a Ph.D. you will have a better chance of spending the rest of your life doing what you want to do, instead of what someone else wants you to do.”

Tim Hopper created a site that interviews many people who provide their opinions about why someone should or should not pursue a Ph.D.

Academia is a business, and “graduate student” is a job title. This is especially true at private universities. Academia is very peculiar type of business. It is certainly not the Real World and does not work in the same way that the ordinary corporate world does. However, it is a business nonetheless and as a graduate student, you must treat it that way. Graduate school made a lot more sense and became much easier for me after I realized this. If you think of graduate school as an “Ivory Tower” free of politics, money problems, and real-world concerns, you are going to be severely disappointed. If you don’t believe me, read The Idea Factory by Pepper White (listed in the references) for one account of graduate life at MIT.

A few graduate students are independently wealthy or have fellowship and scholarship money that cover all their expenses in graduate school. Such students are rare, however. Most of us needed financial support, in the form of Teaching Assistantships or Research Assistantships (RA’s). In general, RA’s are more desirable to students since those can directly fund the research you need to finish.

Where does the money come from to fund RA’s? Your professors have to raise funds from external organizations. These include government agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and others. Private companies also fund some university research, and as government funding has become harder to get. private sources have become more important. For example, Intel spends tens of millions of dollars a year funding university research centers. These organizations don’t just give money away as charity. They expect their money to accomplish something. Increasingly these days, this takes the form of a contract for a working demonstration that must be shown at the end. That means once the money is delivered, your professors must come through with the working demonstration. It is rare that they do this by themselves. Instead, they find some very capable, young, self-motivated people who are willing to work long hours for small amounts of pay. In other words, they fund RA’s.

The RA job is crucial to the academic business. If the RA’s cannot successfully conduct the research, then the demonstration will not work in the end and the funding agencies may not be happy. They may choose to not fund your professor in the future, which will bring his or her research program to a halt. And there are many professors and other researchers chasing too few research dollars these days; it is a competitive market. Thus, each professor wants the best students available. These students are the most capable ones who can get the research done required to fulfill the funding contracts.

That means you must treat an RA like a job. You must prove to your professors that you are capable of getting the work done, being a team player, communicating your results, and most of the other characteristics needed to do well in regular jobs. That’s why many of the upcoming sections in this guide sound like ones written for the regular workplace.

What do you get out of this? At the start, you may have to do tasks specifically related to the funding contracts. But eventually your professor must be flexible enough to fund your own specific research program that leads to the completion of your dissertation. Your stipend and tuition waiver should be enough to live on frugally without going into debt. You will learn the state of the art in your chosen speciality and conduct cutting-edge research on a subject that you find interesting and enjoyable. If you don’t find this compensation sufficient, then you shouldn’t be in graduate school in the first place.

The bottom line: realize that academia is a peculiar kind of business and the role you play in this enterprise. If you do your job well (and have good negotiation and interpersonal skills, as discussed in future sections), both your needs and your professors’ needs will be met. But don’t enter an RA position thinking that the computers, research equipment, staff members and other resources that you are provided with are your birthright. Don’t take them for granted! Most of those exist only because your professors have been able to raise the money to provide those to you. In turn, you must fulfill your end of the deal by doing great research with those resources. If you don’t do your job well, don’t be surprised if your professors choose to not fund you in the future. They do not have to provide you with an RA job or let you use the computing equipment they acquired. And the student who has no funding, no tuition reimbursement and no access to required computing resources is the student who leaves the university that semester.

How do you make sure you are one of those best, highly desired RA’s? Read on!

- Mark Twain

- Robert Zajonc

If you go through a Ph.D. program, you will find graduate school a very different world from undergraduate school. If you just get an M.S., then graduate school may not be much different from undergrad (depending on where you get your degree), except that the courses are deeper and more advanced. But for a Ph.D. student, graduate school is a whole new ballgame. The students who do well are the ones who learn this earlier rather than later and make the necessary adjustments.

Graduate school is not primarily about taking courses. You will take classes in the beginning but in your later years you probably won’t have any classes. People judge a recently graduated Ph.D. by his or her research, not by his or her class grades. And, without any offense to my professors, most of what you learn in a Ph.D. program comes outside of classes: from doing research on your own, attending conferences, and discussions with your fellow students. Success in graduate school does not come from completing a set number of course units but rather from successfully completing a research program.

Graduate school is more like an apprenticeship where each student has his or her own project, and the masters may or may not be particularly helpful. It’s like teaching swimming by tossing students into the deep end of the pool and seeing who makes it to the other end alive and who drowns. It’s like training clock designers by locking students inside a clock factory with some working clocks and lots of clock parts and machines for building clocks. However, the instructions are at best incomplete and even the masters themselves don’t know exactly how to build next year’s models.

Excelling in a Ph.D. program requires different skills than doing well in undergrad. Undergraduate education tests you through class projects (that do not last more than a semester), essays, midterms and finals. For the most part, you work alone. Your professor may not know your name. Every other student in your class takes the same tests or does similar projects. But in a Ph.D. program, you must select and complete a unique long-term research program. For most of us, this means you have to learn how to do research and all that entails: working closely with your professors, staff and fellow students, communicating results, finding your way around obstacles, dealing with politics, etc.

Carl Vogel suggests the most important personality traits of successful graduate students are being inquisitive, disciplined, obsessive and delusional (certain that their research programs will uncover something new and important).

I’m not saying that tests and grades are completely unimportant in graduate school. One of the two biggest hurdles in completing a Ph.D. is passing the qualifying exam. (The other is finding an acceptable dissertation topic.) But because graduate school is not nearly as exam-based as undergraduate education and requires different skills, the GRE and undergraduate grades are not as good an indicator of who will excel and who will drop out as admission committees seem to think. Those tests do not measure creativity, tenacity, interpersonal skills, oral presentation skills, and many other important traits.

The next several sections discuss these traits.

- Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

The dissertation represents a focused, personal research effort where you take the lead on your own, unique project. If you expect that your advisor is going to hold your hands and tell you what to do every step of the way, you are missing the point of the dissertation. Ph.D. students must show initiative to successfully complete the dissertation. This does not mean that guidance from professors is unimportant, just that this guidance should be at a reasonably high level, not at a micromanaging level. If you never do any tasks except those that your professor specifically tells you to do, then you need to work on initiative.

At UNC, there is a famous anecdote about a former UNC graduate student named Joe Capowski. Many years ago, UNC got a pair of force-feedback mechanical arms to use with molecular visualization and docking experiments. The problem was how to move them to UNC. These mechanical arms were large, heavy beasts, and were in Argonne National Labs in Chicago, IL. Unfortunately, there was a trucker’s strike going on at the time. Joe Capowski, on his own initiative (and without telling anyone), flew out to Argonne, rented a truck, drove the mechanical arms all the way back to North Carolina, and then handed the computer science department the bill! Many years later, Joe Capowski ran for the Chapel Hill city council and won a seat. Prof. Fred Brooks gave him an endorsement. I still remember the words Dr. Brooks said: “I may not agree with his politics, but I know he’ll get things done.” (Thanks to Jim Lipscomb for corrections to this anecdote.)

While the Joe Capowski anecdote is perhaps a bit extreme, it does show that it is often better to ask forgiveness than permission, provided you are not becoming a “ loose cannon. ” Certain universities (e.g. MIT) are good at fostering a “can do” attitude among their graduate students, and therefore they become more assertive and productive. One of the hallmarks of a senior graduate student is that he or she knows the types of tasks that require permission and those that don’t. That knowledge will come with experience. Generally, the senior graduate students have the most freedom to take initiative on projects. This privilege has to be earned. The more that you have proven that you can work independently and initiate and complete appropriate tasks, the more your professors will leave you alone to do what you want to do.

- Louis Pasteur

You don’t need to be a genius to earn a Ph.D. (although it doesn’t hurt). But nobody finishes a dissertation without being tenacious. A dissertation usually takes several years to complete. This can be a culture shock to former undergraduates who have never worked on a project that lasted longer than one quarter or semester (at the end of which, whatever the state of the project, one declares victory and then goes home). No one can tell you in advance exactly how long the dissertation will take, so it’s hard to see where the “end of the road” lies. You will encounter unexpected problems and obstacles that can add months or years to the project. It’s very easy to become depressed and unmotivated about going on. If you are not tenacious about working on the dissertation, you won’t finish.

Tenacity means sticking with things even when you get depressed or when things aren’t going well. For example, I did not enjoy my first year of graduate school. I didn’t tell anyone this until after leaving UNC. I was not on a project and was focused on taking classes, some of which I didn’t do all that well in. I didn’t feel a part of the Department, and really wondered whether or not I fit in. Still, I stuck with it and when summer rolled around and I got a job in the Department, I became much more involved in research and enjoyed graduate school much more. Part of earning a Ph.D. is building a “thick skin” so you are not so fragile that you will give up at the first sign on any difficulties.

One lesson I learned as a graduate student is the best way to finish the dissertation is to do something every day that gets you closer to being done. If all you have left is writing, then write part of the dissertation every day . If you still have research to do, then do part of it every day . Don’t just do it when you are “in the mood” or feeling productive. This level of discipline will keep you going through the good times and the bad and will ensure that you finish.

- Clifford Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg

Flexibility means taking advantage of opportunities and synergies, working around problems, and being willing to change plans as required. As a graduate student, you are on the bottom of the academic totem pole . Even undergraduates can rank higher, especially at private universities (because they actually pay tuition!) You cannot order anybody to do anything. In general, you will be in the position of reacting to big events rather than controlling them. Therefore, you must be flexible in your approach and research program.

For example, you may not have as much access to a piece of laboratory equipment as you would like, or maybe access is suddenly cut off due to events beyond your control. What do you do? Can you find a replacement? Or reduce the time needed on that equipment? Or come in at odd hours when no normal person uses that equipment? Or redefine the direction of your project so that equipment is no longer required?

Events can be good as well as bad. The difference between the highly effective graduate student and the average one is that the former recognizes those opportunities and takes advantage of them. I had nothing to do with bringing Gary Bishop to UNC. But after he arrived, I realized my research would progress much faster if he became my advisor so I made the switch and that was a big help to my graduate student career. Opportunities for synergy and serendipity do occur, but one has to be flexible enough to recognize them and take advantage of them.

- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle

- Isaac Newton

Computer Science majors are not, in general, known for their interpersonal skills. Some of us got into this field because it is easier to understand machines than people. As frustrating as computers can be, they at least behave in a logical manner, while human beings often do not. However, your success in graduate school and beyond depends a great deal upon your ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships with your advisor, your committee, your research and support staff and your fellow students. This does not mean you must become the “life of the party.” I am not and never will be a gregarious, extroverted person. But I did make a serious effort to learn and practice interpersonal skills, and those were crucial to my graduate student career and my subsequent jobs in industrial research.

Why should this matter, you may ask? If one is technically brilliant, shouldn’t that be all that counts? The answer is no, because the situation is different from your undergraduate days. In both graduate school and in business, you must depend upon and work with other people to achieve your goals To put this in perspective, I have excerpted the following from an article called “Organizations: The Soft and Gushy Side” by Kerry J. Patterson, published in the Fall 1991 issue of The Bent:

I first learned of the capricious, human side of organizations some 15 years ago while studying the careers of engineers and scientists. The research design required that I spend eight hours a day in one-on-one interviews. For two hours I'd ask “career” questions of an engineer, chemist, physicist, or applied mathematician -- all of whom worked for a Fortune 500 firm. During these 120 minutes, the subjects talked about the perils of the organizations. Two hours was scarcely enough time to share their stories. All energetically discussed their personal careers. Most had been frustrated with the “soft and gushy” side of organizations. Some had figured out the system and learned to master it. Others had not.

As part of the research design, we asked to talk to low, medium, and high performers. This in itself was an interesting exercise. To determine performance rankings, we would place in front of a senior manager the names of the 10-50 people within his or her organization. Each name would be typed neatly in the middle of a three-by-five card. After asking the manager to rank the employees from top to bottom, the managers would then go through a card sort. Typically the executive would sort the names into three or four piles and then resort each pile again. Whatever the strategy, the exercise usually took only minutes. Just like that, the individual in charge of the professionals in question was able to rank, from top to bottom, as many as 50 people. It rarely took more than three minutes and a couple of head scratches and grunts. Three minutes. Although politics may appear ambiguous to those on the receiving end, those at the top were able to judge performance with crystal clarity.

This performance ranking (conducted by individuals not involved in the interviews) was then used as a dependent measure. Those of us conducting the interviews attempted to surface information (independent measures) that would predict the ranking. What about a scientist’s career would lead to a top ranking? What trashed a perfectly good career? Surely scientific prowess would have an impact. And it did.

But technological prowess wasn’t as predictive as another factor. We discovered that we could tell what performance group the interviewees belonged to within a minute or two by their attitudes toward people and politics. Individuals who were ranked low by their managers spoke of organizational politics as if it were poison. They were exceptionally annoyed by the people side of the business. They frequently stated they would rather be left alone to conduct their research untrammeled by human emotions. They characterized the social side of organizations as “soft and gushy.” They sounded like Spock turned bitter.

Top performers, in contrast, found a way to work within the political system. They hadn’t exactly embraced politics. They didn’t appear like that toothy kid you knew back in college who lived to fight political battles. They didn’t come off as glad-handling sales folks. These were professional scientists who were often top ranked in their field. They looked and talked liked scientists. The difference between them and those ranked at the bottom of the totem pole was clear. They had found a way to make peace with organizations, people, and politics. They climbed to the top of their field by mastering both hard things and soft and gushy people.

Engineers and scientists aren’t the only ones who find the human side of the organizations to be annoying. As we expanded our research to include professors, accountants, and other professionals, the findings were remarkably similar. All found political machinations to be distasteful. It’s just that some had found a way to master the social aspects -- the top performers.

Students usually look down on politics, but politics in its most basic, positive form is simply the art of getting things done. Politics is mostly about who is allowed to do what and who gets the resources (money, people, equipment, etc.) To succeed in your research, you will need resources, both capital and personnel. Interpersonal skills are mandatory for acquiring those resources. If you are incapable of working with certain people or make them mad at you, you will not get those resources and will not complete your research.

Furthermore, people who complete a Ph.D. generally have careers where they take leadership roles. Leadership requires good interpersonal skills to convince and motivate others to think a certain way or to take certain actions. If you do not have good interpersonal or “soft” skills, the amount of influence you will have will be restricted to yourself. Your potential will be limited.

Here is an example of how relationships are important: As a graduate student, which group of people did I try my best to avoid offending? Was it my committee? No, because healthy disagreements and negotiations with your advisor and committee are crucial to graduating within a reasonable amount of time. Nor was it my fellow students, because I did not need help from most of them, and most of them did not need me. The critical group was the research and support staff . These include the research faculty and all the various support positions (the system administrators, network administrators, audio-visual experts, electronic services, optical and mechanical engineers, and above all, the administrative assistants). I needed their help to get my research done, but they did not directly need me. Consequently, I made it a priority to establish and maintain good working relationships with them.

Cultivating interpersonal relationships is mostly about treating people with respect and determining their different working styles. Give credit where credit is due. Acknowledge and thank them for their help. Return favors. Respect their expertise, advice and time. Apologize if you are at fault. Realize that different people work in different ways and are motivated by different things -- the more you understand this diversity, the better you will be able to interact and motivate them to help you. For certain people, offering to buy them dinner or giving them free basketball tickets can work wonders.

A true example: at one point in my research, I needed to make significant modifications to some low-level code in the graphics computer called “Pixel Planes 5.” Doing this required expertise that I did not have, but another graduate student named Marc Olano did. How should I tap into Marc’s expertise and get the changes I needed done?

The wrong way is to go up to Marc, explain the problem, and get him to make the changes. Marc doesn’t need the changes done; I do. Therefore, I should do most of the work. Expecting him to do the work shows disrespect of his time.

What I actually did was to explain the problem to Marc and he sketched out a possible solution. Then I ran off and worked on my own for a few days, trying to implement the solution. I got part of it working, but ended up getting stuck on another part. Only at that point did I go back to Marc and ask him for help. By doing this, I showed that I respected his time and wanted to minimize his burden, thus making him more willing to help me. Months later, when he and Jon Cohen needed my help in setting up a system to demonstrate some of their software, I was more than happy to return the favor.

Interpersonal interaction is a huge subject and goes far beyond my description here. All I can really do in this section is (hopefully) convince you that these skills are vital to your graduate student career and encourage you to learn more if you need to improve these skills. I still have a lot to learn myself. I recommend reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and Type Talk (both listed in the References section) as starting points. The magazine article “How to be a star engineer” (listed in the References) also touches on this subject.

Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert ) wrote an interesting book called How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life where he describes systems and skills that correlate with life success. Those include psychology and understanding people.

Since academia is a type of business, you will have responsibilities that you must uphold. You will be asked to greet and talk with visitors, give demos, show up to meetings, get projects done on time, etc. If you are not well organized, you will have a difficult time meeting those obligations. A technically brilliant student will be greatly hampered if he or she exhibits an “absent minded” personality and develops a reputation for being disorganized.

There are many different time management and organization skills, and you can find many books on those at your local bookstore. This guide is not going to describe them. Find one that works for you and use it. I can highly recommend Stephen Covey’s book , listed in the references. Another book is Getting Things Done by David Allen. But whatever system you pick, just make sure it works for you. I have never found anyone else who uses my filing scheme, but it is effective for me (by minimizing the combined time of putting away and locating a piece of information). All that really matters is whether or not it works.

One metaphor I found useful is the following: Organize your tasks as if you were juggling them. Juggling several balls requires planning and skill. You must grab and toss each ball before it hits the ground. You can only toss one ball at a time, just as you can only work on one task at a time. The order in which you toss the balls is crucial, much as the order of working on tasks often determines whether or not you meet all your deadlines. Finally, once you start a task (grab a ball) you want to get enough done so you can ignore it for a while (throw it high enough in the air so it won’t come down for a while). Otherwise you waste too much time in context switches between tasks. Do you see jugglers try to keep each ball at the same height above the ground, frantically touching every ball every second?

Randy Pausch (who was a professor at Virginia and CMU) has a set of notes on time management. Three words in his guide summarize the most vital step: Kill your television. He asks you to keep your priorities straight. What is the most important thing to a Ph.D. student? It should be finishing the dissertation, not watching every episode of your favorite TV series. That doesn’t mean dropping everything else in life, but it does mean knowing what takes priority and allocating time accordingly.

- Bernard Gittelson

I have been asked several times on how to get a good mentor or how to get professors or others in positions of power to give them opportunities that can further their careers.

The best way is to get yourself noticed in a positive way, so that professors or others in positions to hand out opportunities will decide it is worth spending time mentoring you or to offer you such opportunities. And then you must do the work necessary to exploit those opportunities.

Let me share a personal story about this. When I was a graduate student at UNC Chapel Hill, a group of us drove up to the University of Virginia to visit Randy Pausch’s group. Not surprisingly, Randy asked some of us to give talks. I was one of those students. After my presentation, Randy commented that he never knew that I was such a dynamic speaker.

It was probably because of that presentation that later on I was invited to join a group of speakers teaching a course at the SIGGRAPH conference. Randy was one of those speakers. They were teaching a class on Virtual Reality and wanted me to be the last speaker and talk about Augmented Reality. I accepted. This meant creating a set of notes to include with the course. I decided I would try to define, characterize and summarize the field of Augmented Reality (this was back in 1995 when the field was small enough that this was a reasonable goal for such a document!). After we taught the course, Steven Feiner, who was another professor in that course, suggested that I update my notes and submit them to a new MIT Press journal called Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. So I did the work to change my notes into a journal paper and it was accepted and published.

That paper ended up becoming the single most cited reference in the field of Augmented Reality. The definition of “Augmented Reality” I provided in that paper became accepted by the research community, and researchers cited my paper when they wanted to explain that their paper was on the topic of Augmented Reality. It opened other opportunities for me, such as serving on the Steering Committee of the premier research conference in the field, and was probably one reason I was honored as an IEEE Fellow .

• I did something that got myself noticed in a positive way by top professors in my field.
• Because I showed potential, they decided to take a chance on me by providing opportunities.
• And most importantly, I did the work to exploit these opportunities.

Now that I am a senior researcher, I see things from the perspective of those professors. If someone does something that shows potential or catches my attention, I am much more willing to invest time in such a person or to steer opportunities his or her way.

Don’t go around demanding to be mentored or to receive opportunities. Show that you are worth it, make sure that people in positions to grant things are aware of your potential, and when you get opportunities, put in the necessary effort.

- Samuel Johnson

- Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.

As a student, I was always amazed that articles written about business consistently put good communication skills at or near the top of the list of skills that employers want to see but often didn’t find in candidates. Now, as someone who has worked in industry for a long time and also hired people, I can confirm this is true.

Communication skills, both written and oral, are vital for making a good impression as a Ph.D. student and as a researcher. At a minimum, you have to defend your dissertation with an oral presentation. But you should also expect to write technical papers and reports, give presentations at conferences, and give demonstrations to groups of visitors. If you can write and speak well, you will earn recognition and distinguish yourself from other graduate students. This is especially true when giving presentations in front of important visitors or at major conferences.

Conversely, if you cannot communicate well, then your career opportunities after graduation will be limited. Professors spend most of their time communicating: teaching, fundraising, guiding graduate students, and documenting their results (through papers, videos, slidesets, etc.). In industry, we need people who can communicate well so they can work in teams, learn what businesses and customers need, present their results, raise funds, and transition to leadership roles in project and personnel management. If you are technically brilliant but are incapable of communicating or working with other people, then your results will be limited to what you can accomplish alone and your career growth will have a low ceiling, both in industry and academia.

Unfortunately, not all graduate students receive training in giving presentations or writing technical documents (which are different from English essays). These are skills that can be learned! Don’t worry if giving presentations and writing papers are not something that comes naturally to you. I was not very comfortable giving oral presentations when I started graduate school, so I made a concerted effort to learn how to do so, by taking classes, reading about the subject, and practicing. It’s not easy, but it’s well worth the investment. If you need practice, try giving informal talks at research luncheons, joining Toastmasters , and studying good speakers to see what they do.

Covering everything about this subject would fill a guide by itself, and would probably be better explained in a video rather than a written document. But here are a few basic points:

• Organization counts. Within the first few paragraphs or first few minutes, tell me why I should read your paper or listen to your talk. Make it clear where we are going and what we have already covered.
• Make the text in your slides large enough so that people sitting in the back can read them. For large presentation halls, this usually means no more than 6-7 lines per slide and 28 point type minimum. You’d be surprised how many experts on visualization (especially tenured professors!) give presentations with unreadable slides.
• Variety retains interest. Vary your pace, tone, and volume. Emphasize the important points. Look around the room. Throw in some video, pictures, or live examples.
• Don’t stand in front of the screen and block everyone’s view. You’d be surprised how often people do this without realizing it.
• Point out the limitations of your work. That helps your credibility. Similarly, credit others where appropriate.
• Make friends with the A/V crew! Running A/V is a thankless job. If everything runs smoothly, well, that’s what was supposed to happen so nobody says anything. But if anything goes wrong, the entire audience looks back at the control room. Help the A/V people help you. Always check in early and test the equipment. Tell them what you are going to do in your presentation (e.g., I’m running 3 video segments). Make sure you know how everything works long before you come up to the podium. And thank the A/V crew for their help after you are done!

Confidence is the key to giving a good presentation. And the way to gain confidence is to give good presentations. When you’re just starting out, this is a Catch-22 . However, once you become good enough, this turns into a positive feedback cycle that can make giving talks a pleasure.

If you want to see an example of an excellent talk, please watch The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch (video available on YouTube) . I knew Randy personally, and I had the difficult task of having to speak directly after him, not once but twice. Randy gave the talk of his life in The Last Lecture but I will tell you that was not an aberration. He was a superb speaker, and someone we can all learn a lot from. One time, after I spoke at the University of Virginia, Randy told me that he hadn’t realized I was such a dynamic speaker. I replied that it hadn’t come naturally for me, unlike Randy who was a naturally talented speaker. For me, I had to work hard at it. But I am proof that with hard work, one can develop good presentation skills and get noticed by someone like Randy.

A good reference on how to communicate in a compelling manner is the book Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die by Chip and Dan Heath. They give concrete approaches for crafting a message in a way that people will remember.

Writing papers and getting them published is vital for Ph.D. students who want to get research positions after graduation. Your ability to write well significantly improves the chances that your paper will be accepted. When I was a young graduate student and reviewed a paper that I didn’t understand, I thought “Gee, I must be dumb.” Today I will read the same paper and think “Boy, this is a lousy paper. The authors did not do a good job explaining and presenting their work.” Such a reaction is enough for me to reject the paper.

Where do you submit your papers? Your professors will help you with this choice, but in general I would suggest shooting for the best conferences or journals where you think it has a reasonable chance of being accepted. It’s not much more work to write, submit and present a paper in a highly respected venue than in less respected venues. And if you don’t shoot for the top you’ll never know if it would have made it. The field of computer graphics is a bit unusual in that the most desirable place to publish is a conference ( SIGGRAPH ), rather than a journal (although SIGGRAPH papers now are published in a journal called Transactions on Graphics). Be aware that journals can take years to publish submitted papers; the turn-around time is much faster in a conference.

Finally, don’t forget to communicate with your professors and your teammates. Keep your committee appraised of your progress. One thing I do (which few others do) is write short (1 screenfull) status reports, which I religiously e-mailed to my professors and team members on a weekly basis. These serve as an efficient way of keeping everyone up to date on what I’m doing. They are also a good way for me to record my progress. If I need to remember what I got done during a six month period, I have plenty of old status reports that I can read. You’d be amazed how appreciative professors and managers are of this simple practice. I also throw in a different humorous quote at the end of each week’s report to reward people for reading it.

When you are working in the lab and you reach a milestone or achieve a result, let people know about it! Bring in your professors and fellow students and show it off! That’s a win-win situation. It lets others know that you are making progress and achieving results, and you get valuable feedback and advice.

- from “How to do research at the MIT AI Lab”

The choice of an appropriate advisor is crucial to successfully completing the Ph.D. Your advisor must be someone who can cover your area of specialization and someone you can get along with. When I started graduate school, I thought the advisor - student relationship was supposed to be very close, both professionally and socially. In reality, the relationship is whatever the professor and the student choose to make of it. It can be close, with invited dinners at the professor’s home, or it can be distant, e.g. meeting occasionally to remind the professor that the student is still alive.

One basic question in choosing an advisor is whether to pick a junior (non-tenured) or a senior (tenured) professor. Non-tenured professors tend to travel less and are generally more available. It is difficult to get help from an advisor who is never in town. Non-tenured faculty have fewer advisees that you have to compete with to get time with the professor. They are more likely to be personally involved with your research -- writing code, spending time in the lab at midnight, etc. Non-tenured faculty must be energetic and hard working if they want to be awarded tenure, and this work habit can rub off on their students. However, tenured faculty have several advantages as well. They are usually the ones with most of the money and resources to support you. They do not have to compete with their students for publications and recognition. The advisee does not run the risk of having his or her advisor not getting tenure and leaving the university. Tenured faculty are more experienced with “how the game works” and thus may be better sources of guidance, personal contacts, jobs after graduation, etc.

I ended up with a non-tenured professor (actually, he was not even on the tenure track at the time) as my advisor, but also put several tenured professors on my committee, including some of the most senior ones in my specialty. In that way, I got the best of both worlds: the day-to-day attention from the primary advisor, combined with the resources and experience of the committee.

Professors develop reputations amongst graduate students. Some are known to graduate their Ph.D. students rapidly. Others are impossible to get hold of, so their students take forever to finish or leave without graduating. Some dictate what their advisees have to do, while others are accommodating of student interests. Ask around. What you learn may be revealing. And if circumstances change to make another professor a more appropriate match to your needs, don’t be afraid to switch if that is an overall win.

When picking a committee, you want to make sure they can cover all areas of your thesis. You also want to make sure that it is likely that all the committee members will be available for meetings! Including too many professors who travel often will make it difficult to get all five or six together in one room for a three hour oral exam or proposal meeting. When scheduling such meetings, start by finding times when the difficult-to-reach professors are in town, and then add in the other committee members.

- from the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

When I was in graduate school, my top priority was crystal clear to me: getting out with a Ph.D. Other people described me as “focused like a laser beam” on that goal. In retrospect, I may have been too focused. There is more to life than graduate work. Keeping your health and your sanity intact are both vital to achieving the primary goal of getting out.

Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) is a major occupational hazard in our industry. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is just one type of RSI. If you do not know how to set up your workspace for good ergonomics, learn now! The Pascarelli reference at the end of this guide is a good book on this subject. Over a dozen of my friends and coworkers have been inflicted with this problem. In severe cases, RSI can be a career-ending injury. If you can’t type, it’s rather difficult to write papers, computer programs, presentations, etc. Don’t let this happen to you! Prevention is the way to go. When lifting weights, I exercise to strengthen my shoulders and wrists as an additional preventative step.

Earning a Ph.D. is like running a marathon. You have to learn to pace yourself and take care of your body if you want to reach the finish line. Unfortunately, students often act like sprinters trying to run a marathon. They are highly productive for a while, but then fall by the wayside because they aren’t eating correctly, exercising, taking time out to recharge their batteries, etc. You maximize your long-term productivity by not ignoring those other aspects. While I was in graduate school, I took time out to travel up and down the East Coast, from Boston down to Orlando. That was an important part of keeping my stress down and recharging my batteries. I also did some running and circuit training for exercise. For shorter breaks, I shot nerf basketballs at a tiny hoop mounted in the graphics lab and kept a guitar in my office. Figure out what works for you.

It’s easy to lose perspective while in graduate school. You are surrounded by so many other smart, hard working people that it is easy to feel inferior and lose self esteem and confidence. But without an underlying confidence that you do have what it takes to complete a dissertation, it’s too easy to drop out when the going gets tough instead of sticking it through. I found it useful to keep in touch with the “real world,” to remind myself that the graduate student population is not representative of humanity in general and to keep my perspective. You got into graduate school because you have already shown to your professors that you have potential and skills that are not typical among most college students, let alone most people -- don't forget that.

I freely admit that this section reflects my personal bias that balance in life is important. For some people, focusing on work to the exclusion of almost everything else is how they achieve excellence. Jim Lipscomb, who was a graduate student before me at UNC, describes the traits that enabled his father, William Lipscomb, to win a Nobel Prize. However, I chose a different set of priorities and have not regretted that choice. Decide for yourself what is most important in your life.

- Stanley Randall

- the fortune program

- Dr. Karen Kelsky

- Antonio Garcia Martinez, from the book Chaos Monkeys

Ideally, the job hunt begins years before you graduate. Networking is very important: while you are in the middle to late phases of your graduate studies, try to get yourself noticed by professors and industry people at other sites . One way to do this is to offer to give a talk about your work at another site. This is not that difficult to do, since most research places love to host seminars and bring in fresh ideas. Attending conferences and working elsewhere during the summer are other ways to get exposure. Make friends with graduate students and personnel at other schools. Make and carry your own business cards. Schmooze with important visitors during major site visits. For about two years, I ran the informal “Graphics Lunch” symposia at UNC. That means I was the point of contact for many speakers who visited UNC and that helped me make contacts. There is also a “star” system that exists. Certain outstanding graduate students can get labeled as “stars” by their professors and that can be an enormous help in getting an interview at CMU or other prestigious locations. It’s nice if you can get on that track but one shouldn’t rely upon it!

Networking is important because many jobs are found and filled that way. I got my position at HRL partially because I visited there, at my own expense, two years before I even started my job hunt. That meant that when I circulated my résumé, I was more than just a piece of paper to them. You’ll look for job announcements in major journals, at conferences, online, and through your contacts.

In most companies, the hiring authority resides with the manager who owns the job position, not with the Human Resources department. HR can reject a candidate, but they cannot hire a candidate. As a hiring manager, my job is to only talk directly to candidates who are best qualified for the position. As a candidate, your job is to find the individual with the ability to hire and deal with that person directly, rather than solely with the HR department.

When do you start asking for interviews? You can start when you are able to give a talk about your dissertation work. Don’t be too early or too late, because you only get one chance per site. Academic positions generally have a particular “season” (much like getting admitted to school) that starts in the Fall and ends around April; industrial positions generally don’t follow that. The job hunt and interviewing process can take months; factor that into your time allocation.

The job supply and demand situation can vary dramatically in a few years, and anything I say here about the job market today will likely be out of date by the time you read this. For example, during the time I was initially job hunting (end of 1994 to early 1995), good positions were not easy to find. If I had a dollar for every site that told me “We don’t have a permanent position, but would you take a postdoc?” I could buy a lot of lunches. However, around 1997 the graphics job market became very strong, with many individuals getting multiple offers with high salaries. 1998 was an excellent year for people looking for tenure-track graphics faculty positions. I know many friends who found good tenure-track positions that year. So when I revised this guide in 2000, I said the job market was strong with high demand. Of course, the tech industry went downhill at that point. So I no longer say anything about how strong or weak the job market appears to be.

Instead, I will describe two consistent but unfortunate trends I have observed since graduating:

• Tenure-track positions are increasingly requiring candidates to do one or more postdocs: This trend has been documented by Anita Jones in the article The Explosive Growth of Postdocs in Computer Science (ACM Digital Library subscription required) . Since 2007, hiring of Ph.D.’s in academia is increasingly dominated by postdoc positions rather than tenure-track positions. The requirements for a tenure-track position appear to have been redefined to make one or more postdocs nearly mandatory. This has been the case in other disciplines for a long time, but it is relatively new for Computer Science. This delays a Ph.D.’s career and forces people who want to become professors to endure several more years of low pay and status.
• Industrial research positions have become difficult to find: Overall, most businesses focus on the short term. Therefore, the trend has been to cut back or close industrial research labs. Big companies increasingly rely on letting startups attempt certain kinds of innovation and then partnering with or acquiring those. Companies also pursue innovation through advanced development groups that are different than traditional research labs.

Before starting the job hunt, determine your goals and parameters in advance and the “angle” you will take to sell yourself. For example, my strength was in systems, so I chose to emphasize that in my cover letters. Customize your approach to each site, if time permits. What you do for your thesis determines who will and who won’t take a look at you. Try to get at least one reference from outside your university.

This guide is not going to cover the basics of interviewing; you can get that from many books (e.g. the Martin Yate and Bob Weinstein books listed in the references). However, I will mention some tips. Don’t interview on the day of arrival, and try to avoid Mondays and Fridays. Be prepared for hard or illegal questions, by finding polite ways of addressing the underlying concern. Do your homework on each site before interviewing! It continually amazes me that people show up for interviews without knowing anything about the institution they want to join. If the target is a research lab for a major company, you can easily look up Wall St. Journal articles, annual reports and stockbroker reports. If your goal is an academic position, check out the Tomorrow’s Professor site and The Professor Is In for guidance. If you interview at a university, get their course catalog and use their numbering scheme to describe the courses you can teach . Interview to find out more about them, not just to sell yourself. Your 45-60 minute research presentation is crucial; make sure you practice it thoroughly. Interviews create interviews . That is, if you’ve already gone on many interviews at other places, that makes you appear more desirable since others want you, and that makes it easier for you to get more interviews. Broadcast this fact by keeping your interview schedule on your web page. There is an anecdote about one student who received offers to interview at many different places, but only after Stanford interviewed him! Keep logs on who you talk to, what you talked about, and when. That makes it easier to keep things straight when juggling several contenders. The major conferences in your field are a good place to schedule preliminary interviews to get your foot in the door, because it is cheap for the company or university. The people you need to meet are already there, so that saves them the expense of having to fly you out and house you at their site.

Offers are a waiting game. Be prepared for lots of frustration. You need a written offer or nothing is official; you should also accept or reject in writing. Negotiate, but be aware of the strength or weakness of your position. I also recommend doing only one round of negotiating (i.e. you counterpropose terms, and the organization responds to that, and then you make a decision). As a hiring manager, I can tell you that it is very frustrating when a candidate attempts to negotiate for a long time, and that can make an employer upset and possibly even rescind the offer. Look at the entire package. Starting salary may not be as important as the type of work, the environment, benefits, growth potential, and work-life balance. Drug tests and other factors are becoming more common; you will have to decide how you want to respond to those.

Ah yes, salaries. Everybody wants to know about those. For academic (tenure track) salaries, you can get typical numbers from the annual Taulbee surveys , printed in the Computing Research News newsletter and the Communications of the ACM. For example, the median salary listed in the 2015 Taulbee survey for associate professors was almost $114k. Realize that these are 9-month salaries. Whether or not you can procure funding to cover 2 or 3 months of summer salary makes a big difference to your bottom line. Also, professors can make money by consulting, although this is more common among established professors. Rates can be up to $4000 per day or more, depending on the type of consulting and the client. Figures for industrial salaries are harder to come by. The Maisel and Gaddy references are the only ones I have found that specifically survey young Ph.D.’s in industry, and those figures are now very old. Salaries depend heavily on geography. For example, salaries in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco are high. But before you decide to move to Palo Alto, remember that the cost of living there is also in the stratosphere. When I first wrote this guide (in 1997), nice houses in the Silicon Valley in good areas cost more than half a million dollars. In 2017, those same houses probably cost $1.25M to $1.5M or more. More general computer science salary surveys are run by the IEEE and EE Times .

As a hiring manager, I will caution you against believing self-reported figures from sites such as Glassdoor. My experience is that those are not accurate and generally exaggerate salary figures. They also often confuse base salaries with total compensation that includes bonuses, stock and other benefits.

Acquire salary information on your own by making use of your network. Don’t ask for someone’s salary directly, unless it’s someone you know very well and even then be very careful. Instead, bounce figures off people and see how they respond. Do they think the figure you mention is high, low, or about right? By seeing how people respond you can get an idea of what the market range is.

Factor in benefits and the expected workload into your compensation evaluation. An offer with high compensation may seem less attractive if you have to work 80 hour weeks in that position. You may have to do some detective work to determine the truth. A company might say they value work-life balance, while the established culture tells you a different story: where people have to work 80 hour weeks to get promoted or to even keep up with expectations and deadlines. For many positions, particularly in Silicon Valley, variable compensation (cash bonuses, restricted stock units and stock options ) make up a significant part of the total compensation, along with benefits.

For Computer Science Ph.D.’s, there are four major categories of employers:

• Startups (including starting your own business or consulting)
• Commercial businesses
• Industrial or government research labs

Startups: Joining a startup, or starting your own company, is potentially the most lucrative route. It is also the riskiest. Most startups pay below market compensation and cannot offer the benefits that Google can, but may offer equity that provides the chance of a “home run” that you won’t get at a big company. Most startups fail. Overall, the home runs are few, but they do occur. For example, I know some people who joined Oculus prior to it being acquired by Facebook. Startups are a very different work environment than established big companies. They are typically small, informal, agile, and lacking in resources. They may be more flexible in work environment than most Fortune 500 companies. But they are also less likely to have knowledgable HR personnel who ensure that laws are followed. A paycheck from a Fortune 500 company is not likely to bounce. Startups tend to fire quickly and are more likely to shut down.

A startup has a limited amount of time and resources to establish itself so that it can become self sustaining or an acquisition target. That means it is not a place to pursue long-term research, no matter what the founders may say. The best analogy I heard: Joining a startup is like deciding to jump off a tall cliff with a bunch of other people, believing that you will successfully build working sets of wings and will soar away prior to hitting the ground. If you do this, you don’t want to spend time and energy on things that aren’t directly related to building wings! You might also check the base of the cliff beforehand to see how many bodies you find there.

Startups are not generally compatible with work-life balance. Due to the limited resources, startups have to demand more sacrifices than a more established company.

By working in a startup, you will likely fall out of touch with the research community in your field and lose the state-of-the-art knowledge that you worked so hard to acquire by getting a Ph.D. It is easier to go from a research background to a startup or commercial position than it is to go the other direction.

Although old, the Kawasaki and Bell references listed at the end of this document may be useful if you want to work at a startup.

Matt Cutts was a graduate student at UNC Chapel Hill. We both had the same advisor. Unlike me, Matt did not finish his Ph.D. Instead, he left early to join a startup that had less than 100 people at that time. You might have heard of this startup. It was called Google.

If you win the startup lottery, like Matt, he offers some advice here and here . I also like how Google prepared its employees prior to its IPO .

For two different perspectives of startups, read Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Start-Up Bubble for a perspective of an older worker and how he didn’t fit into one startup, and The Founder’s Dilemmas , which explains challenges and key decisions that founders face in starting their own company.

Commercial businesses: Normal development or production jobs that focus on supporting or developing new products represent the vast majority of employment opportunities. However, getting a Ph.D. makes you overqualified for most of these. Ph.D. training prepares students for academic careers, rather than business careers. Most people who seek a Ph.D. are looking for different types of work than normal commercial jobs. However, if your interests lie in business rather than research, this can be the best way to go. There are Ph.D’s who have become VP’s and CEO’s. Advanced development jobs can be interesting and challenging, and they provide the satisfaction of seeing your work impact product or a company.

Industrial or government research labs: These sit somewhere in between normal commercial jobs and academia. Typically they enable you to look somewhat longer term than a normal job, publish papers, go to conferences, etc. However, these are managed environments, so your research work must tie into the business of the company or the mission of the lab. Reorganizations and changes in priorities can commonly occur, and you have to surf those changes to stay employed and viable. The compensation in industrial research can be good, generally much better than government positions or academia. But like commercial jobs or startups, your job can get cut at any time. I worked at a lab where one day, without any warning, managers appeared and informed us that the company was shutting down our lab and that almost everyone would be laid off, including me. You also will not have the “home run” potential of a startup.

If you work in industrial research, you should really be motivated to make an impact on your company, by transitioning research into product or processes that directly contribute to your company’s future. If your primary goals are to publish papers, advance the field and make a name for yourself, and you don’t really care about the commercial and business aspects, then academia is a better choice. However, even if you focus on doing research that is important to your company, it is possible to achieve external recognition. For example, I recently was elected an IEEE Fellow , despite spending my entire career in industrial research. In this role, you should be ambitious to accomplish something rather than being ambitious to make yourself famous.

Labs that are completely owned by commercial companies or ones that have mandated government funding generally have a consistent stream of funding (until executives or politicians decide to change things). Other labs must rely on winning contracts, from other companies or from the government. That can be a volatile, frustrating way to work. It can be stressful knowing that your team’s continued employment depends on winning the next contract. In a previous job, I sometimes felt we spent 100% of our time trying to secure funding, so we could spend the other 100% getting some research done.

Academia: Working in universities is the traditional career path for Ph.D.’s. A tenured professor is the most secure and stable research position that exists, and the one that grants the most freedom. Professors can choose what they want to work on. If you are focused on publishing and want to ensure that nobody can tell you what to do, then become a tenured professor. If your main motivation is to become a very famous researcher, then become a tenured professor.

However, tenure is not easy to achieve. Getting a tenure-track position is difficult. You have to be good and possibly lucky to get one. As I previously mentioned, postdoc experience is becoming an almost mandatory prerequisite. Read the Feibelman and Ralston references for tips on surviving a postdoc. Furthermore, getting tenure is a race against the clock to publish enough impressive research results that your department decides to grant tenure rather than sending you out the door. As Randy Pausch put it, tenure is a competitive process where you get compared with the other assistant professors and the already-tenured professors. If they worked 70 hour weeks for six years to get tenure, don’t expect to get away with working 40 hour weeks.

The tenure track is not kind to those who want to start a family. Even if you start graduate school directly after finishing your Bachelor’s degree, you will probably be in your late 20’s when finishing the Ph.D. and in your mid to late 30’s when achieving tenure. The realities of the biological clock tend to conflict with the demands required to achieve tenure.

Professor jobs tend to be focused either on research or teaching. Smaller colleges and universities tend to focus mostly on teaching, and professors are evaluated that way. Teaching positions generally pay less than the research positions at big universities, where professors are primarily evaluated by their research and how many trees they kill by publishing papers, and if their teaching is good enough to keep the dean from hearing complaints.

There are also “soft money” positions in academia, which are professors and staff who are paid from contracts and grants rather than tenured positions. These lack the security of tenure and it can be difficult to stay alive on such funding. Most contracts and grants are aimed at funding graduate students and covering one or two months of a professor’s salary, but not toward paying for full-time staff.

The comments I made about fundraising in industrial or government research labs also apply to academic positions. Most of my friends who are professors in the US have to spend far too much time writing proposals, and the percentage of those that are awarded seems to keep going down. If you are tenured, then your job does not rely upon winning proposals, but without external money, you will not be able to support graduate students or pay for extra staff, and your impact will therefore be limited.

I saw a Computing Research News article estimating that total compensation for assistant and associate professors lags that of industrial counterparts by 25%. Compared against Silicon Valley compensation, I estimate the difference to be around 50%.

If you want to get a tenure-track position, read The Professor Is In , a book that goes into great detail about how to land a tenure-track job. The author also runs a blog and service to help students seeking to become professors. Keep in mind that the author has a background in the humanities, so if you are a CS Ph.D. student you have to factor in the differences between a CS Ph.D. program vs. one in the humanities. For example, CS Ph.D. students typically receive financial support, so accumulating large debts is less of a problem. In CS, publications at certain conferences are valuable, whereas in the humanities, conference publications may not count for much.

Other tips: When I had to look for a job in 2012, the single thing I did that was most helpful to my job hunt was creating my own website . A C.V. is a very dry, hard to read document. My website serves as a visual version of a C.V. where I provide images, videos, and detailed descriptions of the projects I worked on. This is a much more compelling way of communicating who I am and what I can offer. As a hiring manager, I found it very helpful when candidates had good websites about themselves. LinkedIn is sufficient for many job hunters, but for people with a Ph.D., I highly recommend creating and maintaining your own website. It doesn’t cost that much and is well worth the effort.

The article The Secret Formula for Choosing the Right Next Role (ACM digital library access required) suggests that when choosing jobs, focus more on what skills you will acquire, what you can accomplish there and who you will work with, rather than focusing on your job title, paycheck and initial project.

No matter where you go after you graduate, maintain your contacts with your alma mater . You may change jobs and move from place to place, but you will always have your degree from your university. If you keep good relations with your university and your fellow former students, that will serve as an excellent base for your personal network.

Picture a martial artist kneeling before the master sensei in a ceremony to receive a hard-earned black belt. After years of relentless training, the student has finally reached a pinnacle of achievement in the discipline.

“Before granting the belt, you must pass one more test,” says the sensei.

“I am ready,” responds the student, expecting perhaps one final round of sparring.

“You must answer the essential question: What is the true meaning of the black belt?”

“The end of my journey,” says the student. “A well-deserved reward for all my hard work.”

The sensei waits for more. Clearly, he is not satisfied. Finally, the sensei speaks. “You are not yet ready for the black belt. Return in one year.”

A year later, the student kneels again in front of the sensei.

“What is the true meaning of the black belt?” asks the sensei.

“A symbol of distinction and the highest achievement in our art,” says the student.

The sensei says nothing for many minutes, waiting. Clearly, he is not satisfied. Finally, he speaks. “You are still not ready for the black belt. Return in one year.”

A year later, the student kneels once again in front of the sensei. And again the sensei asks: “What is the true meaning of the black belt?”

“The black belt represents the beginning -- the start of a never-ending journey of discipline, work, and the pursuit of an ever-higher standard,” says the student.

“Yes. You are now ready to receive the black belt and begin your work.”

To me, there are two lessons in this story.

First, the Ph.D. is the beginning, not the culmination, of your career. Don’t worry about making it your magnum opus . Get out sooner, rather than later.

Second, if you bother to talk to and learn from the people who have already gone through this process, you might graduate two years earlier.

• Prof. HT Kung from Harvard provides advice about the Ph.D., particularly a Ph.D in systems .
• Matt Might is a professor who offers a large number of articles about graduate school and other topics . Scroll down to the section on Graduate School to find his articles.
• Ph.D. Comics . Dilbert meets graduate school. It is hilarious because too much of this is true. However, if you want to finish your Ph.D., read this only in small doses at a time or you will get too depressed to finish.
• Tomorrow’s Professor , a collection of interesting articles for current graduate students and those seeking academic positions after graduation.
• The superb Graduate Student Resources on the Web! at U. Michigan
• Jeff Hollingsworth’s guides on job hunting
• Improving the Graduate School Environment for Women in Computer Science
• Advice on Research and Writing
• Marie des Jardin’s “How to be a Good Graduate Student”
• Wanda Pratt’s Graduate Student Survival Guide
• (Humor) A Day in the Life of a Grad Student
• (Humor) The Ph.D. vs. the Lotto
• The National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
• RPI’s Grad Student Survival Guide in Math Sciences
• Douglas Comer’s essays on computer science and the Ph.D.
• (Humor) Lord of the Rings as an allegory for getting the Ph.D.
• Buffalo page of information about graduate school
• How to do research at the MIT AI Lab

Adams, Scott. How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. Portfolio Hardcover, 2013.

An interesting description of systems and skills that correlate with success in life.

Allen, David. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. Penguin Books, 2002.

David Allen describes his methods to stay organized and productive.

Bell, C. Gordon and John McNamara. High-Tech Ventures: The Guide for Entrepreneurial Success. Addison-Wesley, 1991. ISBN 0-201-56321-5.

Dated, but still recommended reading if you want to work for a startup.

Bronson, Po. The Nudist on the Late Shift. Random House, 1999. ISBN 0375502777.

A fun read, giving the flavor of what working in the Silicon Valley is like. Many of the chapters previously appeared as articles in Wired . A snapshot of the culture before the tech bubble burst in 2000.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Fireside Simon and Schuster, 1989. ISBN 0-671-70863-5.

Excellent overall, with sections on time management, guiding principles and interpersonal skills.

EE Times Salary Survey Issue.

EE Times produces an annual survey and commentary about industrial salaries.

Feibelman, Peter J. A Ph.D. is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in Science. Addison-Wesley, 1993. ISBN 0-201-62663-2.

Good discussion of research career paths. A must read if you choose to take a postdoc.

Heath, Chip and Dan Heath. Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. Random House, 2007.

A good reference on how to craft a message so that it is remembered.

Hong, Jason. Ph.D. Students Must Break Away From Undergraduate Mentality. Communications of the ACM 56 , 7 (July 2013), 10-11.

Jason’s article provides more evidence of how graduate school is a different ballgame than undergraduate education.

Jones, Anita. The Explosive Growth of Postdocs in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 56 , 2 (February 2013), 37-39.

Postdocs are becoming almost mandatory prior to getting a tenure track position in computer science. This is not good.

Kawasaki, Guy. The Macintosh Way: The Art of Guerrilla Management. Harper Perennial, 1990. ISBN 0-06-097338-2.

Describing the situation in the early days of Apple, this book shows the energy and chutzpah required to survive in a startup.

Kelley, Robert E. How to be a star engineer. IEEE Spectrum (October 1999), 51-58.

Good description of the skills that are needed to excel at work, which go beyond sheer technical skills.

Kelsky, Karen. The Professor Is In. Three Rivers Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0-553-41942-9.

Read this if you want a tenure-track position at a university.

Kroeger, Otto and Janet M. Thuesen. Type Talk: The 16 Personality Types that Determine How We Live, Love and Work. Tilden Press, 1988. ISBN 0-385-29828-5.

Introduction to the Myers-Briggs type indicators, useful for understanding different personality traits.

Lyons, Dan. Disrupted: My Misadventures in the Start-Up Bubble. Hachette Books, 2016.

One person’s negative experiences working at a startup company, particularly coming in as an older employee.

Maisel, Herbert and Catherine Gaddy. Employment and Salaries of Recent Doctorates in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 40 , 9 (September 1997), 90-93.

Maisel, Herbert and Catherine Gaddy. Employment and Salaries of Recent Doctorates. Communications of the ACM 41 , 11 (November 1998), 99-101.

Two surveys about new C.S. Ph.D. graduates that include both industry and academic numbers. The low sample size is a problem, however. This is also old data.

Matsudaira, Kate. The Secret Formula for Choosing the Right Next Role. Communications of the ACM 61 , 10 (October 2018), 44-46.

When choosing jobs, focus more on the team and the skills you can acquire and what you can accomplish, rather than the project, your job title and your paycheck.

Pascarelli, Emil and Deborah Quilter. Repetitive Strain Injury: A Complete User's Guide. John Wiley and Sons, 1994. ISBN 0-471-59532-2.

A good introduction to RSI injuries and avoiding them.

Pastore, Robert R. Stock Options: An Authoritative Guide to Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Options, 2nd edition. (printed Dec. 1999). ISBN 0966889924. PCM Capital Publishing.

This is an excellent reference for those of you fortunate enough to have a bundle of stock options. Give me a few options as a tip for finding this book, ok? :-) The book covers tax and legal issues and gives advice on when to keep or exercise your options.

Ralston, Anthony. The Demographics of Candidates for Faculty Positions in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 39 , 3 (March 1996), 78-84.

A must read if you are looking for tenure track positions. The author is a former CS professor who led a faculty search, so if you don’t believe what I say, then listen to him.

Wasserman, Noah. The Founder’s Dilemmas. Princeton University Press, 2012.

This book details key decisions and pitfalls in starting your own company.

Weinstein, Bob. Résumés Don't Get Jobs: The Realities and Myths of Job Hunting. McGraw-Hill, 1993. ISBN 0-07-069144-4.

Gritty, realistic job hunting guide for today’s market.

White, Pepper. The Idea Factory: Learning to Think at MIT. Plume (Penguin Books), 1992. ISBN 0-452-26841-9.

While this is not about C.S., it does dispel the notion of graduate school as an ivory tower environment.

Yate, Martin. Knock 'Em Dead: The Ultimate Job Seeker's Handbook. Bob Adams, Inc.

Good generic guide to job hunting and interviews, including a long section on interview questions.

Last updated: Friday. Feb. 1, 2019

Return to Ron Azuma's page of guides on CS graduate school

Go to Ron Azuma’s home page

© Copyright 1997-2019, Ronald T. Azuma. All rights reserved.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS FEATURE
• 09 July 2024
• Correction 12 July 2024

How PhD students and other academics are fighting the mental-health crisis in science

• Shannon Hall

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Illustration: Piotr Kowalczyk

You have full access to this article via your institution.

On the first day of her class, Annika Martin asks the assembled researchers at the University of Zurich in Switzerland to roll out their yoga mats and stand with their feet spread wide apart. They place their hands on their hips before swinging their torsos down towards the mat and back up again. The pose, called ‘wild goose drinking water’ is from Lu Jong, a foundational practice in Tantrayana Buddhism.

Martin, a health psychologist, can sense that some students are sceptical. They are academics at heart, many of whom have never tried yoga, and registered for Martin’s course to learn how to deal with the stress associated with academic research. Over the course of a semester, she teaches her students about stress and its impact on the body before giving them the tools to help cope with it — from yoga, meditation and progressive muscle relaxation to journalling.

It is one of many initiatives designed to combat the mental-health crisis that is gripping science and academia more broadly. The problems are particularly acute for students and early-career researchers, who are often paid meagre wages, have to uproot their lives every few years and have few long-term job prospects. But senior researchers face immense pressure as well. Many academics also experience harassment, discrimination , bullying and even sexual assault . The end result is that students and academics are much more likely to experience depression and anxiety than is the general population.

But some universities and institutions are starting to fight back in creative ways.

The beginning of a movement

The University of Zurich now offers academics several popular courses on mental health. Beyond Martin’s class, called ‘Mindfulness and Meditation’, one helps students learn how to build resilience and another provides senior researchers with the tools they need to supervise PhD candidates.

The courses are in high demand. “We have way more registrations than we have actual course spots,” says Eric Alms, a programme manager who is responsible for many of the mental-health courses at the University of Zurich. “I’m happy that my courses are so successful. On the other hand, it’s a sign of troubling times when these are the most popular courses.”

Several studies over the past few years have collectively surveyed tens of thousands of researchers and have documented the scope and consequences of science’s mental-health crisis.

In 2020, the biomedical research funder Wellcome in London, surveyed more than 4,000 researchers (mostly in the United Kingdom) and found that 70% felt stressed on the average work day . Specifically, survey respondents said that they felt intense pressure to publish — so much so that they work 50–60 hours per week, or more. And they do so for little pay, without a sense of a secure future. Only 41% of mid-career and 31% of early-career researchers said that they were satisfied with their career prospects in research.

The International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems run bootcamps involving activities such as painting. Credit: Alejandro Posada

A survey designed by Cactus Communications , a science-communication and technology company headquartered in Mumbai, India, analysed the opinions of 13,000 researchers in more than 160 countries in 2020 and found that 37% of scientists experienced discrimination, harassment or bullying in their work environment. This was especially true for researchers from under-represented groups and was the case for 42% of female researchers, 45% of homosexual researchers and 60% of multiracial researchers.

Yet some experts are hopeful that there is change afoot. As well as the University of Zurich, several other institutions have started to offer courses on mental health. Imperial College London, for example, conducts more than two dozen courses, workshops and short webinars on topics as diverse as menstrual health and seasonal depression. Most of these have been running for at least five years, but several were developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “At that time, the true dimension of the mental-health crisis in science was unveiled and potentially exacerbated by the lockdowns,” says Ines Perpetuo, a research-development consultant for postdocs and fellows at Imperial College London.

Desiree Dickerson, a clinical psychologist with a PhD in neuroscience who leads workshops at the University of Zurich, Imperial College London and other institutes around the world, says she has a heavier workload than ever before. “Before COVID, this kind of stuff wasn’t really in the spotlight,” she says. “Now it feels like it is gaining a solid foothold — that we are moving in the right direction.”

A mental-health crisis is gripping science — toxic research culture is to blame

Some of this change has been initiated by graduate students and postdocs. When Yaniv Yacoby was a graduate student in computer science at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for example, he designed a course to teach the “hidden curriculum of the PhD”. The goal was to help students to learn how to succeed in science (often by breaking down preconceived ideas), while creating an inclusive and supportive community. An adapted form of that course is now offered by both Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and the University of Washington in Seattle. And Yacoby has worked with other universities to develop single-session workshops to jump-start mental-health advocacy and normalize conversations about it in academia.

Similarly, Jessica Noviello, a planetary scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, built a workshop series designed to target a key stressor for academics’ mental health: job insecurity, or specifically, the ability to find a job that aligns with career plans and life goals. She argues that most advisers lack experience outside academia, “making it hard for them to advise students about other career options”, and most institutes don’t have the resources to bring in outside speakers. Yet it is a key issue. The 2020 Wellcome survey found that nearly half of the respondents who had left research reported difficulty in finding a job.

So Noviello established the Professional Advancement Workshop Series (PAWS) in August 2021. The programme has run workshops and panel discussions about careers at national laboratories and in science journalism and media communications, science policy, data science, NASA management and more. And it has hosted two sessions on mental-health topics. “PAWS isn’t a programme that specifically set out to improve mental health in the sciences, but by building a community and having conversations with each other, the experts, and ourselves, I think we are giving ourselves tools to make choices that benefit us, and that is where mental health begins,” Noviello says.

Beyond the classroom

Although these courses and workshops mark a welcome change, say researchers, many wonder whether they are enough.

Melanie Anne-Atkins, a clinical psychologist and the associate director of student experience at the University of Guelph in Canada, who gives talks on mental health at various universities, says that she rarely sees universities follow through after her workshops. “People are moved to tears,” she says. “But priorities happen afterward. And even though they made a plan, it never rises to that. Because dollars will always come first.”

David Trang, a planetary geologist based in Honolulu, Hawaii, at the Space Science Institute, is currently working towards a licence in mental-health counselling to promote a healthier work environment in the sciences. He agrees with Anne-Atkins — arguing that even individual researchers have little incentive to make broad changes. “Caring about mental health, caring about diversity, equity and inclusion is not going to help scientists with their progress in science,” he says. Although they might worry about these matters tremendously, Trang argues, mental-health efforts won’t help scientists to win a grant or receive tenure. “At the end of the day, they have to care about their own survival in science.”

Still, others argue that these workshops are a natural and crucial first step — that people need to de-stigmatize these topics before moving forward. “It is quite a big challenge,” Perpetuo says. “But you have to understand what’s under your control. You can control your well-being, your reactions to things and you can influence what’s around you.”

PhD students compete in a team-building relay race at a bootcamp run by the International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems. Credit: Alejandro Posada

That is especially pertinent to the typical scientist who tends to see their work as a calling and not just a job, argues Nina Effenberger, who is studying computer science at the University of Tübingen in Germany. The Wellcome survey found that scientists are often driven by their own passion — making failure deeply personal. But a solid mental-health toolkit (one that includes the skills taught in many of the new workshops) will help them to separate their work from their identity and understand that a grant denial or a paper rejection is not the end of their career. Nor should it have any bearing on their self-worth, Effenberger argues. It is simply a part of a career in science.

Moreover, Dickerson argues that although systemic change is necessary, individuals will drive much of that change. “My sense is that if I can empower the individual, then that individual can also push back,” she says.

Many researchers are starting to do just that through efforts aimed at improving working conditions for early-career researchers, an area of widespread concern. The Cactus survey found that 38% of researchers were dissatisfied with their financial situation. And another survey of 3,500 graduate students by the US National Science Foundation in 2020 (see go.nature.com/3xbokbk) found that more than one-quarter of the respondents experienced food insecurity, housing insecurity or both.

In the United States, efforts to organize unions have won salary increases and other benefits, such as childcare assistance, at the University of California in 2022, Columbia University in New York City in 2023 and the University of Washington in 2023. These wins are part of a surge in union formation. Last year alone, 26 unions representing nearly 50,000 graduate students, postdocs and researchers, formed in the United States.

There has also been collective action in other countries. In 2022, for example, graduate students ran a survey on their finances, and ultimately won an increase in pay at the International Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems (IMPRS-IS), an interdisciplinary doctoral programme within the Max Planck Society in Munich, Germany.

Why the mental cost of a STEM career can be too high for women and people of colour

Union drives are only part of the changes that are happening beyond the classroom. In the past few years, Imperial College London has revamped its common rooms, lecture halls and other spaces to create more places in which students can congregate. “If they have a space where they can go and chat, it is more conducive to research conversations and even just personal connection, which is one of the key aspects of fostering mental health,” Perpetuo says. Imperial also introduced both one-day and three-day voluntary retreats for postdocs and fellows to build personal relationships.

The IMPRS-IS similarly runs ‘bootcamps’ or retreats for many of its doctoral students and faculty members. Dickerson spoke at the one last year. The programme also mandates annual check-ins at which students can discuss group dynamics and raise any issues with staff. It has initiated thesis advisory committees so that no single academic supervisor has too much power over a student. And it plans to survey its students’ mental health twice a year for the next three years to probe the mental health of the institute. The institute has even set various mental-health goals, such as high job satisfaction among PhD students regardless of gender.

Dickerson applauds this change. “One of the biggest problems that I see is a fear of measuring the problem,” she says. “Many don’t want to ask the questions and I think those that do should be championed because I think without measuring it, we can’t show that we are actually changing anything.”

She hopes that other universities will follow suit and provide researchers with the resources that they need to improve conditions. Last year, for example, Trang surveyed the planetary-science community and found that imposter syndrome and feeling unappreciated were large issues — giving him a focus for many future workshops. “We’re moving slowly to make changes,” he says. “But I’m glad we are finally turning the corner from ‘if there is a problem’ to ‘let’s start solving the problem.’”

Nature 631 , 496-498 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02225-8

Updates & Corrections

Correction 12 July 2024 : An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Nina Effenberger was involved in a survey on graduate-student finances that won an increase in pay.

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Institutions

I’ve built a career without a big golden grant. Here’s how

Career Column 22 JUL 24

What is it like to attend a predatory conference?

Career Feature 18 JUL 24

The geneticist who uses science to free parents wrongly convicted of killing their children

Career Feature 16 JUL 24

The ‘PhD influencers’ logging lab life on TikTok and Instagram

News Feature 17 JUL 24

Generative AI makes for better scientific writing — but beware the pitfalls

Correspondence 16 JUL 24

Microbiologist wins case against university over harassment during COVID

News 12 JUL 24

Give UK science the overhaul it urgently needs

Comment 04 JUL 24

We can make the UK a science superpower — with a radical political manifesto

World View 18 JUN 24

2 PhD Student Positions and 1 Post-Doctoral Position

The DFG-funded Collaborative Research Center CRC 1644 “Phenotypic plasticity in plants - mechanisms, constraints and evolution”, hosted at the Un...

Potsdam, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Potsdam

Fully-funded PhD positions on perovskite and tandem solar cell - ANU - world's top 30 university

Join a world-class photovoltaics research group, contribute to the development of the next generation of solar cells at ANU- world's top 30 university

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (AU)

The Australian National University- School of Engineering

Assistant Professor

The Division of Immunobiology within the Department of Pathology and Immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis is seeking...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University in Saint Louis Division of Immunobiology

Become a Harvard Radcliffe Institute Fellow

Harvard Radcliffe Institute fellows are exceptional scientists, writers, s...

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harvard Radcliffe Institute

Associate or Senior Editor

Position: Associate or Senior Editor Location: NYC or Berlin - Hybrid working model Deadline: August 27th, 2024   JOB SUMMARY: Nature, the internat...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies