|
On September 05 2013 22:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 13:53 convention wrote:On September 05 2013 02:06 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 05 2013 00:46 Cascade wrote:
To get a PhD position, you need something more concrete than work that you are impressed by yourself, or your own opinion that you know more physics than others. Anyone can say that (not saying you lie, just that it won't hold in an interview). You need some way of proving that you will do well in a PhD, such as good grades on at least a few of the high level courses, or a good recommendation letter from your masters supervisor, published papers in a decent journal, or something like that. Thanks for the condescension, but the reason I'm proud of my work is that I believe it's objectively an important contribution to the discipline. You're damn right I'm determined to get it published. I consider it to be far more consequential than the average PhD work, which does nothing but slightly further the ideas of the supervisor and disappears into a drawer somewhere immediately after it is defended. (Condescension works both ways, you know.) On September 05 2013 00:46 Cascade wrote:Problem is that there are too many lunatics around in theoretical physics, people that are convinced that they have found some brilliant solution that everyone else have overlooked. I got myself (and still get) frequent mails from people trying to push their brilliant (but surprisingly not published in a serious peer-reviewed paper...) ideas onto me. Only because my PhD gave me an email and small homepage on the theoretical physics webpage... With your background of working alone for a long time (as I understand), it is very important that you prove that you are not one of them. And to do that, you really need others in the field to review your work and pass their impression on to your potential PhD employer. Examples are the ones I mentioned above: grades on a course, recommendation letter, or decision to publish your work in a decent journal. My reaction to this paragraph is that you've just committed the scientific analogue of the right-wing scaremongering about a council estate full of welfare queens with ten kids and a Porsche parked up the drive-way. You wilfully conflate innocent emails by some enthusiast, asking whether such-and-such a wild speculation is borne out by academic physics, with a 50 page dissertation by some zealous crank about why general relativity is wrong. Why should someone be dismissed as a crank merely because of the fact (unavoidable from his point of view) that he isn't a paid-up member of the academic inner-circle? Shouldn't his work speak for itself? Isn't the precedent of Einstein, and the dozens of independent gentlemen scientists in the 19th century, enough to make you wary of tarring? Cascade actually made some really good points and gave you helpful advice. He did, yes. I apologized to him over PM and have told him that I appreciate his help. Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 13:53 convention wrote:
Sorry, but physics is hard. You don't develop a revolutionary theory in your spare time. That's what Einstein did. Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 13:53 convention wrote:
If your grades are bad, you have to convince the university that despite the bad grades, that you are a good investment. And you can do that by publishing the papers. Anyone can say "I'm smarter than all of those graduate students, my work is more important.", but you need a peer reviewed paper for anyone to believe it. Well, that's what I'm trying to do. It's not easy. It's pretty silly that achieving something intrinsically harder than a PhD (finding a project without the aid of a supervisor and getting a sole author paper published in a respectable journal) is my only path to a place on a PhD. But that's what I'm prepared to do and what I am doing. It's my own fault, in a way, for not being more disciplined when I was a student.
Ok, I think it's time to have a little talk.
Ghastly, I can sympathize with your situation... been there myself a while ago when I was searching for an opportunity to get my PhD. I agree that it's not easy, and I can also understand your anger over the whole procedure. There's a lot wrong with the system, and there's even some truth to your observations on an academic "inner circle" that promotes financial and educational malpractice. For instance, I shake my head whenever I get sent to some conference overseas and look at the bills... remembering how hard it was to get my PhD funded, I'm now astonished how eager people are to throw insane amounts of money at us for holding a 15-minute lecture at the other end of the world, over the same topic no less. Please note that I'm aware of my own hypocrisy here - I go to these conferences, so I'm using funds that would probably be better used on giving some PhD candidate a roof over their head -, so in effect I'm participating in the system that you valiantly accuse, and if you're angry at me, I can fully understand that.
That said, although you have every right to be angry about stuff like that, I would advise you to be angry in your spare time. For your goal - getting a PhD position - it's counterproductive: The way you are talking about the academic "inner circle" makes one wonder why you even want to be a part of it if you despise us that much. If I may be blunt, which I guess I may since I just gave you permission and reason to hate me anyway, you sound so full of yourself that it's hard to take you seriously. Don't get me wrong, for all I know, you could be the next Einstein... but that doesn't change the fact that you should never ever compare yourself to Einstein. For all I know, you could indeed be smarter than all other PhD students in the world... but going around and telling everybody makes you look petty. The same goes if you announce that other's projects are largely inconsequential or that you publishing one paper is more of an effort than somebody else working on their project. You say that you're proud of your work - which you should be if it's as good as you say; yet, simultaneously you're just at the beginning of your scientific career, and some modesty would also be in order... And please don't misinterpret this as me advising you to put on make-up for the beauty contest organized by the nefarious "inner circle" (though it would most likely also be helpful if it comes to that); in order to do quality scientific work, be it on your own, be it as part of a research team, you need a decent amount of self-doubt as your touchstone for confirmation bias and to remain open for criticism and advice. And no matter how good you are - nobody's that good.
|
On September 05 2013 23:28 Poffel wrote:
Don't get me wrong, for all I know, you could be the next Einstein... but that doesn't change the fact that you should never ever compare yourself to Einstein. I never did that. I used him as an example of a physicist who came up with his theories in his "spare time". There's others, such as Georges Lemaître who had a day job as a Catholic priest.
I'm not even in the same situation as these guys, as I did most of the work on my physics ideas when I was unemployed for two years and I was supported by government welfare. I had more free time during that period than any post-doc.
But yes, for the record, I wasn't comparing myself. I was just saying that his precedent proves that line of analysis wrong. It's not even like physics professors work on their theories full-time. They have heavy teaching and administrative responsibilities.
As for the hostility: yes, I'm sorry about that. As you've correctly diagnosed, I'm rather bitter. I'll try to dial it down to a minimum in my future dealings on the subject. ("It is impossible for any process to reduce the bitterness of a system to its zero point value in a finite number of operations.")
You're a good guy though, and I agree with your post. Heartening that somebody has the same thoughts that I do. Definitely not angry at you for going to conferences. I would take advantage of them myself if I had access.
|
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics. But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery.
If you like physics and would like to try and do physics research for a living (which in itself its already a questionable life choice..), my advise would be get a physics degree while getting to know the professors and their research inclinations. And if for some reason you can not do that (like lack of money if you are living in the US) either move to Europe where the access to universities is almost free, or try to get into a lab by some other means, like applying for summer internships or voluntary work of any kind. If you are good and your passion shows, it is a matter of only getting to know the right person, and that would give you a foot into the field. But by being all alone in your desk you will not get anything accomplished.
It took me the better part of 3 years to get my first paper published, and I would never had accomplished anything remotely like that without my supervisor and lab collegues. The knowledge you have when you are fresh out of university is simply not enough by a long shot, even if you did ace that course in high energy physics.
|
On September 06 2013 01:02 Ender985 wrote:
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics. But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery. See, this shit is why I get so ornery.
|
On September 06 2013 01:02 Ender985 wrote:
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics. But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery.
If you like physics and would like to try and do physics research for a living (which in itself its already a questionable life choice..), my advise would be get a physics degree while getting to know the professors and their research inclinations. And if for some reason you can not do that (like lack of money if you are living in the US) either move to Europe where the access to universities is almost free, or try to get into a lab by some other means, like applying for summer internships or voluntary work of any kind. If you are good and your passion shows, it is a matter of only getting to know the right person, and that would give you a foot into the field. But by being all alone in your desk you will not get anything accomplished.
It took me the better part of 3 years to get my first paper published, and I would never had accomplished anything remotely like that without my supervisor and lab collegues. The knowledge you have when you are fresh out of university is simply not enough by a long shot, even if you did ace that course in high energy physics.
So why is that a questionable life choice? I heard quite many physicists advising sudents to NOT do theoretical physics. Is that some kind of your inner circle plot so that you can grab all the funding for yourself?
Btw you are doing research (albeit not theoretical physics), so what's the situation in research, what are the hot spots for the next 15 years (can be any field)
|
On September 06 2013 01:13 HeartOfTheSwarm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 01:02 Ender985 wrote:
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics. But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery.
If you like physics and would like to try and do physics research for a living (which in itself its already a questionable life choice..), my advise would be get a physics degree while getting to know the professors and their research inclinations. And if for some reason you can not do that (like lack of money if you are living in the US) either move to Europe where the access to universities is almost free, or try to get into a lab by some other means, like applying for summer internships or voluntary work of any kind. If you are good and your passion shows, it is a matter of only getting to know the right person, and that would give you a foot into the field. But by being all alone in your desk you will not get anything accomplished.
It took me the better part of 3 years to get my first paper published, and I would never had accomplished anything remotely like that without my supervisor and lab collegues. The knowledge you have when you are fresh out of university is simply not enough by a long shot, even if you did ace that course in high energy physics. So why is that a questionable life choice? I heard quite many physicists advising sudents to NOT do theoretical physics. Is that some kind of your inner circle plot so that you can grab all the funding for yourself? Btw you are doing research (albeit not theoretical physics), so what's the situation in research, what are the hot spots for the next 15 years (can be any field)
My guess is that the job market for basically anyone with a Ph.D. in any field is incredibly difficult, so professors/researchers just discourage everyone so you only get those that really, really want to do it.
|
|
|
On September 06 2013 01:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 01:13 HeartOfTheSwarm wrote:On September 06 2013 01:02 Ender985 wrote:
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics. But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery.
If you like physics and would like to try and do physics research for a living (which in itself its already a questionable life choice..), my advise would be get a physics degree while getting to know the professors and their research inclinations. And if for some reason you can not do that (like lack of money if you are living in the US) either move to Europe where the access to universities is almost free, or try to get into a lab by some other means, like applying for summer internships or voluntary work of any kind. If you are good and your passion shows, it is a matter of only getting to know the right person, and that would give you a foot into the field. But by being all alone in your desk you will not get anything accomplished.
It took me the better part of 3 years to get my first paper published, and I would never had accomplished anything remotely like that without my supervisor and lab collegues. The knowledge you have when you are fresh out of university is simply not enough by a long shot, even if you did ace that course in high energy physics. So why is that a questionable life choice? I heard quite many physicists advising sudents to NOT do theoretical physics. Is that some kind of your inner circle plot so that you can grab all the funding for yourself? Btw you are doing research (albeit not theoretical physics), so what's the situation in research, what are the hot spots for the next 15 years (can be any field) My guess is that the job market for basically anyone with a Ph.D. in any field is incredibly difficult, so professors/researchers just discourage everyone so you only get those that really, really want to do it.
The job market for tenure-track positions is incredibly difficult. Depending on your field, you will not have trouble finding employment (within your field, not at a convenience store) with a PhD. Whether that job was worth getting a PhD in the first place (in terms of probability of earning said job with/without the degree, initial salary relative to time spent in school) is a different matter.
|
Currently mastering Biomechanical engineering. Really dislike the idea of getting a PhD afterwards. I don't feel like being a 'forever student' for an income that's WAY lower than entering the world of the big companies.
|
On September 06 2013 01:53 Henk wrote:
Currently mastering Biomechanical engineering. Really dislike the idea of getting a PhD afterwards. I don't feel like being a 'forever student' for an income that's WAY lower than entering the world of the big companies.
What keeps you from entering the world of the big companies with a PhD? I understand that getting the masters is typically sufficient but getting a PhD and then calling it a day can give you certain advantages in your field also. You don't necessarily need to stay in academics after you get it.
If you're truly interested in your field, you can get a PhD. It's for your life, not your career. I would say that your life matters more. Obviously, that only matters if that's what you're into. More practical people don't care and I can respect that.
|
On September 05 2013 23:28 Poffel wrote:
For instance, I shake my head whenever I get sent to some conference overseas and look at the bills... remembering how hard it was to get my PhD funded, I'm now astonished how eager people are to throw insane amounts of money at us for holding a 15-minute lecture at the other end of the world, over the same topic no less. Please note that I'm aware of my own hypocrisy here - I go to these conferences, so I'm using funds that would probably be better used on giving some PhD candidate a roof over their head -, so in effect I'm participating in the system that you valiantly accuse, and if you're angry at me, I can fully understand that.
I don't think you got the idea of conferences. It is not about giving a talk and then go home. It is about building networks, and finding new collaborators. During my conferences I met a lot of people that I have cited, and people that have cited me, and it was very useful to talk to them about the matters, how certain they felt about that and that, what parts they hoped to improve, what seemed to be impossible to continue on, etc.
But more importantly, you also get to met people from similar, but different fields, and every now and then you will see the possibility of a connection between your works. My most cited paper was actually another group in a related field that saw a talk of mine, and then approached us about using our model for one of their projects. And then we suddenly had this all new field to apply our work in, which is great. This would not have happened without conferences.
I do agree however, that cheaper hotels would have been enough sometimes... I think it is the senior staff that organise in general, and they are often a bit more prone to pick luxurious places.  But anyway, compared to what they pay for your salary (before all the taxes, mind), it is still not a large amount, so I don't see a reason to pick too much on the travel money.
On September 06 2013 01:02 Ender985 wrote:
Well, I am a physicist but don't know the field of physics research that well, since I moved to do research in the field of human genetics.
Wow, that is exactly me as well! Moved from particle physics to bioinformatics just half a year ago.  We should exchange experiences!
But if my experience is something to judge by, I would advise you to stop loosing your time trying to get something published all by yourself. It is a lunatic idea. You need at least one established scientist that can guide through the process of 1) shaping up a project 2) supervising your project and 3) helping you write out the paper. Without that, your chances to get anything published on a journal with an impact factor of >1 are probably worse than the chances of you winning several millions in the lottery.
Agreeing on the general principle that supervisors are useful. You may think that "the system" is too closed to people outside said system, and it may be true (not passing judgement on that right now), but that doesn't change the fact that it speeds up your training A LOT to have a supervisor helping you out during your PhD. It may be possible for some to go straight from a master (where you in general get to do very little actual research) into proper research all by themselves, but then I just wonder what they could have done if they would have worked closer together with more experienced people at the start.
What if Einstein would have been doing research full time, and going to conferences a few times a year, directly after his education instead of sitting in that dusty old office of his with the patents? How much faster would the relativity theories have been published? Just becuase something works, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. 
|
Oh, this thread haha. I remember reading this thread three years ago as a high school senior thinking that I would NEVER go for a PhD and here I am, three years later, applying to graduate schools (PhD) for computer science.
|
What if Einstein would have been doing research full time, and going to conferences a few times a year, directly after his education instead of sitting in that dusty old office of his with the patents? How much faster would the relativity theories have been published? Just becuase something works, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
Sometimes I feel like the pressure to publish whatever you have right now (that is publishable) can slow you down. In my first year of PhD I published a paper in a not-even-so-great conference, and for months I had to do nothing but prepare posters, go to conferences abroad, give all kind of talks with various durations, seminaries for my lab, on the very paper. As a result, I was stuck in my own research, and I was basically not going forward. That work wasn't even that special, it was just a preliminary work and I had plenty of other ideas to follow up, but boy did I talk about it a lot.... :D
I'm doing my second year of PhD in computer science right now (computational linguistics to be precise).
|
On September 05 2013 03:54 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 03:24 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:On September 05 2013 00:20 Deleuze wrote:On September 04 2013 23:38 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:
Hey guys, Im considering doing a PhD but was wondering, what kind of degree did you get for your undergrad? a first class equivalent? (Im studying in the UK) I really want to do one just because im interested in learning more , but my grades arent great, Im nearing a First class but still not quite a first class and Ive got 2 years left. I reckon with hard work I can get that First class.
How does funding work for a PhD? Do you have to look for sponsors outside the universiy or does the university provide you with funding? Any advice you guys can give me? Do we need lots of research projects during the summer to help? Your first port of call is prospective Universities. For the past several years now Research Council funding goes directly to Universities in a ‘funding block’ which works out as a set number of PhD/DPhil studentships (in previous years individual students applied directly to the Research Council). If your University doesn’t have a funding block you will not get funding from a research council, and block funding is HIGHLY competitive. In addition to this Universities may also have their own partial or even full fee grants, sometimes available on a means-tested basis. Corporate or charitable sponsors may also approach Universities with money to issue a certain number of grants available to students, again there may/will be eligibility criteria. Currently there is no mainstream govern loan system for postgraduate study (Research Council funding is via a grant) in the UK. A career development loan from a bank would be an alternative, as would private sponsors such as employers or charities, but again they are likely to have eligibility criteria. If you are study Full-Time in the UK on a BA/BSc and are getting close to 1sts in your first year you should be well on track to get a 1st in your final result if you keep up the hard work and continue to improve; typically your first year’s grades do not count to your overall result, you only need to pass (however do check this with your institution). It will depend upon your field and expertise, and professional experience, but generally it would be expected for you to go from Bachelors to Masters and then to Doctoral study. First of all, thanks a lot for your reply :D I've had a look around at some prospective universities and some of them were saying a First Class is required so I was wondering if it was the same for most in the field of engineering. On our course every year counts a little towards the final degreebut the next 2 years make up 67% of the degree so good performance in the next two years is vital. I've got little to no professional experience (a lot of rejected applications for summer student research posts and internships from companies), bt hopefully I can get something this upcoming summer. Did you know what field you wanted to go into? Also did you know the professors who offered you a place well? What kindof questions do they ask in an interview? Does it look bad if you go to work for say 2 years after completing your masters then go back for your PhD ? Hi! Engineering isn't my field I'm afraid so it's difficult for me to say. The BEST people to speak to would be PhD students at your current institution in your field, they'll have the best and most up to date info for you, and they'll be full of hopes and regrets - awesome combination. Even relatively junior academics will have an out of date experience of gaining a Doctorate. A PhD is a serious research undertaking. You cannot (must not) fuck it up, it is very much more than a 'next step' up a ladder (I think I might imply this a little, apologies). While it is almost essential for an academic career, it is not a professional development qualification you obtain to get this role, rather it is an opportunity for you to attempt to start 'being' an academic by undertaking research in a safe(r) environment; this is certainly the case when at the later stages of a PhD. If you succeed you should have something(s) you can publish. What will get you your job is what you have done on the way: teaching experience, published work, professional experience where appropriate, the strength of your academic networks and your knowledge of the field. This is the kind of thing that you ultimately will want to get from your institution; some of it will depend upon your supervisor, but not all. I can't advise on what would make you a better candidate, such as how much professional XP you should have - but in engineering I'd imagine this is looked upon very favourably. Speak to other PhD students and see what they say! I do like the masters-PhD route, but I may be wrong, don't take my advice over actual engineering PhDs. I will say this though. Before ANYTHING you need to have (only the very roughest) idea of what you want to research. It's no good if you just want a PhD to become a Dr., you need to have the actual passion and interest to commit to your field. That always comes first, and regardless of how well you do at Uni this will determine whether you get a place on a PhD programme, whether you get funding, whether you will get bored and fail; yes, the strength of your prior accomplishments will demonstrate your ability to achieve your research aims, but they need to be worthwhile aims to begin with!
Wow, that was a very nice reply, thank you
What happens if your PhD thesis is rejected? I will try and ask around this year thanks a lot dude :D
|
yes pressure to publish just produces a lot of publications the world would be better off without. People need to think more and write less. Einstein was likely better off in the patent office. When you turn research into a commodity, it becomes degraded, just like everything else
|
On September 06 2013 22:46 sam!zdat wrote:
yes pressure to publish just produces a lot of publications the world would be better off without. People need to think more and write less. Einstein was likely better off in the patent office. When you turn research into a commodity, it becomes degraded, just like everything else
Yea sometimes you read stuff and think "how the hell did reviewers miss that" then you realize that basically everyone is under massive pressure and lack of time and it allows for some crap to slip through. Of course the better the journal the more rare it is.
|
I consistently appalled at the mediocrity pervading academia. If they would just shut up and teach and only write when they have something to say, we'd all be better off. It just means I have more mediocre scholarship to slog through and our sisyphean task becomes even more so.
|
I would hope that by the time you obtain a masters degree, you would know exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish by going for a PhD.
For most career fields, masters degree is more than sufficient. You don't really have to have a PhD in order to succeed (financially) out there.
|
On September 07 2013 00:12 sam!zdat wrote:
I consistently appalled at the mediocrity pervading academia. If they would just shut up and teach and only write when they have something to say, we'd all be better off. It just means I have more mediocre scholarship to slog through and our sisyphean task becomes even more so.
Except if they shut up and only wrote when they had a Nature paper in their hands, nobody would hold jobs long enough to get there, or acquire the skills to do the work in the first place.
|
On September 07 2013 00:38 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 00:12 sam!zdat wrote:
I consistently appalled at the mediocrity pervading academia. If they would just shut up and teach and only write when they have something to say, we'd all be better off. It just means I have more mediocre scholarship to slog through and our sisyphean task becomes even more so. Except if they shut up and only wrote when they had a Nature paper in their hands, nobody would hold jobs long enough to get there, or acquire the skills to do the work in the first place.
Are you saying that folks need to write bad articles in order to learn how to write?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
