I have learned a lot over the past two years in doctoral school but would definitely say that the most enlightening period of my time thus far occurred when I received my first set of comments from a journal submission. This leads me to my point #5 in my "Playing the PhD game" series:
#5 - Submit your work early and often.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, it is only when you submit your work to a reputable journal or a conference that you get the real skinny on the quality of your work (there are a number of ways to figure out the ranking of a journal, including the social science citation index, but you can use the acceptance rate into as a way to gauge quality). A couple of my colleagues were able to get their work reviewed for journals in their first year and this made all the difference when preparing their summer papers for submission.
Journal reviewers "don't know you from Adam" and thus can be brutally honest without worrying about bumping into you the next day in the hallways. You may think that you have an adviser who will tell you the truth about the quality of your work but there is nothing like a blind review to verify this.
Taking the plunge and submitting my paper was one of the best things I could do to improve my writing. When you start working on your own research in doctoral school, I suggest you take my advice and submit often and early!
Friday, March 16, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
How to Play the PhD Game - Part 2 (aka "Look out for #1")
Many people who know me would agree that I try to be helpful when I can. I am not the biggest fan of saying "no" to a request for assistance, even when providing that assistance could make my life more difficult. This prompted someone to suggest that I read a book called "I feel guilty when I say no" - I haven't read it yet, but I did get the Kindle version and I do plan to read it when I have time! Not being able to say no can land you in a tough spot in doctoral school, especially when saying yes to a project you don't want to do could be a commitment of several weeks or months. Believe me when I say that you don't want to spend your time working on projects that will not help you pass your comps, get published, or write your thesis.
This leads me to the next pointer in my tutorial on playing the PhD game:
4. You need to know when to look out for #1
As I mentioned above, you need to quickly learn that the faculty members that you are working with aren't always going to have your interests in mind when they "staff" you on assignments. You may end up working on projects that might be interesting and may even be fun but end up doing nothing but eat up your time and clear one item off of your faculty member's to do list.
I had a friend who accepted a posting on a project that involved doing exactly what she hated to do the most - make tables and format charts for a policy paper that had virtually nothing to do with her research interests and for a professor who was notorious for being difficult to work with.
She forgot about her option to say something that begins with "That sounds really interesting but..." To say that project was a disaster is a major understatement.
If saying no is as difficult for you as it sometimes is for me (and was for my friend), consider reading the book I mentioned (I feel guilty when I say no - http://amzn.to/AtK49n) and make sure you begin your program ready to look out for #1!
This leads me to the next pointer in my tutorial on playing the PhD game:
4. You need to know when to look out for #1
As I mentioned above, you need to quickly learn that the faculty members that you are working with aren't always going to have your interests in mind when they "staff" you on assignments. You may end up working on projects that might be interesting and may even be fun but end up doing nothing but eat up your time and clear one item off of your faculty member's to do list.
I had a friend who accepted a posting on a project that involved doing exactly what she hated to do the most - make tables and format charts for a policy paper that had virtually nothing to do with her research interests and for a professor who was notorious for being difficult to work with.
She forgot about her option to say something that begins with "That sounds really interesting but..." To say that project was a disaster is a major understatement.
If saying no is as difficult for you as it sometimes is for me (and was for my friend), consider reading the book I mentioned (I feel guilty when I say no - http://amzn.to/AtK49n) and make sure you begin your program ready to look out for #1!
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
How to play The PhD Game - Part 1
There is a pretty awesome book called 
Playing the Game: The Streetsmarts guide to Graduate School. Written by "Frank" and "Stein," the book is a pretty humorous account of some of the ups and downs of graduate school education. I was reflecting on how well I was playing the game earlier this week (jury's still out) and thought I would share a couple of tidbits that will make it easier for others who are interested to play:
1. Learn how to say no to extra stuff
If you're anything like me you have your hands in many pots. You may feel like becoming a student again will free up some time and, as a result, you may seek out more pots. This is very rarely a good idea. Three classes a week (this is after your core courses; before that you may have four or five) may not seem a lot - add 6-10 hours per class of reading and 20 hours of Research Assistant work every week and your free time may not seem that free anymore. There will be a lot of opportunities to get involved in extra stuff - I suggest you make sure you have a handle on your day job before you make any commitments.
2. It's not enough to read the syllabus - talk to your professor and students who have taken the class before.
The worst decision of my academic career was made based on a four-page Word document. To say that syllabus was misleading is like saying the center of a raging volcano is a little warm. A bad class can be a nightmare. A bad doctoral seminar can be hell on Earth. Bad teachers do get tenure - it happens more often than you may realize. Be. Very. Careful.
3. Make every seminar a potential chapter in your dissertation.
Don't waste your time taking doctoral seminars that won't have any value towards your dissertation. The name of the game should be efficiency. At the end of these seminars you are required to write 25-30 page papers that require lots and lots of thought and effort. Not being able to do something with that final product is a tragedy - you don't have the time to waste (well, you might, but why do it?)
There's more to come - watch this space!
Playing the Game: The Streetsmarts guide to Graduate School. Written by "Frank" and "Stein," the book is a pretty humorous account of some of the ups and downs of graduate school education. I was reflecting on how well I was playing the game earlier this week (jury's still out) and thought I would share a couple of tidbits that will make it easier for others who are interested to play:1. Learn how to say no to extra stuff
If you're anything like me you have your hands in many pots. You may feel like becoming a student again will free up some time and, as a result, you may seek out more pots. This is very rarely a good idea. Three classes a week (this is after your core courses; before that you may have four or five) may not seem a lot - add 6-10 hours per class of reading and 20 hours of Research Assistant work every week and your free time may not seem that free anymore. There will be a lot of opportunities to get involved in extra stuff - I suggest you make sure you have a handle on your day job before you make any commitments.
2. It's not enough to read the syllabus - talk to your professor and students who have taken the class before.
The worst decision of my academic career was made based on a four-page Word document. To say that syllabus was misleading is like saying the center of a raging volcano is a little warm. A bad class can be a nightmare. A bad doctoral seminar can be hell on Earth. Bad teachers do get tenure - it happens more often than you may realize. Be. Very. Careful.
3. Make every seminar a potential chapter in your dissertation.
Don't waste your time taking doctoral seminars that won't have any value towards your dissertation. The name of the game should be efficiency. At the end of these seminars you are required to write 25-30 page papers that require lots and lots of thought and effort. Not being able to do something with that final product is a tragedy - you don't have the time to waste (well, you might, but why do it?)
There's more to come - watch this space!
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Adviser Turf Wars - fighting for apprentices?
Pursuing a PhD is like going through an apprenticeship for many of us doctoral students. You are taken under your adviser's wings and his or her interests become yours (ideally). I was fortunate enough to know what I wanted to work on during my studies and selected my adviser based on this interest. Getting accepted into GW and getting my first choice adviser has made life so much easier than it could have been - I know this because I have seen the alternative and, trust me, it isn't pretty.
Doctoral students become virtual apprentices of their advisers and are expected to "drink the kool-aid" In my opinion, it isn't hard to understand why. Firstly, faculty members don't get paid to mentor their "advisees". They have to read their miserable attempts at research papers, answer their random questions, and explain to them why they can't work outside the University even though their stipend barely pays for rent and food (forget diapers!) - all for free. Their "quid pro quo" is the opportunity to turn their students into disciples.
When you get your PhD and go out into academia, you become known not as the "XYZ-trained economist" but as "Dr. XYZ's former student"- this is where the opportunity lies! If their mentorship task is done well, faculty members can spawn academic carbon copies of themselves who will quote their research, spread their theories, and increase their academic "footprints." In the course of 25 years, one professor can can turn 5 doctoral students into into over 100 professors around the world towing the same academic line (assuming each of those 5 mentor 5 students, who also mentor 5 students each)!
Having research interests that truly jive with the research interests of your adviser means never having to pretend that you want to work on a project for him or her. It means that you don't risk finding out that someone else's work is more interesting or is in some way a better match for you. Having the right adviser is more important than attending the right program in many ways. Although I would agree with my Mom's advice to buy the worst home in the best neighborhood instead of the best home in an "up and coming" neighborhood, I would say that it would be better to have the best advisor in an "up and coming" program than to have the worst adviser in a top program. If you are blessed with both, more grease to your elbows!
If you are thinking about applying to a PhD program, my advice is to try and find out who will be available to work with you before making your selection. If your adviser is not doing things that interest you there will likely be rough times ahead - if he or she also doesn't get along with others in the department and prevents you from working with other faculty members in the department, you're in even worse shape. And this is where the fighting I mentioned above comes into play. One of the worst things that a faculty member can do is try and convert their colleagues disciples to their own philosophical camp - I've seen it tried and it is not pretty!
Choose your adviser wisely - you will always be known as "Dr. XYZ's student/prodigy/apprentice" and, trust me, you want to carry that badge with pride!
Doctoral students become virtual apprentices of their advisers and are expected to "drink the kool-aid" In my opinion, it isn't hard to understand why. Firstly, faculty members don't get paid to mentor their "advisees". They have to read their miserable attempts at research papers, answer their random questions, and explain to them why they can't work outside the University even though their stipend barely pays for rent and food (forget diapers!) - all for free. Their "quid pro quo" is the opportunity to turn their students into disciples.
When you get your PhD and go out into academia, you become known not as the "XYZ-trained economist" but as "Dr. XYZ's former student"- this is where the opportunity lies! If their mentorship task is done well, faculty members can spawn academic carbon copies of themselves who will quote their research, spread their theories, and increase their academic "footprints." In the course of 25 years, one professor can can turn 5 doctoral students into into over 100 professors around the world towing the same academic line (assuming each of those 5 mentor 5 students, who also mentor 5 students each)!
Having research interests that truly jive with the research interests of your adviser means never having to pretend that you want to work on a project for him or her. It means that you don't risk finding out that someone else's work is more interesting or is in some way a better match for you. Having the right adviser is more important than attending the right program in many ways. Although I would agree with my Mom's advice to buy the worst home in the best neighborhood instead of the best home in an "up and coming" neighborhood, I would say that it would be better to have the best advisor in an "up and coming" program than to have the worst adviser in a top program. If you are blessed with both, more grease to your elbows!
If you are thinking about applying to a PhD program, my advice is to try and find out who will be available to work with you before making your selection. If your adviser is not doing things that interest you there will likely be rough times ahead - if he or she also doesn't get along with others in the department and prevents you from working with other faculty members in the department, you're in even worse shape. And this is where the fighting I mentioned above comes into play. One of the worst things that a faculty member can do is try and convert their colleagues disciples to their own philosophical camp - I've seen it tried and it is not pretty!
Choose your adviser wisely - you will always be known as "Dr. XYZ's student/prodigy/apprentice" and, trust me, you want to carry that badge with pride!
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Politics of life as an Academic
I knew that success in a doctoral program involved some element of "politicking" way before my first day at the GW Business School - it was more than six months before I sent in my application when a faculty member at the school explained to me that my chance of getting in was possibly as much a function of who I knew as it was of what I knew. It was after that conversation that I began a campaign of phone calls to every professor and associate professor who would give me a few minutes to talk and whose research interests were even tangentially related to what I would eventually study at GW. The process was reminiscent of my business school days where those interested in Investment Banking spent hours hobnobbing with overworked Associates and VPs at information sessions and during "informational interviews" in order to get a coveted spot on the closed list (or whatever they called it).
In a doctoral program, the applicants that make it past the initial screen (e.g., is the application complete? Did they spell their name right on the application form?) then have to be vouched for by at least one department in order to get their application to the final stage of the process - whose going to vouch for someone he or she has never seen or spoke to? It is only after getting your vouch that you advance to the final stage of review, where applications are fed into an IBM mainframe which takes 36 hours to complete a complex process of combining GRE scores, vouches (the strength of which is determined by 1) tenure, 2) number of publications 3) strength of journals in which papers are published, 4) conference presentations 5) strength of said conferences, 6) classes taught, 7) strength of classes taught, and, finally 8) the scores on items 1-7 that people the voucher previously vouched receive), and essays*.
After the mainframe, fondly nicknamed "Georgette," spits out the names of the successful future academics"the requisite steps are taken to notify the applicants that the next several years of their lives will be full of jockeying for juicy teaching assistant posts, publications in top journals, speaking slots at conferences in exotic locales, and (of course) for a job at an institution where they can then jockey for classes to teach, publications to be a reviewer for, graduate students to be teaching assistants AND (of course) for tenure, when they can then jockey for office space, consulting opportunities, journals to be an editor for, graduate students to (I think you get the picture).
Right now my colleagues and I are only jockeying amongst each other for seats in class that minimize interaction with those certain professors that have a fondness for asking first year doctoral students questions that no first-year doctoral student should be able to answer. We have been temporarily spared the politics of academic life but only until we navigate through the thousands of pages of reading we are required to do a week and simultaneously master the 3 different statistical packages (the irony of this aspect of things is that one of the fortunate faculty members who has been blessed with teaching us to use this software keeps telling us that a fouth package will ultimately be the one everyone will be using).
As a first year doctoral student, I have only experienced a few months of what is evidently a very complex web of relationships that a full time academic builds and relies upon to have a successful career. The revelation that the "politics" I have encountered in professional life very much exists in academics was an interesting one and will surely not be the last surprise I will encounter during this journey. Stay tuned!
*Just kidding - there are only 4 items that Georgette processes to make a decision.
In a doctoral program, the applicants that make it past the initial screen (e.g., is the application complete? Did they spell their name right on the application form?) then have to be vouched for by at least one department in order to get their application to the final stage of the process - whose going to vouch for someone he or she has never seen or spoke to? It is only after getting your vouch that you advance to the final stage of review, where applications are fed into an IBM mainframe which takes 36 hours to complete a complex process of combining GRE scores, vouches (the strength of which is determined by 1) tenure, 2) number of publications 3) strength of journals in which papers are published, 4) conference presentations 5) strength of said conferences, 6) classes taught, 7) strength of classes taught, and, finally 8) the scores on items 1-7 that people the voucher previously vouched receive), and essays*.
After the mainframe, fondly nicknamed "Georgette," spits out the names of the successful future academics"the requisite steps are taken to notify the applicants that the next several years of their lives will be full of jockeying for juicy teaching assistant posts, publications in top journals, speaking slots at conferences in exotic locales, and (of course) for a job at an institution where they can then jockey for classes to teach, publications to be a reviewer for, graduate students to be teaching assistants AND (of course) for tenure, when they can then jockey for office space, consulting opportunities, journals to be an editor for, graduate students to (I think you get the picture).
Right now my colleagues and I are only jockeying amongst each other for seats in class that minimize interaction with those certain professors that have a fondness for asking first year doctoral students questions that no first-year doctoral student should be able to answer. We have been temporarily spared the politics of academic life but only until we navigate through the thousands of pages of reading we are required to do a week and simultaneously master the 3 different statistical packages (the irony of this aspect of things is that one of the fortunate faculty members who has been blessed with teaching us to use this software keeps telling us that a fouth package will ultimately be the one everyone will be using).
As a first year doctoral student, I have only experienced a few months of what is evidently a very complex web of relationships that a full time academic builds and relies upon to have a successful career. The revelation that the "politics" I have encountered in professional life very much exists in academics was an interesting one and will surely not be the last surprise I will encounter during this journey. Stay tuned!
*Just kidding - there are only 4 items that Georgette processes to make a decision.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Of all the things to pretend to be - a PhD holder??
On the Real Housewives of Atlanta, Sheree (I think that's her name) is confronted with a situation. Her boyfriend, Tiy-E Muhammad, had been pretending that he had a PhD, prompting Sheree to call him "Dr. Tiy-E."
I was confused on two levels: firstly, what was it about being a PhD that made Dr. Tiy-E want to have one? Secondly, what about being a PhD made him attractive to someone who drives an Aston Martin?
People with Doctor of Philosophy degrees are afforded a level of respect in society, presumably in recognition of their wide range of knowledge about a specific topic. Phd holders go through several years of reading, doing research, sniffing out free food, and attending industry conferences.
[Note: Although many PhD candidates are given some sort of stipends to defray certain costs, they are not, as many people assume, "paid to go to school." I sometimes think that doctoral funding is one giant research study that attempts to find out how long a student will attempt to live within the amount given before caving in and getting a job (tutor, library, online poker player) to make ends meet.]
After completing your program and earning your celebrated PhD, you land a prestigious job at a top University and earn roughly what the average MBA applicant makes when he is applying for Business School (now for PhD students who have MBAs, this begs several questions, all of which will remain unanswered in this post). While you may never drive an Aston Martin, once you have tenure your income is guaranteed (for as long as you have the energy to speak for 45 minutes straight twice a week and can find enough funding for TAs and RAs to do the rest of your work) not many professions offer this sort of perk.
Now when I consider the "Real Housewives" cast members, I can't help but wonder whether they somehow equate PhDs to MDs - after all, they are all doctors, right? Was Sheree dating a Doctor because she thought he made a lot of money? When she heard he was staying at the Holiday Inn and laughed along with miss "Tardy to the Pardy" was she thinking "I don't care if he's rich, he's fine and he's a doctor"? Who knows.
Now back to my first question, about "Dr. Tiy-E" - I understand that being known as a Doctor could have helped his credibility as far as his radio show was concerned and I'm sure he fancied himself a Black Dr. Drew. Once he got found out the first time, though, why would he insist on still going around claiming a PhD? Perhaps it was because he knew that the chances of getting jumped by "real" members of the PhD fraternity if discovered and found those chances more favorable than for claiming to be a volunteer firefighter. Perhaps he, too, knowing nothing about what a PhD does/earns/eats for a living, thought that he could pull off the "Rich Phd" oxymoron (note: I am exaggerating a bit here - I hear that there are a lot of rich Math PhDs working for Goldman Sachs).
In any case, I would like to advocate that people think twice about pretending that you have a PhD, especially if you have no idea what having one means. Not only do you run the real risk of meeting someone who is as clueless as you and having an absurd relationship based on your joint ignorance, but you also risk being laughed at (and possibly jumped) by those who have spilled their blood, sweat, and tears earning their degree. You don't just wake up one day and decide to become a cynical academic - the process takes years! The inverse relationship between capital letters behind your name and ability to lay the smackdown doesn't matter - PhDs travel in packs.
I was confused on two levels: firstly, what was it about being a PhD that made Dr. Tiy-E want to have one? Secondly, what about being a PhD made him attractive to someone who drives an Aston Martin?
People with Doctor of Philosophy degrees are afforded a level of respect in society, presumably in recognition of their wide range of knowledge about a specific topic. Phd holders go through several years of reading, doing research, sniffing out free food, and attending industry conferences.
[Note: Although many PhD candidates are given some sort of stipends to defray certain costs, they are not, as many people assume, "paid to go to school." I sometimes think that doctoral funding is one giant research study that attempts to find out how long a student will attempt to live within the amount given before caving in and getting a job (tutor, library, online poker player) to make ends meet.]
After completing your program and earning your celebrated PhD, you land a prestigious job at a top University and earn roughly what the average MBA applicant makes when he is applying for Business School (now for PhD students who have MBAs, this begs several questions, all of which will remain unanswered in this post). While you may never drive an Aston Martin, once you have tenure your income is guaranteed (for as long as you have the energy to speak for 45 minutes straight twice a week and can find enough funding for TAs and RAs to do the rest of your work) not many professions offer this sort of perk.
Now when I consider the "Real Housewives" cast members, I can't help but wonder whether they somehow equate PhDs to MDs - after all, they are all doctors, right? Was Sheree dating a Doctor because she thought he made a lot of money? When she heard he was staying at the Holiday Inn and laughed along with miss "Tardy to the Pardy" was she thinking "I don't care if he's rich, he's fine and he's a doctor"? Who knows.
Now back to my first question, about "Dr. Tiy-E" - I understand that being known as a Doctor could have helped his credibility as far as his radio show was concerned and I'm sure he fancied himself a Black Dr. Drew. Once he got found out the first time, though, why would he insist on still going around claiming a PhD? Perhaps it was because he knew that the chances of getting jumped by "real" members of the PhD fraternity if discovered and found those chances more favorable than for claiming to be a volunteer firefighter. Perhaps he, too, knowing nothing about what a PhD does/earns/eats for a living, thought that he could pull off the "Rich Phd" oxymoron (note: I am exaggerating a bit here - I hear that there are a lot of rich Math PhDs working for Goldman Sachs).
In any case, I would like to advocate that people think twice about pretending that you have a PhD, especially if you have no idea what having one means. Not only do you run the real risk of meeting someone who is as clueless as you and having an absurd relationship based on your joint ignorance, but you also risk being laughed at (and possibly jumped) by those who have spilled their blood, sweat, and tears earning their degree. You don't just wake up one day and decide to become a cynical academic - the process takes years! The inverse relationship between capital letters behind your name and ability to lay the smackdown doesn't matter - PhDs travel in packs.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Philosophy of Research - Writing about Bulls**t
"On Bullshit," written by Princeton University scholar Harry Frankfurt (download here) is one of the more popular modern pieces of modern philosophy. In this essay the reader is taken through a thorough analysis of a word that is apparently misused on a regular basis - according to the writer, "we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what function it serves."
"On Bullshit" is actually a rather interesting read and I suggest that everyone who has a spare moment to spend a few minutes to check it out.
My introduction to the essay occurred, believe it or not, in my Philosophy in Research class, in we are being taught the variety of things that we no nothing about anything. We are asking heavy questions such as following (courtesy of Professor John Artz):
Your friend lends you a laptop and during the year that you borrowed it, the wireless card fails, the hard drive needs replacing, and eventually everything needs to be replaced. For reasons unknown to anybody, you save all of the parts that you replaced and can assemble a second laptop.
Your friend returns and you tell her the story about the failed parts and subsequent repairs. You then ask her which laptop she wants. "I want the one I lent you," she says.
"Well, then take this laptop that I made you out of all of the failed components of the laptop that you lent me" you offer.
But it isn't the same laptop" your friend replies. "That laptop was working:
"OK," you capitulate, "take the other laptop"
"But that's not the laptop that I lent you" she asserts. "It is a collection of new parts."
What do you?
This, and other connundrums are discussed in our Philosophy of research class. We are learning how to analyze concepts "such as Bullshit," construct logical arguments, and identify research topics that make sense. Class is fun, but the homework can be mind-boggling (I say this as I read the 200 pages of assigned reading for the third time, after which I need to do a presentation on the contents). We are supposed to leave this class with a better ability to do research and the jury is still out regarding whether it will achieve its goal.
If nothing else, we can leave the class with a firmer understanding of what Bullshit means.
"On Bullshit" is actually a rather interesting read and I suggest that everyone who has a spare moment to spend a few minutes to check it out.
My introduction to the essay occurred, believe it or not, in my Philosophy in Research class, in we are being taught the variety of things that we no nothing about anything. We are asking heavy questions such as following (courtesy of Professor John Artz):
Your friend lends you a laptop and during the year that you borrowed it, the wireless card fails, the hard drive needs replacing, and eventually everything needs to be replaced. For reasons unknown to anybody, you save all of the parts that you replaced and can assemble a second laptop.
Your friend returns and you tell her the story about the failed parts and subsequent repairs. You then ask her which laptop she wants. "I want the one I lent you," she says.
"Well, then take this laptop that I made you out of all of the failed components of the laptop that you lent me" you offer.
But it isn't the same laptop" your friend replies. "That laptop was working:
"OK," you capitulate, "take the other laptop"
"But that's not the laptop that I lent you" she asserts. "It is a collection of new parts."
What do you?
This, and other connundrums are discussed in our Philosophy of research class. We are learning how to analyze concepts "such as Bullshit," construct logical arguments, and identify research topics that make sense. Class is fun, but the homework can be mind-boggling (I say this as I read the 200 pages of assigned reading for the third time, after which I need to do a presentation on the contents). We are supposed to leave this class with a better ability to do research and the jury is still out regarding whether it will achieve its goal.
If nothing else, we can leave the class with a firmer understanding of what Bullshit means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)