How to do a PhD • Hacker News Board

Re: How to do a PhD

#31

Post by anonymousDan » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #27

I've seen a lot of really good people get very badly hurt pursuing a Ph.D. I did get a STEM field Ph.D. but didn't get hurt. For a good and broad view of the problem, buried in D. Knuth's The TeXBook is "The traditional way is to put off all creative aspects until the last part of graduate school. For seventeen or more years, a student is taught examsmanship, then suddenly after passing enough exams in graduate schoo…

As someone doing research in systems CS with a CS background but not pure math, I think you're on to something here. However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it is in some sense more fundamental.

Re: How to do a PhD

#32

Post by ArkyBeagle » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

ideonexus wrote: post #11

5. Get to know the literature I'm not writing a thesis, but a book on teaching coding, and this one point is really important. One of my chapters was on the cognitive benefits of writing software code--which I assumed were great because of Seymor Papert ("Mindstorms") and Ted Nelson's ("Computer Lib/Dream Machines") glowing enthusiasm for teaching kids how to code. I started writing the chapter and had to get into th…

CS literature is uniformly abysmal.

Re: How to do a PhD

#33

Post by analog31 » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #17

I really wish they would just get rid of the PhD. Keep the Master's degree. Have a hard series of tests, that if a person passed, they would get, I don't know, maybe a "Certified Master in Whatever."? The test would be difficult--maybe like the CA bar, NY bar? Harder! It would save a lot of money. It would save a lot confusion about a person's abilities. Right now, I look at a fresh, young PhD with a lot of skeptism.…

Plus, I'm tired of calling someone a Doctor who isn't a MD.

In industry, nobody calls me doctor unless I just did something stupid. ;-)

Well, sometimes they also use the term if working with people in a country where it's customary. But not here in the US. When someone wears their PhD on their sleeve, and insists on being called "doctor," the other PhD's snicker and assume the person is headed for Management or Consulting.

Re: How to do a PhD

#34

Post by dang » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #17

I really wish they would just get rid of the PhD. Keep the Master's degree. Have a hard series of tests, that if a person passed, they would get, I don't know, maybe a "Certified Master in Whatever."? The test would be difficult--maybe like the CA bar, NY bar? Harder! It would save a lot of money. It would save a lot confusion about a person's abilities. Right now, I look at a fresh, young PhD with a lot of skeptism.…

I don't know how many dozens of these off-topic stories about old girlfriends you've posted, but we've asked you before to stop, and enough is enough. Really, please stop. This is not what HN is for.

Once or twice would have been fine, obviously, but you exceeded that a long time ago.

Re: How to do a PhD

#35

Post by scarecrowbob » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #3

While it has a bit of snark to it, certainly conveys the point of "This is your PhD. No one is going to hold your hand. Get it done." The people who drop out of PhD programs usually are plenty smart enough, they just don't know how to make things happen. Then again, some people seem content and happy to do 8 years of PhD studies followed by 10 more of meandering post-docs. Bummer is when they're surprised that no one…

"The people who drop out of PhD programs usually are plenty smart enough, they just don't know how to make things happen."

It's possible that those of us who drop out of PhD programs have, in fact, made quite a few things "happen" in our lives and realized that the job market was terrible, the subject was... just stupid... and that there are other things in life than petty academic squabbles.

Just to disclose, I was about 6 months away from defending my dissertation and didn't want to throw another half a year of my life away working at a minimum wage job so I might (possibly) be able to work at a poorly paying job for the rest of my life.

It was the first really great adult decision that I made in my life.

Re: How to do a PhD

#36

Post by graycat » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

anonymousDan wrote: post #31

graycat wrote: post #27

I've seen a lot of really good people get very badly hurt pursuing a Ph.D. I did get a STEM field Ph.D. but didn't get hurt. For a good and broad view of the problem, buried in D. Knuth's The TeXBook is "The traditional way is to put off all creative aspects until the last part of graduate school. For seventeen or more years, a student is taught examsmanship, then suddenly after passing enough exams in graduate schoo…

As someone doing research in systems CS with a CS background but not pure math, I think you're on to something here. However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it…

Yup:

> However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research).

A very old story is that field crossing is a powerful aid to innovation.

> Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it is in some sense more fundamental.

Yup, especially for the most respected research, mathematizing a field.

Re: How to do a PhD

#37

Post by anonymousDan » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #36

anonymousDan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone doing research in systems CS with a CS background but not pure math, I think you're on to something here. However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it…

Yup: > However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). A very old story is that field crossing is a powerful aid to innovation. > Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it is in some sense more fundamental.…

> Yup, especially for the most respected research, mathematizing a field.

Well, that's debatable :) I can think of plenty of recent systems conferences where the best paper had nothing to do with mathematizing the field.

Re: How to do a PhD

#38

Post by turkishrevenge » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #17

I really wish they would just get rid of the PhD. Keep the Master's degree. Have a hard series of tests, that if a person passed, they would get, I don't know, maybe a "Certified Master in Whatever."? The test would be difficult--maybe like the CA bar, NY bar? Harder! It would save a lot of money. It would save a lot confusion about a person's abilities. Right now, I look at a fresh, young PhD with a lot of skeptism.…

I appreciate your comment. Yeah, it's sincere and rambling, but at least it's an interesting slice of a stranger's life. HN can't or won't enjoy something like this.

Re: How to do a PhD

#39

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

anonymousDan wrote: post #37

graycat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup: > However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). A very old story is that field crossing is a powerful aid to innovation. > Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it is in some sense more fundamental.…

> Yup, especially for the most respected research, mathematizing a field. Well, that's debatable :) I can think of plenty of recent systems conferences where the best paper had nothing to do with mathematizing the field.

Systems work is often awful though, precisely due to the religious aversion we systems people carry to notions like "proof", "mathematics", and "correctness".

Yes, I work in systems. No, don't ask me what I system I'm talking about. I'm certainly not allowed to tell you, of course, and anyway there have been multiple such systems throughout my life.

So. Many. Race conditions.

Re: How to do a PhD

#40

Post by graycat » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

anonymousDan wrote: post #37

graycat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup: > However, I think you could also view it from the perspective of it often being easy to make a novel contribution in a field when you possess skills from a completely different field (i.e. interdisciplinary research). A very old story is that field crossing is a powerful aid to innovation. > Of course you could argue whether mathematics should be treated differently because it is in some sense more fundamental.…

> Yup, especially for the most respected research, mathematizing a field. Well, that's debatable :) I can think of plenty of recent systems conferences where the best paper had nothing to do with mathematizing the field.

Sounds like an opportunity for applying some math to systems!!