Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

nextscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#51

Post by kchoudhu »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #27

The biggest thing I noticed when starting my PhD was all the first and second years derping around not doing much, all the third years panicking and "just getting going" and all the 4th and 5th years really grinding. So, I inverted that and worked my ass off like I was still an undergrad in the first 18 months, toned it down for the next year and submitted my thesis at 2 years 10 months (the earliest my university wo…

This is generally why I think it's a good idea for undergraduates to get a couple of years of work experience in before returning for their PhDs: the experience of grinding out work that you really don't want to be doing is salutary and acts as motivation to get on with things once in the program.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#52

Post by kchoudhu »

joncrocks wrote: post #47
eanzenberg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, unless you are at Cambridge or Oxford, getting a PhD in Europe about equates to a masters in the US.

Could you explain what you mean? In terms of time spent? Level of knowledge in the subject area?

Americans tend to look down on anyone who has a doctorate from anywhere in Europe that isn't Oxford or Cambridge. I'm not sure it's justified, but there you go.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#53

Post by godelski »

j7ake wrote: post #19

I'm a little confused, has this person contributed to science in any significant way ? If not why should we listen to this person and ignore scientists who have actually achieved success in their field ?

Generally, getting a PhD in a scientific field means that you contributed to science in a significant way.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#54

Post by xaa »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #27

The biggest thing I noticed when starting my PhD was all the first and second years derping around not doing much, all the third years panicking and "just getting going" and all the 4th and 5th years really grinding. So, I inverted that and worked my ass off like I was still an undergrad in the first 18 months, toned it down for the next year and submitted my thesis at 2 years 10 months (the earliest my university wo…

Wow. I just defended a few weeks ago, at 7 years. And honestly, until about year 5, I felt no rush whatsoever to get out. Not that I was derping around -- I finished with 20+ papers -- but I was enjoying it, and I realized that once I was out, two undesirable things would happen:

- I would have to start running the grant treadmill (and indeed, I'm just in the middle of finalizing a training grant that has as one of its requirements...that I must write another grant)

- In the US NIH, there is a 10 year "New Investigator" status that lasts 10 years from the PhD, where you are preferred for certain types of grant awards. So I reasoned it is much better to graduate late and start this clock from a strong position than to rush up the hierarchy and find yourself victim of the Peter Principle.

So for me, delay was a conscious strategy. Only downside was I had to live on a modest stipend. It was worth it for me, though. Another point that I'm making is that "productivity" is not equivalent to "graduating/getting promoted as fast as possible".

As for TFA, I would say that amazing quantities of work can get done by pushing yourself, deadlines, etc, but the creative work that lays groundwork for future growth only occurs during low-stress periods. I try, therefore, to set up alternating periods of both types.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#55

Post by [deleted] »

eanzenberg wrote: post #44
throwawayaway12 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doing a PhD in the UK helps, in and out before the funding dries up in 3-4 years is expected along with no class requirements and no masters needed (can go in straight from Bachelors) I think this is the key sentence for a US perspective. 2 years of course work + 3 years of research for 5 years total is common in STEM fields.

Yeah, unless you are at Cambridge or Oxford, getting a PhD in Europe about equates to a masters in the US.

[deleted]

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#56

Post by a_e_k »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #23
foobarbecue wrote: post #2

Fewer hours. And yeah, I agree -- that's how I got mine done.

I admit I logged in to HN to make the same grammar correction. Fewer/Less grammar errors bug me badly. I don't know why this particular grammatical error bugs me so, but every time I encounter it, I have an inner voice that yells 'fewer.' My family hates me for it.

Same here. I think the reason it bugs me so much is because my mind views it as a type error:

    int fewer;
    float less;
is how I tend to remember the distinction. (Fortunately in my family, my wife is the language nerd who first called me on my misuse many years ago. Now I notice it everywhere too. It's weirdly viral.)

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#57

Post by chrisseaton »

kchoudhu wrote: post #52
joncrocks wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain what you mean? In terms of time spent? Level of knowledge in the subject area?

Americans tend to look down on anyone who has a doctorate from anywhere in Europe that isn't Oxford or Cambridge. I'm not sure it's justified, but there you go.

If you spent seven years doing something someone else did in three you're be bitter about it as well :)

I think the European approach is proved sound, since people do managed to produce top-tier publications in that time.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#58

Post by kcorbitt »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #27

The biggest thing I noticed when starting my PhD was all the first and second years derping around not doing much, all the third years panicking and "just getting going" and all the 4th and 5th years really grinding. So, I inverted that and worked my ass off like I was still an undergrad in the first 18 months, toned it down for the next year and submitted my thesis at 2 years 10 months (the earliest my university wo…

> Doing a PhD in the UK helps, in and out before the funding dries up in 3-4 years is expected along with no class requirements and no masters needed (can go in straight from Bachelors).

This is a key point. My wife's university in the UK actively tried to get its PhD candidates in and out in 3 years (with an optional 4th year for writing, typically part-time), and more than half of her cohort achieved that. While it's possible to get through a US PhD that fast, the norm is much longer. My wife's PhD is in biomedical materials.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#59

Post by tonyedgecombe »

munin wrote: post #40
otakucode wrote: post #37

Essentially every single aspect of our cultures understanding about how to accomplish things and do work is a direct outgrowth of assembly-line manufacturing. Mental work is fundamentally different. But we continue to treat mental work as if its the same thing as mindless physical rote repetition. Humans aren't capable of extended periods of mental exertion. 40 hours of work a week was fine when moving sheet metal in…

> Humans aren't capable of extended periods of mental exertion The humans on my thesis committee are definitely capable of extended periods of mental exertion. I don't know if it's something you're only born with or if it's something you can train but I bet I'll find out in a few years.

How would you know? It looks difficult, maybe even impossible to measure academic productivity.

Re: PhD Productivity Strategy: Do Deep Work in Less Hours

#60

Post by vazamb »

eanzenberg wrote: post #44
throwawayaway12 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doing a PhD in the UK helps, in and out before the funding dries up in 3-4 years is expected along with no class requirements and no masters needed (can go in straight from Bachelors) I think this is the key sentence for a US perspective. 2 years of course work + 3 years of research for 5 years total is common in STEM fields.

Yeah, unless you are at Cambridge or Oxford, getting a PhD in Europe about equates to a masters in the US.

At least in Germany you need a masters to start a PhD and I think this is true for most of Europe. Actually, I always thought America is one of the few countries where you can start a PhD right out of undergrad.
Post reply on HN