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

Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#71

Post by asciident »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #42
asciident wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree. Everyone's situation in a PhD is different enough that the only general concepts you could teach would be high level and useless. Personal finance classes in high school are filled with junk like "make sure to spend less than you earn" and "here's how you balance a checkbook" and "never forget to pay your bills". For group work, the workshops I've taken for it talk about "listen before speaking"…

You are saying that you've had bad experiences with courses trying to teach those things. Those things might not be easy to teach. But that doesn't mean they are useless or that they shouldn't be taught. To me, it means the methods of teaching those things, in the workshops you took, should be improved.

I think it's likely that there's no way to teach those courses that is useful to a broad population. It's just such a subjective thing, like imagine teaching a course on "how to be happy". Even someone trying really hard may have limited impact.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#72

Post by shrimpx »

supernova87a wrote: post #2

I will just offer some unsolicited advice about PhDs, as it came up a few weeks ago also. And the author touches on this. Of course this mostly applies to empirical sciences, but maybe some theoretical ones too. An effective PhD advisor/thesis isn't wandering the woods to find something. It's a guided coaching exercise, with an outcome in mind. Test whether the PhD advisor you select knows this and has a history of t…

My impression is that things are drastically different if you’re going for a top professorship vs something else, like a job at google. If you’re going for a professorship then basically nothing matters until you strike on an idea that hits it out of the park in some way. And it’s a tricky combination of technical and political fitness. Depending on your work, some schools will like you more than others.

If you’re just looking for a job in some research lab then a basic “get it done” process on an incremental result works fine.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#73

Post by abdullahkhalids »

pmohun wrote: post #45

This is a fascinating look inside the academic system. Eric, a question if I may: Is there room for a modern PhD that values breadth over depth? The goal of completing a Ph.D. program is to become the most knowledgable person in the world about a specific topic. While this is a valuable goal for disciplines that reward specialization, it does not provide enough flexibility for autodidacts with a range of interests. A…

> Is there room for a modern PhD that values breadth over depth?

How little depth? You can read a whole bunch of popular books on a wide variety of subjects during your lifetime, and that's fine, but its very low depth. You can't do much with that knowledge.

I think you need to realize is that a PhD is not a "study". That is a Bachelors/Masters program typically, where you mostly consume the knowledge of others. A PhD is about becoming a knowledge creator.

You can become a knowledge creator without a PhD, no question about that. All you have to do is learn some field of study (via online courses or going through textbooks), do enough literature review to identify an unsolved problem (listen to technical talks), and finally solve it by dedicating a year of your life to it. You can then move on to a different area if you are bored of this area.

> modern P.h.D. students spend more time than necessary dealing with administrative functions like teaching, grading, and paperwork for the university

This is a problem of economics. The students who are on fully funded scholarships don't do any teaching or grading, and I am sure anyone can handle the 10 hours of paperwork per year. Either you can be good enough to get that scholarship or you can save/borrow 125K and do a Phd unburdened by anything.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#74

Post by haakonhr »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #20
n3ur0n wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a rising 5th year PhD in ML -- I could not agree with this advice more! I have very hands-off advisors. I spent the first 3 years "wandering the woods to find something". Last year, I really had to sit down and think about how I can finish up my PhD on time. I pretty much did what you outline here. A lot of tools I used were organization tools I learned from my business school/product manager friends. I honestly t…

> we need to teach students about project management, planning etc. This is a problem with education in general. Those things should be taught in middle/high school as essential tools for modern life. Same as personal finances, effective strategies for team/group work, overcoming social anxiety, managing stress and building/maintaining relationships (personal and professional).

What do we cut out of the curriculum to find space for these things? We are barely able to teach people how to read, write and do arithmetic properly. I agree that these skills are essential, but it is so easy to just say that we should teach it in school.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#75

Post by johntfella »

n3ur0n wrote: post #11
supernova87a wrote: post #2

I will just offer some unsolicited advice about PhDs, as it came up a few weeks ago also. And the author touches on this. Of course this mostly applies to empirical sciences, but maybe some theoretical ones too. An effective PhD advisor/thesis isn't wandering the woods to find something. It's a guided coaching exercise, with an outcome in mind. Test whether the PhD advisor you select knows this and has a history of t…

As a rising 5th year PhD in ML -- I could not agree with this advice more! I have very hands-off advisors. I spent the first 3 years "wandering the woods to find something". Last year, I really had to sit down and think about how I can finish up my PhD on time. I pretty much did what you outline here. A lot of tools I used were organization tools I learned from my business school/product manager friends. I honestly t…

I preferred wandering the woods. I transferred to a university that was more about wandering than coaching.

I'm skeptical of the calls to overhaul. Undergrads and even masters degrees went through this and now we have group projects and less individual learning. Too much focus on team work and collaboration. If anything we need to be teaching more wandering through the woods, more being on the out over the in of the group.

I would say there should be sort of a short PhD, maybe akin to MPhils, and ideally a step above the masters but below the PhD. The MPhils fulfil this ideal of more professionalized programs while PhD programs can remain more to their traditional styles.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#76

Post by widforss »

Beldin wrote: post #67
g_p wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt your way actually about it at the time. I like the 3 year timescale and greater level of self led work. I pretty much avoided doing any "taught" courses for the reasons you outlined, but I have found some of my students did benefit from them. I think it comes down to individuals and what they need. It wasn't right for you or me, but I think there are some students who perhaps come in needing a little bit of a…

I'm not from the UK. The idea of someone becoming an actual PhD in 3 years is rather quaint to me. Perhaps it's just a different approach, or perhaps the PhD system I'm used to produces a level of results that UK PhDs typically only achieve after their first PostDoc. Or, perhaps there is an initial period of a year or so where the student is not yet doing a PhD, but is trying to produce results nevertheless. Saw that…

I don't think US PhD's are required to have a Master's to begin with, no?

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#77

Post by xenonite »

pmohun wrote: post #45

This is a fascinating look inside the academic system. Eric, a question if I may: Is there room for a modern PhD that values breadth over depth? The goal of completing a Ph.D. program is to become the most knowledgable person in the world about a specific topic. While this is a valuable goal for disciplines that reward specialization, it does not provide enough flexibility for autodidacts with a range of interests. A…

A PhD usually focuses on depth because you need to find new results, which usually isn't possible with breadth alone.

A nice visualization: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#78

Post by feral »

xab31 wrote: post #47
feral wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nooo :-) If you find yourself in a PhD program with an advisor who thinks like the above, it's really important to not internalize their viewpoint. It's not a job. A job would pay much better! It's not your advisors money, and they aren't paying you to advance their career. Independence is critical, but so that you can avoid becoming someone else's cheap labor, and can instead focus on doing work that educates you an…

Hard disagree. I made every possible mistake that can be made related to being too idealistic about grad school; for example, I believed: - My advisor and collaborators have my best interests at heart - My primary role in graduate school is to develop novel, useful, reproducible ideas - Grants, fellowships, and stipends are generous donations freely given in order to enable the above - Quality is more important than…

I wasn't advocating being naive about conflicts of interest.

But the solution to a conflict of interest is not to internalize your advisor's point of view!

So don't think of them as your manager, in some traditional sense.

Think of them as your mentor, not your boss. Most of the time it's hard for them to fire you. Think long term, don't be tricked into optimizing their need for a stream of low quality papers to inflate their indices, or whatever pathology they may be pursuing.

I had a great advisor who didn't do any of this. But if my advisor was just trying to exploit me, and I had no way to effectively ignore it, it would substantially decrease the value of doing a phd, to the point where I'm not sure id recommend it in terms of expected value.

>What are they paying you for, then?

They aren't paying you. It's whatever body awarded the Grant's money. And they probably didn't set out to increase your advisors hindex.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#79

Post by jasonzemos »

johntfella wrote: post #75
n3ur0n wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a rising 5th year PhD in ML -- I could not agree with this advice more! I have very hands-off advisors. I spent the first 3 years "wandering the woods to find something". Last year, I really had to sit down and think about how I can finish up my PhD on time. I pretty much did what you outline here. A lot of tools I used were organization tools I learned from my business school/product manager friends. I honestly t…

I preferred wandering the woods. I transferred to a university that was more about wandering than coaching. I'm skeptical of the calls to overhaul. Undergrads and even masters degrees went through this and now we have group projects and less individual learning. Too much focus on team work and collaboration. If anything we need to be teaching more wandering through the woods, more being on the out over the in of the…

Or bring back the Habilitation above PhD for serious academics. PhD is already sought after too much for professional reasons. Another 10 year commitment distills the lovers of wisdom from the lovers of cash.

Re: Syllabus for Eric's PhD Students

#80

Post by galoisgirl »

haakonhr wrote: post #74
ta1234567890 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we need to teach students about project management, planning etc. This is a problem with education in general. Those things should be taught in middle/high school as essential tools for modern life. Same as personal finances, effective strategies for team/group work, overcoming social anxiety, managing stress and building/maintaining relationships (personal and professional).

What do we cut out of the curriculum to find space for these things? We are barely able to teach people how to read, write and do arithmetic properly. I agree that these skills are essential, but it is so easy to just say that we should teach it in school.

It's not a space problem if that's all we can teach people in 12 years, it's a teaching problem.
Post reply on HN