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

Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

jeffhuang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#141

Post by Fomite »

zura wrote: post #128
Fomite wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I essentially did a remote PhD for the last three years of my doctorate. While it was possible, and I'd defend my decision to do it, it's a tough road, and not one I'd start out on if I could avoid it.

First two years in the US PhD is like a master's degree studies - regular lectures/courses. That is way US PhD program is usually 5 years long and you apply with Bachelor's degree. In Europe, mostly, you're required to have a master's degree to apply for a PhD.

That's not particularly generalizable to U.S. programs - a good 3/4ths of the PhD programs I applied for expected a Master's before hand.

I'm also not sure how its relevant to what I said?

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#142

Post by mcguire »

skj wrote: post #98
mcguire wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly better: you don't have to actually work at Google. 80% of the benefit minus 1% of the opportunity cost.

That's a very interesting perspective on working for Google. That is, that it's a waste of time. In my experience, working at Google is a blast both in terms of compensation and exciting projects.

Depending on what you want, what you can do, and from a certain perspective, any job is a "waste of time". For one thing, you will almost certainly spend the majority of your time working on someone else's grand idea. (By necessity, most of the people working at Google are doing the same kind of things that everyone is doing everywhere. The environment may be better, but it's the same stuff.)

As one of my favorite supervisors said, repeatedly, "It's not supposed to be fun. That's why they call it a 'job'. Now get back to work."

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#143

Post by banachtarski »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #137
banachtarski wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are telling me is completely at odds with what others have told me (including faculty on admissions committees) so I imagine it varies from institution to institution. I had a pretty compelling application a year ago and my statement (in my opinion anyways) demonstrated that I was caught up with the academic literature on a particular topic and I had done some work myself implementing and attempting to impro…

Did you have a low GPA by any chance? In academia, this is considered a black mark :( Honestly, I think you dodged a bullet. Academia isn't that magical (CS PhD here). I think you get a better education reading Hacker News some days.

Perhaps this was the case. I did not do well the first two years. I hated school in fact and averaged a 3.3 or so (the engineering courses felt very soft and uninteresting). This changed when I discovered pure math and theoretical physics and I averaged almost a 4.0 for the last two years with the most difficult courses so I didn't think it would matter. I like engineering now, but I wished that the fundamentals were covered more rigorously as the lack of rigor made me initially very disinterested.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#144

Post by mcguire »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #59
mcguire wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not surprised that it is competitive (PhD's in general are kind of oversupplied), but the form the competition takes: "Maybe you didn't publish as an undergraduate.... Maybe you can't even write a very compelling research statement yet." When I was applying, no undergraduates had published research. And the "research statement" could hardly be described as "compelling"; that was one of the points of the breadth…

It's a positive development that admission into a decent PhD program requires research experience. Some people somehow cannot make the jump from classroom exercises to production work, and you would rather that they don't get accepted, instead of having to throw them out a year later. Besides, a research lab is a workplace after all, and some kids are completely missing the social skills that are needed in a working…

I would argue that it isn't, because it simply pushes the boundary back, and possibly making it even less appropriate.

I can't see having valid or "compelling" research experience as an undergraduate while taking a full load of classes (ok, so you have to take advanced placement courses in high school, which my school did not offer even if my school district did; I'm not sure one way or the other about that) and possibly working to support yourself (I'll leave the alternatives as an exercise to the reader).

At this point, you're filtering on many criteria that have absolutely nothing to do with successful research.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#145

Post by af3 »

pgbovine wrote: post #139
af3 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this video comes from a professor, good joke!

s/professor/postdoc/g (also, my first job out of grad school was in industry and had nothing to do with my Ph.D. work)

Hey, I read you book! I thought you will never go academia... things change...

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#146

Post by pgbovine »

af3 wrote: post #145
pgbovine wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/professor/postdoc/g (also, my first job out of grad school was in industry and had nothing to do with my Ph.D. work)

Hey, I read you book! I thought you will never go academia... things change...

whoa thanks! then you probably know that i've thought a lot about this decision to dive back in :)

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#147

Post by zura »

Fomite wrote: post #141
zura wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First two years in the US PhD is like a master's degree studies - regular lectures/courses. That is way US PhD program is usually 5 years long and you apply with Bachelor's degree. In Europe, mostly, you're required to have a master's degree to apply for a PhD.

That's not particularly generalizable to U.S. programs - a good 3/4ths of the PhD programs I applied for expected a Master's before hand. I'm also not sure how its relevant to what I said?

I see. I meant that hardest part can be that initial 2 years of US-esque 5-year PhD. Overall, in US, PhD is student - teacher relationship, while in Europe, mostly, it is employee - employer relationship.
Post reply on HN