211–220 of 285 posts
Looking forward to a Job Search simulator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You found one of your ideas appears in a recently published paper. You can no longer work on it. This is one of the things I thought of right away when ChatGPT got released last year. "God, there's probably so many PhD candidates right now in NLP feeling despair like all their work was pointless ...as if million of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced." It's hard in the moment to know whether what…
Math is pointless from start to finish, but that doesn't stop them. PhD is granted for novelty, not practicality.
And this attitude, my friends, is the reason why so much software out there is so bad.
We need more of a math mindset when developing software. What can we be sure about, what are the invariants, what can we prove? There is so much crap out there that somebody lacking understanding just tried to wing, and I'm constantly ashamed of it.
Computer science is applied math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same can be said for a startup.
the long tail of profit in a startup is wildly higher than a PhD. To be clear, I say this as one who's gone through a math PhD; none of my fellow graduates make significantly more than they would've made bypassing the PhD for industry, especially when you consider the opportunity costs. Academia is very much for people who either prefer ideas or prestige to money.
I can accept the argument that a unicorn startup might have higher tail monetary benefit compared to a PhD. But a startup job will not open as many research job opportunities as a PhD. These are typically the highest paid individual contributor jobs in companies.
Of course if managerial track is your thing, you should probably not waste your time doing a PhD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lost all hope and quit. Something that happened to me in real life as well.
Every time I tried the game (using OP's described steps) I "lost all hope and quit". I thought that was the joke / funny commentary: that all paths through the game involve you ending up losing. Didn't know there was a path to actually win the game until reading the HN comments. So I kept trying it over and over doing the same steps and finally won once. I guess that's an even funnier commentary on how it's pretty mu…
I notice a lot of negativity and "do not recommend" regarding pursuing a PhD on HN recently. That raises the question: Why would you go for it?
That was...a lot more straightforward than I thought. First try: Year 4 Month 5 Second try: a lot more things went wrong. Year 5 Month 11. Third try: Year 5 Month 11. I just followed these rules: - Study for the qualifying exam until I'm "very confident" - If I have no ideas, read papers - If I have an idea, work on developing it. If I have a preliminary result, work on developing it. If I have a major result, conduc…
Second try the conference paper got accepted right away. Advisor even asked me if I needed a break after I'd had some success (never happened on the first run) and was getting tired. Wrote my thesis in 5.5 years.
As a former PhD student who is now faculty, I have to say that the pace of the game is one of the most realistic aspects. Every small step forward takes about a month, it may or may not pan out, but it passes in the blink of an eye. It's a game, so it can't model everything. But I thought the biggest missing thing was "leveling up." As you accomplish more, you should have a higher likelihood of future success, and yo…
I have never heard of a "happy PhD"
Stuff missing: holidays and deciding whether to travel home or study / read papers (I missed holidays myself during my PhD), feeling envious of peers from pre-PhD living great lives, having kids during one's PhD (that would be hard mode), drama in authorship of collaborative papers, etc.
The last year anxiety is accurate for most. It is also missing the job search in the final years. For many disciplines, 3 strong papers is the minimum for graduating, but if one really wants to get a faculty position or even a job as a research scientist at more prestigious institutes, probably 6 papers is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One dynamic I experienced that also isn't in the simulation: if you focus too much on classwork early on in order to pass your RPE, it can actually be hard to find an advisor. Classwork is basically dead-end work and the more you focus on it the less you have to show for yourself when trying to convince an advisor to work with you. Your goal should be to optimize for doing just well enough to pass your classwork. Als…
Generally, the focus here should be on: 1) Not bombing any classes (i.e. A/A- in all, maybe a B+ in one; a B or below is failing) 2) Doing very good work and trying to write an original paper for professors that you want to work with while doing just enough to get by in other classes [this is in part how you figure out who you want to work with] 3) Being good enough with the literature to pass the comprehensive exams…
If the advisors can vouch for, or strike a student regardless of their qual performance - then why not simply have an end of year performance review?
I find this highly unrealistic. Advisors do not notice nor care for your mental health. Breaks and rest are not offered nor advised. Back to the lab!
Claim your free time. No sane advisor would ever say no.
Highly dependent on the advisor.