spectastic
-
Posts
1,047 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by spectastic
-
-
-
A former member of my group informed me that our advisor (Dr. A) is known to provide bad references. I've been very productive in the last several months, and I'd like to think that I'm on good rapport with him, but you never know. He's like a bitchy cat, kind of hard to please, has certain pet peeves, etc...
on the other hand, there's another almost retired professor (Dr. B ) who's not really in our group, but provides advice in our group meetings. he's the one who's been editing my manuscripts. he's also very accomplished, like has his own wikipedia page and a picture of him shaking hands with the president of the United States type of accomplished. however, he's also very old (mid 80s), and will likely ask me to write my own reference to be sent to him. in this sense, my official advisor is more of a figurehead, very hands off, knows relatively little about our field, mostly hangs out on gmail more than literature.
now that I'm looking for a job, people are going to want referrals. I will touch base with Dr. A to get a gauge of his opinion of me. However, I'm more inclined to just put Dr. B as my primary reference for graduate school. I have a couple of other good references that I can put down from previous experience. OTOH, I'm worried that not putting down Dr. A as my main reference might raise a red flag.
thoughts?
-
i need a vacation
-
grading at 4 am is so much fun!
?????????????????????
-
Killed day 1 of the career fair today. Probable phone screening interview from awesome company in town.. My stock portfolio looking mighty green.
Man oh man oh man ?
-
if it comes up, play it in a way that shows you've learned something, in the most positive way possible.
(so what'd you do?)
-
life crises are no joke, and it sounds like you might be going through one of those right now. if you're not confident about being able to perform well in your classes, I recommend seriously considering dropping them, and asking about taking a semester off (or something to that effect) to do some soul searching. going traveling is one of the best things you can do at your age. too many people stumble from one stage of life to the next, not knowing exactly what they want out of their life and career. It's hard to take the time to figure out why you're on this earth. I wish I took more time to figure that out earlier on. it would've saved me a lot of headache, but not all life lessons come easy. you're definitely not alone.
I don't know what they would tell you at student health services, so I can't really recommend it. But it can't hurt to make an initial appointment.
-
great thread!
JRP's probably my favorite. He's a great interviewer. I thought howard stern was able to get people to get people talking, but Rogan is WAY better.
I'm also subscribed to a few other ones that only really curb to my interests, like star talk, bigger pockets, jocko willink (that dude's intense..) or something like that.
friend told me about jordan peterson's podcast. if I ever listen to him, I'd have to not be doing something else, because it takes me some more processing to really absorb what he's talking about. but damn he speaks some good truths.
-
15 hours ago, juilletmercredi said:
It's possible to maintain a social life while doing a PhD, and it's possible to find a workplace in industry with your important components (including the personality expression) with a PhD too.
Just because you don't find much in common socially with the other people in your department doesn't mean you have to drop out - it just means you need to get in there to do what you need to do, then clear out. I did this in my PhD program for similar reasons - I liked and respected my colleagues, but I didn't want to be friends with them. I found friends outside the department, or with master's students, or with people who weren't grad students at all. I definitely went out a few times a week, indulged in hobbies, and developed other aspects of myself (I learned to bake while writing my dissertation; I ran every morning; I started yoga; etc.) It's just that you have to make the conscious decision to do that and put in the work to develop your relationships and your personality outside of the confines of your program.
On the other hand, there are lots of interesting jobs you can get in industry with a BS or MS in which you wouldn't be a paper pusher. Now that you have a little more experience and education, especially, you might find your way into an interesting role where you can solve engineering problems. It sounds like the job you were in was a bad fit for you, and not necessarily that you needed a PhD to do more interesting work. Unless you're committed to doing research - and, specifically - to leading a research team in conducting cutting-edge research somewhere - then I don't really think you need a PhD. Your real task is to find a company and team culture that fits what you want (collaboration, interesting problems, work/life balance).
Academic work is by its nature kind of isolating. If you're looking for collaboration and sharing, you will not find that in a PhD program...not really. I was in a department in which people were friendly and wonderful and even occasionally published together, but on the whole the feel was not "collaborative." It was often people working in parallel, or at the very most would take different parts of a project and split it up in such a way that they weren't even really working together much. If you read many blogs and comments by academics, you'll see that's just the case across the field. Science is a bit more collaborative than other areas, and some people have good paired working experiences, but the work is not really designed to be completed in teams of PhDs - your job as a professor is to build a lab in which you'll conduct most of your work.
So I don't think your answer is so clear; it kind of depends on the kind of work you want to do. I think you can be happy in your PhD program, but you have to stop relying on your cohortmates to be friends and branch out to make other relationships outside the department. You could also probably be happy if you left with an MS and went into research in industry, but I don't know whether you would find the competition too steep or hit a wall - I'm not in the same field.
thanks for your input. I have indulged in my hobbies, and tried to have a life outside of academics. however, my advisor sees this as a threat. he doesn't think i'm motivated enough to be in his group, if I prioritize my life over research. but jesus, I'm 27. this is the time to have a life, if I'm ever to have one. priorities generally change when you're 30s and onward. anyway, I think I have what it takes to complete a PhD. I just need to find a different group by the end of the semester, and my options are limited..
I completely agree with you about working in parallel, compared to collaborating.. One big unknown I have is how will this rhythm change after getting your PhD? I imagine you won't be expected to pull more than 40 hrs/week, and the work environment WILL be more collaborative. But if you basically worked your ass off to get to the dream job, wouldn't you be expected to continue to sacrifice for it? The idea I get is that PhD is like boot camp. After boot camp, it's just the beginning..
-
13 minutes ago, Sigaba said:
You may be trying to find too much self-efficacy in one arena.
You want
- work that is intellectually challenging,
- a work environment that is intellectually engaging from the start and most of the time, and
- a workplace that provides opportunities for social bonding with your peers,
- AND you have a quirky personality/sense of humor which you don't want to dial down too much, AND
- a work life balance
In my work experience at two engineering firms in different industries, a great work/life balance is the minimum price one pays to check the other items off the list, and dialing down the quirkiness is also a requirement if one wants to get the more challenging projects. My sense is that it's about earning trust from the Powers That Be by demonstrating one's commitment by fitting in with the culture of the pack and showing one can handle responsibility in a way that resonates. Ultimately, it's about expenses and revenue and reputation. There are those people that the bosses like to pal around with, and those they trust with the future of the company. Members of the former don't always get asked to join the latter; the latter are not always from the former.
IRT earning a Ph.D. and joining the work force, IME, new hires with doctorates (we've hired two this year and one year before last) are expected to hit the ground racing with zero warm up time and even less training time.
My recommendation is that if you decide to rejoin the private sector sooner rather than later, you practice patience, patience, and more patience. The time you spend pushing paper and twiddling your thumbs is part of your training. PMs/bosses need to trust an engineer before that person is given meaningful work. (We recently hired an EIT who is a course or two shy of a master's degree. This EIT is having many of the issues you described years ago. Those of us who are training this new hire are counseling patience but the advice may be falling on deaf ears.)
Thanks for your response. I've highlighted the things on the list that are valuable to me. I think bonding with peers is something that's more dependent on personality types than anything else. Sometimes, people get along, other times, not so much. I'm not sure where the quirkiness comes from. I can be quirky with my friends. I only crack safe for work jokes when I'm at work, that's not really a problem for me or my peers.
as far as earning trust before getting more responsibility is concerned, I was working in the oil and gas / chemical production area. there was not a position i could transition into that would involve anything other than keeping the plant running. they kept the r&d stuff largely secret from everyone else, but having talked to some of their engineers, it seemed like they were just doing process control stuff. It's just not really my cup of tea.
If I could get a job doing research with my Master's, and getting to learn and collaborate with likeminded people, and have room to move up, I think I would be happy with that. My main concern is that I'll be competing with PhD's for some of those jobs, and I might hit a ceiling quickly with a Master's, especially at a bigger company.
-
Lately, I'm realizing that I might not be the type to get a PhD after all. I have few friends in my department. The good friends I have are outside of my graduate program. I find that a lot of people who are doing PhD's may be lacking in the social department, or maybe that's just the particularity of my group.. And even those that do socialize, I don't really find myself a good fit with them. I would like to have a life outside of school, go out maybe a couple of times a week, have time for hobbies, and just have the time to develop other aspects of myself than my career. I don't want my career to define who I am, but I feel like this is where the PhD is taking me.. my father is a PhD (different field, not what inspired me), and his career consumes him.. I don't want to be that.
On the other hand, I have worked in industry as an engineer, and the level of intellectual engagement I had as an entry level was quite poor. I was basically a paper pusher. I realize that most entry level assignments are like this, and I was hungry to actually use my engineering brain to solve engineering problems. That's why I went back to school for a PhD, so that I can work on interesting projects, with higher levels of autonomy and higher quality people. I had this vision of working in industry, collaborating with others, sharing ideas, and working in a team to solve complex engineering problems.
That said, I have not found a whole lot of collaboration in my PhD group. I believe a large portion of this is because we have a relatively small group, and we're all working on pretty different projects, which I get is the case most of the time. I think another component of this is not everyone in the group seems to be getting along. I always try to keep things lighthearted and always make things a learning experience. I can't say the same for everyone else, as much as I'd like to. Bottomline, I don't think I'm a good fit in this group.
My path forward is to master out and get a job, or try to find a different group, which will likely have to be in a different department, because my research is in a specific area, and I came back to school to get trained in this area, as well as get my phd. Based on what I've written, what are y'all's take?
-
only in gen chem lab is it possible for it to be this hard for people to articulate the differences between accuracy and precision of measuring the density of water using different glassware. jesus fing christ.
-
5 am and a little more than half way through grading gen chem lab reports. FUCK
-
this new undergrad my adviser assigned to help me run experiments (due to my broken hand) is turning out to be a bit of a moron, who needs as much babysitting as giving simple instructions. not thrilled.
-
this cast on my arm smells like SHIT
doctor tells me not to exercise and get it wet? haha good one.
-
meh, i'll just put it on there. it won't matter in 5 years, but my publication section is looking awfully lonely right now haha
-
I mean.. the concepts are similar in that they both involve polymer chemistry, which I can pick up pretty quickly given my background knowledge, should someone decides to ask me about it. However, the ways that these polymers were made were completely different. The challenges were different. I'm quite certain they learned nothing about that project from the work that I did.
-
i contributed nothing to that project. they were 2 fundamentally different reactions
-
so a few years back, in my undergrad, I did a lot of work for this professor. we were going to publish, but the paper never came, even after i graduated. eventually, i learn that the paper that was going to have my name on it got turned into a review paper and a patent, and i wasn't on either, because i was just a worker bee. however, the professor put my name on a completely different project which i was not part of at all, but the concepts were all very similar that i could probably figure out what it was all about. i haven't really tried asking about it, because i feel like the answer is that the professor felt bad that he told me i was going to publish, but didn't, kind of like pulling the rug from under me, so he put my name on something else. also, it was a long time ago, on a 2nd/3rd author paper that won't really matter in my career anyway. but then again, I did do a lot of work back then, so i feel like i should have something to show for it. in fact most of the proof of concept experiments and optimizations that lead to the eventual publication was done by me, as the grad student i was working with at the time was kind of going through an existential crisis. you think i should put that paper on my cv?
-----
also, this is not related to my other topic "you put my name on your paper and i'll put my name......"
-
The situation has changed. I broke my wrist in a bicycle accident, and will be in a cast for a good part of the summer. I can still write the manuscript, but there are a few experiments that I still need to run to make it complete. I was thinking have this dude help me run some of those experiments, get our data together, and for his project, I’ll ask for a role in it, and learn something too probably. This way, he gets his wish, and I get mine. What you think?
-
I saw this video, and it talks about intermittent fasting as one of the ways for caloric restriction, which has been one of the factors that's linked to longevity across the board between different species. the explanation provided is that from an evolutionary point of view, where when we're hungry, it means we need to hunt, and in turn, some biological switch turns on that makes us a little bit better at everything. for a long time, I thought fasting was BS. But there is actually science supporting its usefulness. definitely going to give this a try now.
-
DUDE.. you should take a few more hours to explore eastern utah, like the moab area. it has the arches national park and canyonlands. I was in colorado a couple of weeks ago, and we were only an hour away from moab, so we decided to go, and it was awesome. and then drive north towards yellowstone. been to rushmore, badlands, etc. IMO, they're nice tourist attractions, but all you're really doing is going there, and snapping a few pictures. other than that, there's not a lot of reasons to stick around. yellowstone and yosemite are two places where it's really nice to camp out, hike around, and soak it in. once you reach the midwest plains, you're going to be bored to tears. believe me, I grew up there. but minniapolis is cool, chicago is cool. I hear detroit has really come around. but anything on the east side i've no idea about.
-
We have a relatively small group. also, this guy has a history... he was basically forced out of his last group for reasons we don't know. I think that was a bad call by my adviser to take him in without knowing exactly why he was forced out in the first place. i have a friend from a different group who talks about this guy and some of the things he said. and based upon my interaction with him, it just seems like he's off somehow, like he wasn't socialized properly growing up or something. He's also got what carol dweck would call a "fixed mindset." All of this makes me think his value system is completely different, and furthermore, it's very hard to change it through intervention. So I'm leaving this one alone..
-
this new guy in my lab just approached me in private, saying that if I put his name on my manuscript, he'll put my name on his eventual paper.. this is supposed to help us increase our paper count. I will admit, I've been here for 2 years, and don't have my name on a paper yet. I've done a lot of help work early on for other people, but those efforts went nowhere. But this putting other people's name on my paper and vice versa rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't seem like good practice of integrity, and I'm wondering if others have experienced similar things in their studies..
to clarify, we work on very similar projects. but we don't really collaborate. i showed him how do do a few things early on, but that's it. i'm not opposed to collaborating with him, given his experience in the field. however, i'm not a fan of his character.
PhD vs Masters for doing a startup
in Jobs
Posted
I'm in the exact same boat as you, ready to start something new. honestly, I don't think investors would give two shits whether you have a PhD or a GED, but that's just my opinion. I have no startup experience other than watching full seasons worth of shark tank, so take my advice with a grain of salt. However, I know this is what successful entrepreneurs would probably tell you. Think about what you can do in those 2-3 years as a graduate student slave, and compare that to what you can do in 2-3 years trying to immerse yourself in the world of business. there is no comparison.
Investors care about one thing. Return on investment. The skill set you need to succeed as an entrepreneur involves selling, closing, wearing different hats, yet know when it's time to delegate. These are skills that extend far beyond what a PhD can offer, imo. Ditch the degree, come out to the light baby.