SymmetryOfImperfection

Update: I spoke to the professor, without writing a proposal, about my concerns. I thought about it, and while I'm still writing the proposal for my own purposes, I should just talk informally and at least express that my interests are in materials science, not quantum information. We are not going forward. I talked about a project that he has personally brought up before, and talked about some ways we can go about that project - instantly shut down with a "might not be a good idea" - and that's a project he brought up before. They really want to push me into the quantum information research and even that semiconductor project that the professor previously came up with, is probably getting shelved. I didn't come here to do quantum information. This is an unsolvable problem. Plus, the heavy teaching load does not make things any easier.

Thank you. The department has alot of momentum in terms of infrastructure from when it was doing well financially. The problem really 3 fold: 1.) teaching burden, 2.) I don't know if the professor will approve of me writing my own research proposal 3.) social life sucks. I was surprised at how the department had a relatively high ranking yet still had such a massive teaching burden. Is this a good plan? I've already done alot of reading on the techniques used in the lab. The professor seemed to be technique, rather than system oriented, and I'd like to write my own proposal for applying these techniques to systems and questions closer to device physics. The technique itself is very versatile, I just don't like the systems that the professor wants me to study. The professor has no grants other than an instrumentation one at this point, and I'm not supported by the grants anyways, so I feel it is appropriate for me to think of other ideas - perhaps this one will be funded. I'll write up a 2-3 page proposal for addressing these problems, applying his techiques (no instrumental modifications), with literature citations as necessary. If the professor says "yes", I'll stay. If they say "no" in a way that says it can be worked out, I'll try to work it out with them. If they say "no" in a way that they don't want me doing a more independent project, then I'll have to transfer.

Thanks for the reply. The labs are actually 3 hours long, but at least lecture attendance is optional. Grading the labs is a nightmare since its all individual lab reports. I literally spend 15 hours a week (9 hours lab, 3 hour meetings, office hours) on physically being present as an instructor. I indeed spend 25-30 hours per week on the teaching job alone. The meetings actually have *homework assignments* such as doing prelabs along with the students and stuff. None of the labs I'm interested in have a problem with financing the research - they have a problem paying an RA salary. All of my research is heavily electronics based. Once the parts are in, there's no more consumables except sample fabrication until the parts break. All the professors I talk to say "sure, you can work for me, but I probably won't have an RA for you for a while". I'm trying to be assertive and independent, but its hard to do when you're the new guy. I'm definitely independent since I have the experience needed to be independent. I've already started to think about potential projects and writing outlines, but the problem is, the professor seems to really want to push me into his theoretical research direction rather than the applications based one that I thought I'd get to do coming in. I have actually thought about transferring, not least of which is because one of my friends talked to a professor who explicitly said that transferring is an option. I just feel like I've sunk a year into this and want to try to make it work. However, as backups, I've already begun applying to new universities. I just need to know how to write the application in the correct way.

I thought that wouldn't be an issue. I came into this with eyes wide open - I had a MS, I taught, I did research, I presented at conferences with PHD students and already talked to many students who already had a PHD. I passed the PHD program's written qualifier exam before school even started. I visited, but it was a managed visit - we did not get to sit in on classes or anything. I didn't even think about teaching philosophy or workload being an issue because these policies were all recent changes - starting this year, TA workhours shifted around such that there was an invisible increase in the amount of hours worked, and for a longer duration, due to recent funding issues. I thought I had done my research well, but it seems like I didn't know myself well enough - I didn't know what would be issues and what wouldn't, or things that are very important now seemed secondary back then.

Sorry for this. I'll provide some details then. 1.) I recently graduated with a MS in physics from a large state university and was accepted to another large state university for a PHD. This university is highly ranked in my area, so at the time it seemed like a no-brainer. The only downside (in my mind at the time) was that it is located in a very remote location. I visited and it seemed fine. 2.) After I arrived, I found a few things wrong with the research. The professors that I wanted to work with either had projects very different from what I imagined at the time or had already filled up the projects of interest. All the other projects were in other areas that used the same or similar equipment, but very theoretical, which I didn't really have background or interest in. I thought that was fine - at least one of the professors had a project in instrumentation development, that I thought would allow me to gain valuable skills in programming, electronics, and optical devices, so I chose that professor. I directly asked the professor how much opportunities would we get to actually build the instrument from parts on up. He said that buying would be a last resort. Now in the group meeting, before I even get a chance to start, the professor wants to directly buy everything, not just parts, but entire devices. This leaves me feeling that everything that I came here for is not here anymore. The professor says that since I have experience, I can try to write my own proposal for a project, but since he changed his mind before, I don't know how much freedom I actually have to explore my own interests. 3.) The department has run into big funding issues. The department, in order to maximize use of existing funds, has made 2 decisions: all students must make a choice of advisor by November and no student will receive RA funding until the passing of the oral exam. This means that I must teach for at least 2 years, while preparing for the oral exam, doing research, and taking courses. 4.) The teaching load is heavy and I don't like the teaching philosophy here. I teach 3 lab sessions, must attend 3 hour meetings each week, have to hold multiple office hours, and the students all write individual lab reports. These are large lower division labs. The way the teaching supervisor talks about the undergrads makes me uncomfortable. He treats them like idiots to be handled, rather than learners who just don't have enough experience. He makes jokes about students and tells us to "talk to students in a way they can understand. Use simple language." 5.) The social life here is quite boring. There's nothing to do here except drinking. There's no grad student lounge in this department like the way there was in my MS, so I only met the other people in my cohort during the orientation week.

I did very well during my MS, so I thought that doing a PHD would be no problem. From what my classmates who moved on to a PHD say, they thought they fit right in. Except me. I don't feel like I fit in at this school, either socially, in terms of teaching (both workload and teaching philosophy) or research wise. I'll spare the details. What did I do wrong when I chose this school? Is there any way to remedy the situation?

Why would ppl use pen? It feels like a bad compromise between printing and pencil - neither with the neatness of print, nor with the convenience, versatility and speed of pencil. If I need ink, I print, elsewise, I use pencil for almost everything except signatures.

That's awesome that you got to write a grant. I thought it was extremely rare and only the most elite graduate students could do it.

Thank you for the advice. I will keep it in mind. Hopefully I get a chance to work on a project of my own, but if not, there are existing grants that can tangentially be related to my interests, so that's always a plus. A question: how often do students actually get to help write a grant?

Thanks for the book. I'm not paid off a grant though - I have a fellowship for part of the cost and TA for the rest. Does that give me more freedom, seeing as the professor is actually not paying for me to do specific research? I am more than willing to do what I'm told for the first year or two, but eventually would like to take ownership of a project. EDIT: the book seems to be geared towards biology, biochemistry and wet synthetic chemistry.

I guess the very fact that I'm asking all these questions about this PI means that it probably isn't going to be a good idea. My plan was to work on his project at first, but then as I get experience building/programming the machine, learning how to design optical instrumentation and interpreting results, he'd allow me some leeway to pursue projects that I can define on my own, applying the skills I previously learned to new problems. The thing with the machine is this: there's no real expendables. All samples are reusable and are cheap/easy to make or buy. The spectrometer itself is basically the main cost to the research - once it is built, the only costs to running the lab will be wages, electricity and minor expendables. There really should be no logical issue with me running my own experiments other than "opportunity cost", but academia is all but logical...

My prospective professor is an expert in optical spectroscopy of solids. He is more into the quantum materials side (so basically, single crystals of complex materials that stuf) since that's his postdoc work, while I want to work with nanostructured semiconductors, which was his PhD project. In addition, he has moved more into using ultrafast lasers to measure the quantum properties of solids (carrier correlations, excited state decay pathways, etc), while I wanted to also work on optical measurements of material properties (thermal dependence of optical/electronic properties, nanomechanics, etc - this was his PhD work) as well as the quantum electronics properties. All these measurements use the exact same machine, it is just that the laser sequence, delay timings, sample stage (cooling systems), etc. are different. The spectrometer has not even been designed yet, much less built - it is hoped for first light by March doing measurements on single electron defects, which requires only the most basic setup, and then to go from there to increase capabilities. When I talked to him, he said that there were already students on the semiconductor materials properties and instrument design projects. He really wants me to do a project on quantum materials and single electron defects. I could do a semiconductor project, but that would be more towards solid state quantum coherence, rather than a more applied project in materials properties. I really want to do an applied project though. He said that if I could think of my own project to do with the machine, he could consider it as well, but I don't know how much this promise will be true. I understand that he needs to get papers out as soon as possible and the single electron project is the easiest to do with the machine and I'm more than willing to spend time on his projects - as long as they don't take away from the ability for me to pursue mine. I don't know if I can actually get to work on my own project; how often is it that a student just follows orders from the PI instead of explore their own project? In my MS I basically took full ownership of a project from start to end and the professor basically just gave me the idea, and that was it. Otherwise, I just emailed my professor when I had trouble, we talked, and I wrote half page monthly progress reports. I know how to work independently and be self motivated. Right now, the other students seem to have less background so the lab has been moving sort of slowly and the machine is not being built at all except by the postdoc - they're just reading.

Thanks guys, you've given me alot to think about. I hope other students will learn about selecting PIs from this as well.

Thank you. My PI for my MS was very hands off and I didn't bother her much but there were 2 critical differences: 1. She was available. Ask a question, reply within 24 hours, even if it was "I don't know". Walk up to her office any time, ask random stuff, and either she saves you time by telling you the answer, or saves you time by saying I don't know, instead of giving a roundabout, long answer that doesn't answer the actual question. 2. She had flexible deadlines because she was tenured. Can't finish something? That's fine, give you another 3 days/a week/whatever. No results? That's fine, no results. This PI is a new assistant prof literally straight out of his 1st postdoc. There's no getting around at least a bit of micromanagement and hard deadlines. However, if you have such hard deadlines and micromanagement, then shouldn't you also try your best to help students meet those deadlines?

Depends. If there was some uncontrollable variation in the sample prep, and the measurements yielded only a few that worked out of many, then this is valid as long as you can quantify the differences between the samples that were not good and the samples that were good. Elsewise, it is bad practice, in my opinion, since you don't know which one is the accident.

Thank you both for the advice. DanielleWrites: That is true. If the professor does not fit the style that I can learn from, perhaps it is better for to select someone else, even if their project is really good. FuzzyLogician: Unfortunately the department has taken an accelerated approach to advisor selection and requires it before November. I will try to get an extension but an independent study doesn't seem to be an option. I will still try to ask for one though. I was thinking of going to a group meeting and asking pressing questions, and seeing if the response is better in a small setting. I had already obtained permission for that.

One of my prospective PIs has a personality that I'm not sure if I can deal with. In a research meeting, I asked him about a valid question about his work. Instead of giving me the direct answer, or telling me to look it up on my own because he didn't know, he gave me a very round-about answer that did not answer the question. I said that I didn't understand, and he just repeated exactly what he said before and asked if I understood now. I didn't want to waste his time further, so I said "I sort of get it, I'll just look it up later." Another time, in a class, a student asked him a valid technical question, yet again, instead of directly answering the question, saying I don't know, or telling the student to check up on it himself, the professor answered in a round-about way that didn't answer the question, the student didn't get it, and when the student said that he couldn't get it, the professor did the same thing: repeat exactly what he said before, then ask "so do you get it now?" I am scared that if I pick this professor, when I meet research problems he won't have the patience to guide students through it and won't answer questions directly. Even though I have a MS, this professor's project is extremely challenging and running into both experimental and theoretical difficulties is to be expected. Am I overthinking this? Is this a big deal?

You can't think about "top 10 or bust" or anything like that, unless you want to become R1 faculty. If you do, then just remember this: The proportion of PHD students that become R1 faculty is similar to the proportion of college basketball players that become NBA superstars.

The problem with STEM careers, at least in industry, is that they are extremely specific. You are right about the risk of finding a job, which makes STEM graduate degrees even more risky - you either train for one job in one industry doing one thing, or you train with a flexible skillset that no one will ever hire you for since they can get people who did exactly what they want in their graduate degrees. Academia is more flexible, but the flexibility is a tradeoff for even higher risk. Social science graduate students face very different problems than we do.

The problem is that social sciences and STEM have different ideas of what employable is. From what I hear from senior students, its more like: Social science employable: oh, I know some general statistics, I'm employable. STEM: You know basic statistics? Don't care, you have to be a Sigma 6 black belt with a thesis on the applications of Lebesgue integration to machine learning or something before they let you anywhere near statistics. Would you have spent your PHD working on a single employable skill that's used in a single industry (and literally nothing else) that you thought was merely "ok" to do? However, if you got that skill, you're almost guaranteed to get that single job in that single industry.

Thank you for the help. I originally wanted to go into industry with a job that has me building and thinking, rather than just do characterization of materials using known equipment; I've done that for my MS and in internships. Its not exactly the most interesting work. If I go on the first project, several papers will be published on the instrumentation design itself before we measure any semiconductors at all. In terms of funding, the new professor has money, but it is being spent on buying parts (some parts are extremely expensive, such as fiber lasers, optics, detectors, computers, etc) and an electrical engineering postdoc. No students will have RAs until a grant is received. The second professor just lost his DOE funding (as in 2 months ago) and while he's trying to get more money, students have to TA. I have no idea if I get along with the PIs since I've only been here 3 weeks. The new professor has no information. The old professor is known to be nice, but hands on. He says he doesn't micromanage, but I don't know that works out. The new professor seems to have an easy going personality, but the requirements of the project means that she'd be putting the pressure on me. The theory behind semiconductor optics is hard for most students and other more senior students actually have less research experience than I do because I have a MS. It'll be me, the professor and the postdoc. The older professor is a hands-on guy who comes in on the weekends. Group members: haven't met the full groups yet, will be going to group meetings. In terms of time to graduate: the first professor is an unknown, but he took 6 years to graduate. The second professor graduated his PHD in 4 years, and most of his students stay for 5-6 (closer to 6). I haven't really been in a high stress research environment before. My MS advisor just let me do my thing, and as long as I had results by deadlines, it was OK. That meant that whether I decided "I'm tired and I'm gonna watch TV all day" or "Oh damn its deadline time gotta stay till midnight" was up to me. No micromanagement necessary. I can deal with difficult ppl, but I don't prefer to. I'd like to be friends with the ppl in my group. I had a really good relationship with my MS advisor and the ppl in my group, and I hope in my PHD, I can keep it the same.

I have a related question though: what would you consider a "useful skill"? Is it a skill that can be used across multiple industries and are very broad, such as optics, electronics and programming? Or is it learning how to use a specific instrumentation/technique that has some specific types of jobs associated with it, but is confined to only a single type of industry?

Thank you for the advice. However, I have a feeling in the back of my head that I'd always think "what if". I already have a MS and already have done electronics and programming work in the past. I've always wanted to contribute somehow to building chemical/physical instrumentation, to not just be a user, but part of the people developing foundational technologies. But I'm not young now either, and have practical things to consider. It is really annoying. I also only have a few months to decide.

People say follow your interests, but sometimes, there are many things to think about. I have 2 projects I'm considering. One is a very high risk project that I would be taking nearly full ownership over, where I would be building a new measurement instrument for characterization of a very hard to measure property in semiconductors. It will probably be heavily managed by professor. Professor is new. I don't fully understand the theory behind the project and it is alot of theory to take in. I don't know if I'm actually good enough at programming and electronics to handle it. Even if I work hard, results are not guaranteed. Materials used are not used in industry, characterization techniques used not in industry, making it risky for employment as well. Only employment value is selling transferrable skills. Second project is a low risk project. The professor just received tenure and has a track record of placing students in industry. The equipment is commercially available except for some modifications, and most of the work will be in data analysis and sample fabrication. All the equipment is used in industry and has specific jobs lined up. Results are guaranteed if I work hard. I understand and like the theory behind his work. It is relatively routine work, mostly data analysis of results using known instrumentation. There is little real device fabrication or instrumentation involved. In my MS I've always been an independent worker and did things at my own pace. I don't know if I can handle being micromanaged, especially on such a high risk, high stress project. Another con to the project is that it is extremely risky since the semiconductors measured are not directly used in industry. However, it seems like a very interesting project.

I actually would rather have an engineering faculty on the committee, since they understand the importance of applications; there are more than enough fundemental scientists in the department as is. I'm an applications driven person that wants to do applied research.