How many hours do you work per week?

[GnomeSain]

Hi folks,

I just want to get an idea of how many hours I should expect to "work" while in grad school. Here are hours that count towards work:

1) homework

2) attending classes

3) teaching classes/grading

4) conducting research

5) traveling, giving seminars, etc.

I'm not counting chores as work. They're part of "freetime."

I plan on applying to math or statistics PhD programs. I've been in industry for a few years so I have a pretty good work ethic. I can put in a good solid 60 hours a week. I'm not a math genius so I kinda have to work harder to keep with Putnam fellows and the sort. But if I have to put in 80+ hours... I better reconsider grad school.

[WornOutGrad]

Read the Carriera letter before you get yourself in too deep.

http://biochemater.bokee.com/4801022.html .

I put my foot down after 60 hours a week. If more becomes expected of me (other than brief "crunch" times), I'll happily walk out the door. I would never work for a jerk like this!

[StrangeLight]

heh.

i put in a minimum of 60 hours. i will cancel plans and evenings out to make sure i get at least 60 (usually closer to 65) hours done. anything less and i'd fall behind in some aspect of my work.

for what it's worth, the average professor works 65 hours a week. if we ever hope to become the average professor, best to get used to it.

[Eigen]

I'd say 60-85, but it really depends on the week. Sometimes I'll work a string of 14 hour days, sometimes I'll take a few days off and play catchup on paperwork and such.

I'll also note, however, that most people won't count Teaching/Classes/Homework in how much they "work" each week... I know all of my peers and I only count the time we're actually in lab and/or writing manuscripts/catching up on reading papers.

I probably only did 40-65 hours when I was in classes, though, most weeks.

I'm not at a top-10 school, though, so things are a lot more relaxed. I have friends at top-10 programs who have their professors regularly come by the labs at 9pm on a Friday night just so they can note who isn't there. Such programs usually expect around 80 hours per week on top of teaching, classes, homework, etc. I know I interviewed at a couple of programs that expected you to work 12+ hour days all week and maybe, maybe take one weekend day per month off. There's a reason I'm not at those programs. I put in the work on a regular basis, but it's nice that I'm doing it from my drive and not because my PI demands it.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Eigen

[WornOutGrad]

I'd say 60-85, but it really depends on the week. Sometimes I'll work a string of 14 hour days, sometimes I'll take a few days off and play catchup on paperwork and such.

I'll also note, however, that most people won't count Teaching/Classes/Homework in how much they "work" each week... I know all of my peers and I only count the time we're actually in lab and/or writing manuscripts/catching up on reading papers.

I probably only did 40-65 hours when I was in classes, though, most weeks.

I'm not at a top-10 school, though, so things are a lot more relaxed. I have friends at top-10 programs who have their professors regularly come by the labs at 9pm on a Friday night just so they can note who isn't there. Such programs usually expect around 80 hours per week on top of teaching, classes, homework, etc. I know I interviewed at a couple of programs that expected you to work 12+ hour days all week and maybe, maybe take one weekend day per month off. There's a reason I'm not at those programs. I put in the work on a regular basis, but it's nice that I'm doing it from my drive and not because my PI demands it.

I seriously could never do that. Just the thought of it makes me shudder. 80 hours ON TOP of Classes and Teaching is ridiculous! This is why I don't want to go further in academia. I'd kill myself with that kind of workload.

I admire, and defer to those who can do it though

[Eigen]

I seriously could never do that. Just the thought of it makes me shudder. 80 hours ON TOP of Classes and Teaching is ridiculous! This is why I don't want to go further in academia. I'd kill myself with that kind of workload.

I admire, and defer to those who can do it though

Like I said, it's why I ended up where I am. The chance for a possible better placement rate in the future (if everything went well) wasn't worth 5-8 miserable years working 80-100 hour weeks for me.

I'm much happier somewhere I can work at the pace that suites me best for that particular week/month, and still have decent access to facilities/funds/etc.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Eigen

[WornOutGrad]

Like I said, it's why I ended up where I am. The chance for a possible better placement rate in the future (if everything went well) wasn't worth 5-8 miserable years working 80-100 hour weeks for me.

I'm much happier somewhere I can work at the pace that suites me best for that particular week/month, and still have decent access to facilities/funds/etc.

Exactly! I'm lucky to be in a similar program. But this very problem is what's keeping me from going for a PhD. It's just too competitive. I just commented on a post where people talk about being willing to move away from their spouses in order to go for a PhD. I'd never do that in a million years, and while I definately don't think less of anyone who does, I'm just realizing that if I stay in this field, I'll need to have similar dedication, which I'm honestly unwilling to have. It really gives me anxiety to think that there are people who are so dedicated to science; because I'll never want to be that dedicated.

[mandarin.orange]

It really gives me anxiety to think that there are people who are so dedicated to science; because I'll never want to be that dedicated.

This shouldn't make you anxious - be glad there are others willing to fill that role. There is a niche for everyone in science - those that only want to adhere to a 9-5 schedule and be done for the day, those that are willing to spend a little more free time as schedule permits (this is me) and those that are really, really motivated to get ahead in their field. Whatever your desired workload may be, there will be plenty of likeminded individuals out there.

[starmaker]

I have friends at top-10 programs who have their professors regularly come by the labs at 9pm on a Friday night just so they can note who isn't there.

Yeah, um, anyone who tries to pull that with me when I'm in a PhD program, regardless of its rank, can kiss my ass. I can just go right back to industry if my advisor won't respect my ability to manage my time or the existence of my non-school life.

I work full-time in industry, I'm a part-time MS student, and at the height of a semester I'm probably doing 60 hours a week between work and school. During lower-intensity times it's more like 50-55. Next school year I'll be writing my MS thesis as well as taking normal classes, which could be interesting at times.

For the record, I have a number of friends who are grad students in top-10 programs in their fields, and they are able to have personal lives, don't regularly have to work 80-hour weeks, and are satisfying their advisors, making good progress toward their degrees, etc.

[WornOutGrad]

This shouldn't make you anxious - be glad there are others willing to fill that role. There is a niche for everyone in science - those that only want to adhere to a 9-5 schedule and be done for the day, those that are willing to spend a little more free time as schedule permits (this is me) and those that are really, really motivated to get ahead in their field. Whatever your desired workload may be, there will be plenty of likeminded individuals out there.

That's really encouraging to hear. I really need to see examples of science jobs that are 9-5, plus a little more here and there (I think I'm in between category 1 and 2; I don't mind putting in a few extra hours here and there, especially if it's interesting... but I plan on having a wife to come home to later on). I guess I've become so cynical that I assume all scientists are Erick Carreiras. I would love to be a scientist, especially in Meteorology, because I love it; but I don't want it to be the only aspect of my life. I want to devote time to my faith, my family, my friends, and fun as well (though if I get a desired career, work can be fun at times!)

I'd rather flip burgers and enjoy an outside life than be stuck in a lab for 100 hours a week trying to keep my NSF grant.

[BlueRose]

I work at a high-ranking science program, and there are plenty of PIs like Carriera around. There's one who calls the lab phone at all hours of the day - think 2am on Saturday night - and takes roll call. (He only hires grad students because postdocs won't put up with his sh*t.) But they aren't all like that.

Personally, I'm going to grad school to become a scientist. You can't do that without diving in and getting your hands dirty; I expect to work hard. But I fully plan to draw the line at 60-70 hours. You want more, too bad for you. This is for two reasons:

1) The "ace in the hole" theory. Back when I was younger, my brother was a talented athlete, so I was exposed to some of that culture. And I heard the following theory about steroid use - it's an ace in the hole, but the problem is, you can only play it once. If you have to take steroids to make your high school football team, you'll never make it in college, because there are too many guys who are bigger and stronger than you even without help. If you have to take steroids in college, you'll never make the NFL; if you have to take them to make the NFL, you'll never be a star. So you might as well save your health and your money, and learn to be realistic about your talent.

Similarly, I could work nonstop - for a while. But it's not healthy, and I can't keep it up for the rest of my life. So if I have to work nonstop to get a PhD, I'll be a disappointing postdoc, compared to similarly accomplished people who took care of business and then went home. If I have to work nonstop as a postdoc, I'll do poorly as faculty. I will do my best; if that's not good enough, I'm okay with it.

2) The "paid to think" theory. Sooner or later, I'm going to be out in the world, trying to convince somebody that they want to hire me. They will agree to feed, house, and insure me - and in return, they get their name on whatever intellectual property I create. My goal is to maximize my attractiveness to such employers.

The PI's goal, however, is to extract as much work from me as possible. Some of this work is brain-work, helping my cause. The rest...not so much. If I've got the luxury of time to think about what I'm doing, I can work efficiently. If I don't, then I can crank out the grunt-work, but that's not bringing me closer to my goals.

Edited May 27, 2011 by BlueRose

[WornOutGrad]

I work at a high-ranking science program, and there are plenty of PIs like Carriera around. There's one who calls the lab phone at all hours of the day - think 2am on Saturday night - and takes roll call. (He only hires grad students because postdocs won't put up with his sh*t.) But they aren't all like that.

Personally, I'm going to grad school to become a scientist. You can't do that without diving in and getting your hands dirty; I expect to work hard. But I fully plan to draw the line at 60-70 hours. You want more, too bad for you. This is for two reasons:

1) The "ace in the hole" theory. Back when I was younger, my brother was a talented athlete, so I was exposed to some of that culture. And I heard the following theory about steroid use - it's an ace in the hole, but the problem is, you can only play it once. If you have to take steroids to make your high school football team, you'll never make it in college, because there are too many guys who are bigger and stronger than you even without help. If you have to take steroids in college, you'll never make the NFL; if you have to take them to make the NFL, you'll never be a star. So you might as well save your health and your money, and learn to be realistic about your talent.

Similarly, I could work nonstop - for a while. But it's not healthy, and I can't keep it up for the rest of my life. So if I have to work nonstop to get a PhD, I'll be a disappointing postdoc, compared to similarly accomplished people who took care of business and then went home. If I have to work nonstop as a postdoc, I'll do poorly as faculty. I will do my best; if that's not good enough, I'm okay with it.

2) The "paid to think" theory. Sooner or later, I'm going to be out in the world, trying to convince somebody that they want to hire me. They will agree to feed, house, and insure me - and in return, they get their name on whatever intellectual property I create. My goal is to maximize my attractiveness to such employers.

The PI's goal, however, is to extract as much work from me as possible. Some of this work is brain-work, helping my cause. The rest...not so much. If I've got the luxury of time to think about what I'm doing, I can work efficiently. If I don't, then I can crank out the grunt-work, but that's not bringing me closer to my goals.

Very well put! If some professor pulled that 2am saturday night crap on me, I'd be out the door so fast it's not funny. I am not a lab rat! I have the right to sleep, eat, and to have a life outside of science. If my PI ever has a problem with that, then I'm outta here!

[spectastic]

I stumbled upon this on google...

 

Now it makes sense why the phone was sometimes ringing when I was in the lab running experiments in my undergrad.... I didn't pick up though, because I was like "who in the hell would call the lab at this hour?" There was a security camera in the lab too. hmmmmm

[nnnnnnn]

I think 65 was the max I ever worked and I really disliked it. Maybe I'm doing it wrong...

[juilletmercredi]

It's going to vary wildly depending on your program AND also where you are in the program.

 

I'm in my dissertation phase.  I spend 10 hours a week working as a lab assistant in a stats lab (tutoring students on stats, teaching workshops, doing projects, etc.)  I spend another 4-5 hours a week in seminars for my fellowship.  I then spend a variable number of hours per week on my dissertation.  It probably should be about 30-40, but in reality it really depends on how lazy I am in a particular week.  (I have been *very* lazy this last week, but there have been weeks when I have definitely put in 40 hours towards this dissertation.)

 

Earlier in my program, I spent far more time.  During my coursework phase, I think a typical week was something like this:

 

12 hours a week in classes

~15-20 hours a week doing homeworks and readings for class

~20-30 hours a week doing research

 

So that could be 50-60 hours per week doing stuff.

 

During qualifying exams I think I spent about 15-20 hours a week studying for my quals, about 15-20 hours a week teaching and grading (I didn't start teaching until I was almost done with coursework), and maybe around 30 hours a week on research.  So again, maybe like 50-70 hours a week depending on the week?

 

The toughness about the hours isn't the hours themselves, but how intense and irregular they are.  Sometimes I do dissertation work for 6 hours straight; sometimes those 6 hours are between 6 pm and midnight.  Sometimes they're on Saturday.  When I was taking classes and in coursework, sometimes my studying went into the wee hours of the morning; I remember staying up for 36 hours straight during the finals week of my first year in grad school because I hadn't yet learned how to manage my time and I had a lot of papers due.  And the work is intense; you're using your brain very hard the whole time.

 

Also, grad school for the most part is less about the exact number of time and more about productivity.  I find myself productive when I work a moderate amount of time (50-60 hours a week).  There are people who work 80 hours a week, but work inefficiently (or are counting the time they surf the internet and sit and watch the centrifuge as "work") and so they aren't very productive.  Because of the intensity of the work, I question the motives of the professors who call their labs at 2 am on a Saturday night and the productivity of their students.  Really, how much high-level stuff are you getting done at 2 am on a Saturday night if you've already been in the lab for 16 hours that day?  Is your advisor expecting you to be there because he really thinks it's best for your research and your development, or does he just want a research grunt to carry out his work for him?  After all, the reason he's calling in is because he himself is not there.

 

WornOutGrad, I realized around my third year that I needed to decide for myself what I was willing to sacrifice on the altar of science.  I urge any student to do that BEFORE they begin a program (I spent a very stressful first two years trying to keep up with colleagues who were far more dedicated than I was).  For some people, science IS their passion; they don't want hobbies, or friends, or a spouse.  What they want to do is spend 80-100 hours a week trying to discover the secrets of the universe.  POWER TO THOSE PEOPLE.  They will likely win a Nobel Prize and discover something really important, and get tenure at Harvard or whatever.  Yay for them!

 

The point is, you won't really be competing with them.  Maybe for grants, but if you know at the outset you don't want to work 80 hour weeks, you're not going to go pursue an AP job at Michigan or UCLA or Harvard.  Maybe instead you want to be a professor at UNC-Greensboro, or Cal State Fullerton, or Reed College or Lawrence University (SLACs).  Maybe you want to go work for the NIH or RAND (although I hear RAND scientists have busy weeks, too).  Obviously if you want to get a job at Harvard or Michigan you need to work your tail off and get some grant funding in grad school or your postdoc plus like 15-20 pubs, but if you want to teach at an R2, you need fewer; at a SLAC or a regional comprehensive or master's level place, maybe you need still fewer.  It's not that the quality of research is lower, just the quantity.

 

I have a colleague (now friend!) who just graduated who made me really anxious early in my program because it seemed like she was always working, and I was not; she was always collaborating, and I was not; she was always...whatever.  I got burned out just thinking about her schedule.  Then I realized that we had very divergent career paths and desires.  She's R1-bound.  I knew coming into my program that I never wanted that kind of job or lifestyle.  So while I am no worse a scientist than her - and could probably do the same quantity of work if I chose to - I don't.  If we applied at the same job at Michigan, she'd likely get it over me - but that is unlikely to happen because I have exactly zero interest in being a professor at a big R1 like that.

[nnnnnnn]

I will say that I often spend a lot of front time trying to schedule, automatize, and delegate things as well. Good pre-planning saves you from a decent amount of dull work.

 

Have a task anyone could do? Ask (nicely) an undergrad.

Have to do it yourself even if its dull? Grade papers during it (and while we're at it, figure out how you grade the fastest).

Doing the same software tasks over and over? Write a script. (Seriously, so many of my labmates waste time doing the same data analysis over and over again and fiddling with their plots, when a simple script could help them with that. Sometimes I write one for them, I feel so bad.)

 

Also. Collaboration. My labmates and I also do favors for each other a lot. If the only reason I have to go in on the weekend is to flip a few switches and check things are okay, I might ask my labmate to do it for me and offer to do the same for them the following week.

[Knox]

I probably put in around 60-65 hours a week. However, my situation is a bit different as I am a single parent and still work part time at the job I got after undergrad. I'm unlike others in that I'm committed to my program, but I'm happy to put in only moderate time and effort for my degree, because I'm more committed to my kid. I think I find a good balance. But I definitely couldn't get away with less than 60 hours a week and still keep up. If I wasn't a mother, I would have no problem living in the lab and putting in 80 hour weeks. My priorities have just shifted a bit.

[TakeruK]

I agree with juilletmercredi and just for more numbers, here are my working hours for different phases of my grad career thus far:

 

First year and second year MSc in Canada (during classwork/teaching part of the year)

20 hours/week classes

10 hours/week teaching

10-20 hours/week research

 

MSc program -- for terms where I only had to do research

40-50 hours/week research (add an extra 10 hours/week for the last few weeks before my thesis submission)

 

During these two years, I took the equivalent of about 3 months completely off, where pretty much no work was done.

 

First year PhD (heavy coursework, no teaching, during school year):
30-35 hours/week courses

15-20 hours/week research

 

First year PhD (summer -- preparing for quals at the end of summer):

40-50 hours/week research

10 hours/week studying for quals in the 2 months before quals

 

I'm currently in the second year of my PhD and I'm just about to finish classes and begin teaching again. I think the distribution will be something like 40hours/week of research and 10 hours/week of teaching during the quarters I have to teach. Since I started by PhD, I haven't really taken much time off work completely...maybe 2-3 weeks so far at most. I don't count travel for work purposes ("fieldwork" and conferences) as time off but I also didn't average out those much longer workdays into my weekly averages above.

 

In general, I try to work about 40-50 hours a week. I think grad school is about setting your own limits to yourself as well as your bosses, because it's really hard for me to say no. So, I made it clear to myself that unless there is a deadline or something big coming up, I will limit myself to 50 hours/week of work and will allow 60hours when there's a deadline or something big. This means that in order to get my research done I might have to just not try as much in classes and I think it was hard for me to adjust from prioritizing classes (in undergrad) to just doing the minimum on classes (in grad school).

 

Another way I look at it is working an average of 50 hours/week for 50 weeks a year (2 weeks vacation) is 2500 hours worked per year. Or, out of the 168 hours per week, if I work for 50 hours, that's about 1/3 of my time. That's the amount of work I am willing to put into grad school and into my career. If it's not good enough then I don't think continuing further in academia is worth it for me or for my future bosses. So, I thought to myself, if I didn't pass quals on this schedule, I would know that I'm not cut out for the PhD program. That didn't happen, so the next checkpoint whether or not I will be ready to defend in 4 more years on this schedule. Then, whether or not I get a post-doc that is desirable to me, etc. 

 

Ultimately, my philosophy is that I am working in this career because I think it gives me a good balance of happiness in my work and the ability to enjoy other aspects of my life that isn't science/research/school. If the career demands get to a point where this balance doesn't exist, it will be time for me to find a new career. Everyone has a different balance, and I know there are others who work 80+ hours per week and are super happy, but that's just not me.

[Queen of Kale]

It's hard to say where my time goes but I don't (yet) feel any busier than I did when I was an undergrad and working part-time.  Maybe that means I'm lazy? 

 

TA: 10-15 hours a week

Research:  10-15 hours a week

Classes & HW: 10-15 hours a week

Seminars, meetings, and journal clubs: 10 hours a week

 

So, roughly 40-60 hours a week.  The balance shifts from week to week based on exams, equipment availability in the lab, and the needs of the students I TA.  But generally speaking this has been my balance.  I'd like to focus more on research in my second quarter (when I have a break from TA duties) and generally I foresee this balance shifting away from seminars/meetings/etc as I become more proficient at speed-reading journal articles and more articulate in my meetings with my advisor.  

[Arrowfletch]

I think I'm in about the 40-60 hours category with this being my first semester, but it's hard to take a guess when I don't keep track of studying time.  I'm not doing much research right now because of how timing has worked out this semester, but I probably have about the following:

 

In class: 8 hours plus extra time for after hours lab work and exams (~14 hours total)

Actually teaching: 6 hours plus 2 office hours

Grading/Planning: 4 hours

Studying: at least 25 hours, probably more some weeks

Research (reading, prepping, running experiments): less than 10 hours including weekend work and weekly meetings

 

So about 55-60 hours, most of that spent on classwork and teaching.  Next semester should be balanced better since I won't have this insane lab course eating all my extra time, but I'll be hurting for research time to catch up on everything I haven't had time to do yet so the hours themselves might expand.