Getting off to a good start

[Sword_Saint]

How much should one's interests be narrowed down by the time one enters a combined MA/PhD program? I am interested in a wide array of things related to my field, and while I had to select a geographic focus in order to apply, that's about the only thing I know for certain. 

 

I love the program I applied to because I could take my studies into ancient history, or into psychology and cognitive science, or into anthropology, or into the global-political arena. But these directions are pretty divergent.

 

Should I be working over the summer to try and narrow them down? I have almost no background in religious studies, and the program admitted me with that (I said it in my SOP, plainly), so they know I have some foundations to build - is that a lame excuse to be a little unfocused in terms of topic? 

 

 

I would say getting a better sense of a specific focus is useful but not mandatory when entering an MA program. I say this because you will develop a better sense of which path you want to take in terms of research and such, but having a general idea of where you want to go will shorten the amount of time it takes you to get there.

 

Many faculty members I've spoken with [in my discipline] have indicated that knowing where they wanted to go from the outset allowed them to complete their degrees sooner than some of their peers who spent the beginning of their graduate degree determining what their master's thesis / dissertation should be about. Your idea for a master's thesis [or research for publication or whatever else] doesn't have to be set in stone but just narrowing the focus and then determining how you can contribute to that area could save you some time. In some respects it may be better if it isn't set in stone because then you'll be more receptive to constructive criticisms and feedback from your adviser. So I guess I would aim for a middle ground.

 

Within my discipline my middle ground is like:   Within criminology, I'm interested in place based criminological theories, crime mapping and crime prevention, all focusing on how to identify and alter crime at places. There are some theories I like more than others within that branch, but I'm still open to where and on what crimes I do that kind of research [compared to very specific: crime mapping and criminological frameworks for intimate partner homicides in rural suburbs]

Edited March 23, 2015 by Sword_Saint

[Igotnothin]

I've read some work on hours and productivity and there is a reason why 40 hours became the norm. When people are worked for more than 40/week they make mistakes and actually reduce overall output. For creative workers diminishing returns come even quicker. I can't say what the ideal number of hours is for graduate school, but if somebody is spending all night and all weekend in a lab I sincerely wonder if they're doing good research. Here's something interesting out of Stanford about programmers and "crunch time".

 

Highly doubt this is true. Randomize 100 workers to work 60 hours for a week, and another 100 to work 40 hours, and compare any measure of performance. Pretty sure the 60 hours/week group gets more done. Not that I'd want to work that much.

[Vene]

Highly doubt this is true. Randomize 100 workers to work 60 hours for a week, and another 100 to work 40 hours, and compare any measure of performance. Pretty sure the 60 hours/week group gets more done. Not that I'd want to work that much.

It's been done. This has been known about for 100 years.

 

It was found that everywhere, even abstracting from all other cultural and social interests, a moderate shortening of the working day did not involve loss, but brought a direct gain. The German [p. 213] pioneer in the movement for the shortening of the workingman's day, Ernst Abbé, the head of one of the greatest German factories, wrote many years ago that the shortening from nine to eight hours, that is, a cutting-down of more than 10 per cent, did not involve a reduction of the day's product, but an increase, and that this increase did not result from any supplementary efforts by which the intensity of the work would be reinforced in an unhygienic way.

[Igotnothin]

It's been done. This has been known about for 100 years.

 

Do you have a reference for a peer-reviewed experimental study that used randomization and blinding to look at this issue (and is written in English)? Your link is to a summary of 100-year old studies written in German. 

[Vene]

Would you prefer this? (Journal link)

 

Figures 1 and 2 are key:

 

Sustained overtime lead to enough of a decline that they would have been better off just doing a 40 hour week. For example, that asymptote for figure 1 is below 75%, but even rounding up to 75% yields 0.75*50 hours = 37.5 hours. By week 12, they were doing less work in 50 hours than what would have been done in 40 hours if they never started 50 hour workweeks.

[Igotnothin]

Would you prefer this? (Journal link)

 

Figures 1 and 2 are key:

 

Sustained overtime lead to enough of a decline that they would have been better off just doing a 40 hour week. For example, that asymptote for figure 1 is below 75%, but even rounding up to 75% yields 0.75*50 hours = 37.5 hours. By week 12, they were doing less work in 50 hours than what would have been done in 40 hours if they never started 50 hour workweeks.

 

In the "Conclusions" section of that paper:

 

The literature on scheduled overtime was found to be very sparse; dated to the late 1960s and earlier; based on small sample sizes; and largely developed from questionable or unknown sources. Although there appears to be a number of data sources, this is an illusion because many of the articles and publications quote other sources while providing no new data or insight. Where the data source is known, other pertinent information, such as the environmental and site conditions, quality of management and supervision, and labor situation, is unknown. The various graphs and data that have been published are inherently unreliable, except perhaps to suggest an upper bound on the losses of efficiency that might be expected. The literature offers no guidance as to what circumstances may lead to losses of efficiency.

 

With respect to the loss of efficiency as a function of the number of hours per day and the number of days per week, the literature provides strange and largely unbelievable results.

[Vene]

From the abstract:

 

 

The analysis of data shows general consistency with respect to overall losses of efficiency. However, with respect to the loss of efficiency as a function of the number of hours per day and the number of days per week, many studies show that the effect of these two variables is negligible. The paper concludes that these studies provide strange and largely unbelievable results.

I believe that the "unbelievable results" that they are discussing come from the studies that "studies show that the effect of these two variables is negligible."

 

And I don't think that, conceptually, it's hard to believe that as people work more hours the odds of them making a mistake will drastically increase. In many work environments mistakes can be incredibly costly. I know that if I mix up two samples that can completely undo weeks worth of work. When I was in manufacturing QA, I saw firsthand many people making mistakes on the production lines that cost several shifts to correct. These drastically reduce total output.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Vene

[Igotnothin]

Well it is an interesting issue and I admit I can see it possibly going either way. I definitely like the idea of putting in your 8 hours and then bouncing and not doing any work in the evenings or on the weekends. But it's hard to believe that would make me more productive.

 

If I work for 2 or 3 hours on a Saturday afternoon, I usually make some good progress. I can't remember a time I put in 3 hours on a Saturday and made so many mistakes that I actually regressed on my work.

[Vene]

Well it is an interesting issue and I admit I can see it possibly going either way. I definitely like the idea of putting in your 8 hours and then bouncing and not doing any work in the evenings or on the weekends. But it's hard to believe that would make me more productive.

 

If I work for 2 or 3 hours on a Saturday afternoon, I usually make some good progress. I can't remember a time I put in 3 hours on a Saturday and made so many mistakes that I actually regressed on my work.

Don't get me wrong, I have totally done weekend work myself (damn take-home exams). But I do not want to make a habit of it and an extra few hours is certainly not the same beast as regularly pulling 60 hour weeks. I also do suspect that based on the nature of the work that the exact number can vary (including things like if I spend a Saturday collecting images versus setting up an incubation experiment with 3 different drugs and 6 different cell lines. The latter is far less forgiving, whereas I can always take another picture.

[brown_eyed_girl]

Thanks for all the useful suggestions and perspectives. It's definitely intimidating going from being out of school for a year with only an undergrad degree and going into a PhD program, and since I'm the type who needs a lot of down time, I'm glad to hear work-life balance being emphasized so heavily here.

 

I won't start grad school till fall so I can't give any advice on that yet, but I am a big believer in taking time to recharge. I meditate daily, sometimes just for 15 minutes if that's all I have and sometimes a full half an hour. I know that it has made me more focused and engaged in various areas of my life, so I'm betting that will be a big part of maintaining my sanity in grad school. I can definitely be a Type A and want to go from one thing to the next, so meditation is a way to force myself to slow down, really pay attention to how I'm feeling physically and emotionally, and refocus myself. Plus there's pretty much a new study every week touting the benefits of mindfulness meditation - from increasing compassion to improving sleep quality and reducing depression. 

 

Grad school is very important to me, but I think it's also really important to devote time to the things that really matter most to us. I will not sacrifice my relationships on the altar of scholarship; my loved ones need to know I'm there for them, just as I know they'll be there for me. I hope that I'll continue to volunteer with kids once a week, making time for something beyond myself. I won't give up cooking myself nutritious meals. Being a student will be a huge part of my identity, but it can't be all of it. When I'm struggling on a project (and I'm sure that day will come) I want to know that I am worth more than that project. At the end of the day, it's just school! I want to do my best, but I don't think that has to come at the exclusion of everything else. 

[Nicole Gilbert]

On May 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Guest criminologist said:

I am already learning to give up all things I used to enjoy so I can be prepared for what's ahead I know it will be worth it sorry. I get your point work-life balance is important, but who goes into a PhD program and does not expect that they will have to put many things they want on hold, my question is why bother doing it if you are not willing to give your full 100% effort and dedication. I rather spend some alone time for a few years than have to live with knowing the fact that I could have got more done, got higher grades, wrote more papers, etc. when I had the opportunity. 

2

With this logic, you would certainly have little diversity of backgrounds, experiences and ways of thinking in academia. Academic communities are already too homogenous and eliminating the perspectives of those who hold more than their academic persuits isn't only not good for academics, it isn't good for acaedemia. I believe interdisciplinary thinking is already far too rare. I'm puzzled by those who believe knowledge, and the process of acquiring knowledge, can be nurtured in a vacuum. Entirely compartmentalizing your career from any other part of your life; living entirely in one area while denying others, eliminating exposure to experiences that may contribute to or inform your academic knowledge, is so isolationist that it doesn't logically ring true for me. Perhaps in hard science disciplines maintaining a finite focus yields results. In education, and many humanities disciplines, cross-pollination of ideas, activity in your mind and social-emotional development are part of what engages our intellect. Anyway, that is my experience as an educator. I also know from supporting learners that each student tackles and engages with education in different ways; each person is at a certain place in their own development. If your method is working for you now, you'll continue with it. If it does reach a point of deminishing returns you will feel that and succumb to it or change your process. In general, your method isn't one that best supports learning, productivity or mental health for the vast majority. 

[Songbird222]

On 5/19/2014 at 7:58 AM, Guest criminologist said:

I am not saying I will be only studying the whole time but I can't have major distractions like some people do, they would take up too much time and to me it is nothing more than an additional burden weighing me down. I just want to approach my studies these four years very seriously, a PhD program is a lot more work and more difficult plus you are being graded, so you cannot expect to have work life balance. Plus it is not like you are not going to have plenty of time to enjoy your pets, hobbies ,relationships,  once you are done so why not them put them aside temporarily so you can be the most productive in your studies and research.

Very interesting perspective. It will be hard to put my toddler aside for 5-6 years while I complete a PhD. Instead, I like to think of my child as a strong motivator to become an expert in prioritizing my time. Plus, added bonus, he gets to grow up with a cool role model, don't you think?

[jujubea]

On 4/26/2016 at 11:22 AM, Songbird222 said:

Very interesting perspective. It will be hard to put my toddler aside for 5-6 years while I complete a PhD. Instead, I like to think of my child as a strong motivator to become an expert in prioritizing my time. Plus, added bonus, he gets to grow up with a cool role model, don't you think?

Yay! Others with kids!

I have three. Now they're talking about grad school, too. Plus, they're thinking "wow, mom is totally relatable... she has gripes with teachers and grades and assignments and communication like we do, too!" haha.

[drivingthoughts]

@Songbird222 @jujubea Absolutely! Kids are like the strongest motivation to get your work done 'cause a) I want to see them and spend time with them,  I want to make them proud of me. Also, my kids are why I study what I study - I want make positive change for the future they will inherit.

Besides, at least in fields like theology, philosophy, education - it really helps to be living a life where your studies hit reality. I deal in ethics - I can't imagine not having my busy, socially engaged life to inform my research and ideas. 

[Songbird222]

On 6/9/2016 at 10:35 AM, drivingthoughts said:

@Songbird222 @jujubea Absolutely! Kids are like the strongest motivation to get your work done 'cause a) I want to see them and spend time with them,  I want to make them proud of me. Also, my kids are why I study what I study - I want make positive change for the future they will inherit.

Besides, at least in fields like theology, philosophy, education - it really helps to be living a life where your studies hit reality. I deal in ethics - I can't imagine not having my busy, socially engaged life to inform my research and ideas. 

Yes to all of this.

[inertialdummy]

On 6/29/2014 at 9:37 PM, NeurosciMRI said:

I was wondering when is a good time for first year masters students to start getting involved in research? I have emailed professors to discuss my research interests, however I was told that the first year (usually all coursework) can be academically challenging and rigorous and that I should wait until later in my first year to formulate an adequate research question and plan. I have not been assigned my faculty advisor yet so I am not sure what to do from here. Any thoughts?

Piggyback:

On the contrary my advisor told me that I'll be starting with research as soon as possible. I have talked to one of my friends who is completing his phd this year, he cautioned me against the course load and how hard they will be before anything else. Then again my university is a small private research university so we have 2 must 2 elective courses opened for grad students, which leaves me 1 must and 1 elective for now ( I need to complete a pre for the other, and other elective is not related to my topic).

Now, I am very confused in terms of what to focus on. I am reading a lot of advice online, all say don't focus on getting A's. Well, I was by no means a stellar student in terms of courses but I aced everything related to a project or an independent work (I mean really, honestly independent). So, I feel like I should be careful about getting A's a bit more during grad school since my undergrad cgpa is haunting me. But then again my strong point is research, and investing in that more could be a better strategy. Well, I don't know what to do these days.

[vonham]

On 9/3/2016 at 8:30 AM, inertialdummy said:

Piggyback:

On the contrary my advisor told me that I'll be starting with research as soon as possible. I have talked to one of my friends who is completing his phd this year, he cautioned me against the course load and how hard they will be before anything else. Then again my university is a small private research university so we have 2 must 2 elective courses opened for grad students, which leaves me 1 must and 1 elective for now ( I need to complete a pre for the other, and other elective is not related to my topic).

Now, I am very confused in terms of what to focus on. I am reading a lot of advice online, all say don't focus on getting A's. Well, I was by no means a stellar student in terms of courses but I aced everything related to a project or an independent work (I mean really, honestly independent). So, I feel like I should be careful about getting A's a bit more during grad school since my undergrad cgpa is haunting me. But then again my strong point is research, and investing in that more could be a better strategy. Well, I don't know what to do these days.

I'm sort of in the same situation. All the classes in my undergrad that required independent research (and surprisingly there were many) I got really good grades. Anything that had an exam at the end I didn't get the best grades, especially if I wasn't "into" the topic. Because of this I'm slightly disappointed in my undergrad GPA, and definitely want to get better grades in my PhD program. However, in my program they basically give most people As, with a B being "you've done a pretty bad job and need to improve greatly". 

Anyway one of the first things I brought up when talking to my advisers is when should I start on a research project. They told me that it's not expected at all in this first year. I still might start something next semester, and especially just develop papers that I'll be writing for some of my classes. Anyway, I would say listen to whatever your advisers have to say about this. They know the program best, and what's expected of the students. 

[inertialdummy]

3 hours ago, vonham said:

Anyway, I would say listen to whatever your advisers have to say about this. They know the program best, and what's expected of the students. 

I see, I thought I was expected to know this on my own. I'll have a meeting with my advisor and rest of the faculty on friday on the week of enrollment, so I'll ask him there.

[Eigen]

FWIW, you shouldn't ask straight up "how much should I focus on getting As?"

The question you should ask is what your advisor suggests for a balance of your time between research and coursework. 

The general expectation isn't always that you should or shouldn't be getting As, it's about how much time you should be putting into your coursework. Sometimes that goes along with the grade, but in some programs (my graduate program, for instance) it was expected that a reasonably prepared student could easily get As without putting in too much time.

[DiscoTech]

On 5/24/2014 at 0:28 PM, Guest criminologist said:

What I am arguining is not to study all day long, like do all nighters or something. I have never had to that or intend to. I am just saying that a PhD program will require a lot of motivation and effort, and I just don't feel that serious commitments should get in the way that includes non-necessities such as pets, relationships, hobbies, etc.  These things can end up taking up a lot of time and potentially get you off track. They aren't necessary at all for you to do well.

It is a shame this poster didn't consider offering up opinions on something they had no experience with a "non-necessity."

[beigeflower71]

To revive this thread: Success in graduate school has much less to do with the number of hours you put in and much more with whether you know how to use those hours in ways that help you progress through your program.

[Leojames26]

Hey, congrats on starting grad school! Here’s the short version:

• Studying: It’s more about understanding than just memorizing. Dive deep, ask questions, and don’t stress if it feels harder than undergrad—it’s supposed to be.

• Connecting with Faculty: Just show up, be interested in what they do, and keep your advisor in the loop. It’s more about building a relationship than anything else.

• School-Life Balance: Don’t let school consume you. Take breaks, do something fun, and avoid burnout.

• Research Topic: Pick something you actually care about—makes life easier when you’re stuck with it for a while. Chat with your advisor for ideas.

• Professional Profile: Start thinking about your future, but don’t go overboard. Go to some seminars, maybe network a bit.

And yeah, avoid getting too stressed out about the small stuff. You’ll be fine!