Miserable in PHD - where did it go wrong?

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

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?

[ss2player]

What did I do wrong when I chose this school? Is there any way to remedy the situation?

I'll spare the details.

 

Does not compute. I'm sure we'd all love to help, but you need to explain the situation first, chief.

[Eigen]

Yah, no way to help without at least some details.

[jujubea]

Well, what kind of research did you do on the school beforehand?

Did you make a school visit?  Sit in on any classes? Speak to any students at length, both in terms of the program but also casually? 

Did you ask about what teaching is like and what the workload or philosophy would be?

Those are all the factors you're pointing to as not fitting, so I wonder whether you understood those things or not before going in. If you did know these things beforehand, then it sounds like you didn't know yourself very well, or at least not what you would like out of a program. If you did NOT know these things beforehand, it would seem like you could have done more thorough homework.

 

Also, I don't know how long you've been in the program, but is it possible you're having a sort of post-Christmas Day let-down? You know, after you anticipated grad school/Christmas Day for months and months, getting all excited and imagining what it would be like, and what might be inside those boxes, now that you've gotten it, it's a sort of let down?  Either not what you expected and hoped for, or simply just the normal deflation after all that excitement and anticipation... ?

Just a thought.

[bsharpe269]

I agree that more details are needed. What specific things at your new program are bothering you and how do they differ from your MS and your expectations?

[St Andrews Lynx]

There are some things that you can control when faced with a perceived "bad fit". And there are some things that you can't (or shouldn't bother with). Sifting through the exact reasons why you are unhappy and what you can do about those factors is how you sort yourself

 

I guess the most important question you need to ask yourself (based on the limited information provided): if your friends feel like they fit into grad school and you don't...what are they doing differently from you?

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Does not compute. I'm sure we'd all love to help, but you need to explain the situation first, chief.

 

I agree that more details are needed. What specific things at your new program are bothering you and how do they differ from your MS and your expectations?

 

Yah, no way to help without at least some details.

 

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.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Well, what kind of research did you do on the school beforehand?

Did you make a school visit?  Sit in on any classes? Speak to any students at length, both in terms of the program but also casually? 

Did you ask about what teaching is like and what the workload or philosophy would be?

Those are all the factors you're pointing to as not fitting, so I wonder whether you understood those things or not before going in. If you did know these things beforehand, then it sounds like you didn't know yourself very well, or at least not what you would like out of a program. If you did NOT know these things beforehand, it would seem like you could have done more thorough homework.

 

Also, I don't know how long you've been in the program, but is it possible you're having a sort of post-Christmas Day let-down? You know, after you anticipated grad school/Christmas Day for months and months, getting all excited and imagining what it would be like, and what might be inside those boxes, now that you've gotten it, it's a sort of let down?  Either not what you expected and hoped for, or simply just the normal deflation after all that excitement and anticipation... ?

Just a thought.

 

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.

[juilletmercredi]

What did you do wrong?  Probably nothing.  It's difficult to get a good sense of what being a student at a particular department is going to be like until you're there.  You can meet and like a professor for the 1.5 hours you talk to him, and then find out that he's not good to work for.

 

Also, teaching 3 lab sessions is a LOT for a graduate student.  I taught two lab sessions in one semester of grad school and I felt like I didn't have time to do anything else.  I get a sense (could be inaccurate) that the department is using doctoral students as low-cost teaching labor.  The fact that they are running into financial issues and are withholding research funding at the point when you really need it (the beginning of the program) is also worrying.  It's easier to juggle teaching and your own work when you don't have courses and when you know a little more, so frontloading the teaching requirement seems a bit silly.  Especially since you are all doing research anyway.

 

The more important question is - what are you going to do now?  You can try to make it work at your current institution or you can attempt to transfer somewhere you'd be happier personally and professionally.

 

If you're going to try to make it work, you'll have to change your approach to working with your advisor.  The professors who have projects that are very different - I would sit down with as many of them as you can and have a 30-minute chat.  Where is their research really going?  If you have ideas, where do your own ideas fit into their lab's work?  What stage are they at with your projects?

 

If you want to stay with your advisor but do different work or write grants, you're going to have to be more assertive and independent.  Most advisors appreciate this kind of initiative, which is something I wish I had known in grad school.  If you wait for your advisor to give you the go-ahead, you might be waiting forever.  If you want to write a proposal, identifying a granting agency and draw up an outline.  Then make a meeting with your advisor and show him the outline and discuss it.  If he thinks it's a bad idea because your idea needs work/won't work scientifically/it's the wrong agency/some other valid reason, then you might need to do revisions or think about a different avenue.  If he vetoes it simply because he doesn't want to support you in writing the grant, then run away and find another advisor.

 

You'll also need to try to obtain external funding.  This might be difficult - it sounds like you're not eligible for NSF because of your MS, but you might be eligible for NDSEG and Hertz (more competitive).  That will relieve some pressure and maybe get you into labs that you couldn't work with before.  If your university has internal fellowships that could also help.  If you're teaching 3 lab sessions (which I'm assuming are around 2 hours each), and you also have to attend the lecture (which is probably 1.25 hours), then you have this 3 hour meeting, and you're holding multiple office hours (let's say 1 per session).  That's already 13.25 hours you are spending without even including prep time, like all the grading, preparing labs, etc.  With grading large sections of individual lab reports, I could see your teaching easily taking up 25-30 hours a week, which is WAY too much time in the beginning of your program.  I think it can hinder your progress.

[jujubea]

 

What did you do wrong?  Probably nothing.  It's difficult to get a good sense of what being a student at a particular department is going to be like until you're there.  You can meet and like a professor for the 1.5 hours you talk to him, and then find out that he's not good to work for.

 

Also, teaching 3 lab sessions is a LOT for a graduate student.  I taught two lab sessions in one semester of grad school and I felt like I didn't have time to do anything else.  I get a sense (could be inaccurate) that the department is using doctoral students as low-cost teaching labor. 

 

 

The Economist wrote a great article on this fairly recently (past year or so), about how PhD programs are enabling legal slave labor, and pushing the best and brightest into lower economic classes in the meantime.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

 

What did you do wrong?  Probably nothing.  It's difficult to get a good sense of what being a student at a particular department is going to be like until you're there.  You can meet and like a professor for the 1.5 hours you talk to him, and then find out that he's not good to work for.

 

Also, teaching 3 lab sessions is a LOT for a graduate student.  I taught two lab sessions in one semester of grad school and I felt like I didn't have time to do anything else.  I get a sense (could be inaccurate) that the department is using doctoral students as low-cost teaching labor.  The fact that they are running into financial issues and are withholding research funding at the point when you really need it (the beginning of the program) is also worrying.  It's easier to juggle teaching and your own work when you don't have courses and when you know a little more, so frontloading the teaching requirement seems a bit silly.  Especially since you are all doing research anyway.

 

The more important question is - what are you going to do now?  You can try to make it work at your current institution or you can attempt to transfer somewhere you'd be happier personally and professionally.

 

If you're going to try to make it work, you'll have to change your approach to working with your advisor.  The professors who have projects that are very different - I would sit down with as many of them as you can and have a 30-minute chat.  Where is their research really going?  If you have ideas, where do your own ideas fit into their lab's work?  What stage are they at with your projects?

 

If you want to stay with your advisor but do different work or write grants, you're going to have to be more assertive and independent.  Most advisors appreciate this kind of initiative, which is something I wish I had known in grad school.  If you wait for your advisor to give you the go-ahead, you might be waiting forever.  If you want to write a proposal, identifying a granting agency and draw up an outline.  Then make a meeting with your advisor and show him the outline and discuss it.  If he thinks it's a bad idea because your idea needs work/won't work scientifically/it's the wrong agency/some other valid reason, then you might need to do revisions or think about a different avenue.  If he vetoes it simply because he doesn't want to support you in writing the grant, then run away and find another advisor.

 

You'll also need to try to obtain external funding.  This might be difficult - it sounds like you're not eligible for NSF because of your MS, but you might be eligible for NDSEG and Hertz (more competitive).  That will relieve some pressure and maybe get you into labs that you couldn't work with before.  If your university has internal fellowships that could also help.  If you're teaching 3 lab sessions (which I'm assuming are around 2 hours each), and you also have to attend the lecture (which is probably 1.25 hours), then you have this 3 hour meeting, and you're holding multiple office hours (let's say 1 per session).  That's already 13.25 hours you are spending without even including prep time, like all the grading, preparing labs, etc.  With grading large sections of individual lab reports, I could see your teaching easily taking up 25-30 hours a week, which is WAY too much time in the beginning of your program.  I think it can hinder your progress.

 

 

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.

Edited October 23, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[St Andrews Lynx]

Three lab sections is a lot. 

What is the TA trajectory like at your university? Where I am, the 1st year TAs all had to teach 2 x 3hr introductory labs per week for the first academic year and grade 45-50 lab reports every week (prelab, quizzes, reports and post labs). The first semester was rough, because of course I had to take classes and do my lab rotations.

BUT...

...It did get easier in my second semester. Grading became quicker, I balanced stuff up better, and was able to focus more on research. In our second academic year, the TAs at my university are moved to the more specialist labs: I now only have to TA one 3hr section and the grading for that is really slick. 

 

Will you be expected to TA these same sessions with the same time commitments next year? All things being equal, if that's not the case then I would just stick it out. 

 

HOWEVER...

You need to be where there is cash. A department without money is not going to be able to provide you with the resources, training and support you need to get a worthwhile qualification to do well on the job market. Citing a lack of "research fit" is reason enough to transfer schools. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Three lab sections is a lot. 

What is the TA trajectory like at your university? Where I am, the 1st year TAs all had to teach 2 x 3hr introductory labs per week for the first academic year and grade 45-50 lab reports every week (prelab, quizzes, reports and post labs). The first semester was rough, because of course I had to take classes and do my lab rotations.

BUT...

...It did get easier in my second semester. Grading became quicker, I balanced stuff up better, and was able to focus more on research. In our second academic year, the TAs at my university are moved to the more specialist labs: I now only have to TA one 3hr section and the grading for that is really slick. 

 

Will you be expected to TA these same sessions with the same time commitments next year? All things being equal, if that's not the case then I would just stick it out. 

 

HOWEVER...

You need to be where there is cash. A department without money is not going to be able to provide you with the resources, training and support you need to get a worthwhile qualification to do well on the job market. Citing a lack of "research fit" is reason enough to transfer schools. 

 

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.

[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.

Edited October 31, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[juilletmercredi]

Well, on the home front, I think that it's okay to gently push back a little bit.  One of the things I eventually learned in my PhD program is that although your PI is more experienced and has more training than you, you're both human beings - and he's supposed to be training you.  So if he shoots down an idea, there's nothing wrong with saying "Can you tell me why you think it's not a good idea?"  You can further explain that you want to know so that you can refine your idea-generating process and so that you can learn more about the mechanics of the system.  The way he answers the question can tell you a whole lot about him and whether he's ever going to be open to you proposing things.  Some PIs think that grad students should just shut up and do the projects that are assigned to them - you need to know if your PI is that way, and whether you're okay with that.

 

I agree, though, that this is sounding more and more like an unsolvable problem.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Well, on the home front, I think that it's okay to gently push back a little bit.  One of the things I eventually learned in my PhD program is that although your PI is more experienced and has more training than you, you're both human beings - and he's supposed to be training you.  So if he shoots down an idea, there's nothing wrong with saying "Can you tell me why you think it's not a good idea?"  You can further explain that you want to know so that you can refine your idea-generating process and so that you can learn more about the mechanics of the system.  The way he answers the question can tell you a whole lot about him and whether he's ever going to be open to you proposing things.  Some PIs think that grad students should just shut up and do the projects that are assigned to them - you need to know if your PI is that way, and whether you're okay with that.

 

I agree, though, that this is sounding more and more like an unsolvable problem.

 

My idea was about a sophisticated yet known measurement methodology that the professor used during his PHD, but adjusted and applied to a new semiconductor system about which little is known. This measurement technique has significant potential to measure things that simply cannot be measured by other means (at least not in a non-contact way), and this new semiconductor system is one of the leading candidates for revolutionary solar cell technology. The professor basically shot down my idea with "The efficiency is too low right now. It will never beat silicon." That makes me very disappointed because I have alot to say about that - there are reasons why the efficiency is low (some of which can be addressed with his instrument), and there are also reasons why it is still worth pursuing, including cost considerations, things that it can do that silicon can't, and new device architectures made possible only with this material. I started to bring it up and he says "You know, you should think about the quantum information project instead. It is really interesting and cool."

 

In my interpretation, this means, forget it. I'm just going to hand him a 10 page draft of the proposal, and see if he can work with the idea. At this point, I have to make clear what I want.

Edited November 2, 2014 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Crucial BBQ]

and this new semiconductor system is one of the leading candidates for revolutionary solar cell technology. The professor basically shot down my idea with "The efficiency is too low right now. It will never beat silicon." 

Interesting.  I worked on a similar project during undergrad.  If you are talking about what I think you are talking about then there is currently no known possible solution, only hypothetical.  If I were the prof/advisor, I would have done the same thing. 

 

If you feel you got a great idea, just write your own proposal on this subject and publish it. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Interesting.  I worked on a similar project during undergrad.  If you are talking about what I think you are talking about then there is currently no known possible solution, only hypothetical.  If I were the prof/advisor, I would have done the same thing. 

 

If you feel you got a great idea, just write your own proposal on this subject and publish it. 

 

The thing is, there is research going on, literally right now, at multiple major national labs and top 10 universities on this very subject, and my PI is no stranger to the theoretical/fundamental side of that research and it was even listed as a potential application. The *only* difference from the other profs is the instrument used to analyze this system, and the instrument is something that my PI knows about. It is literally one of the safest possible projects and a direct extension of my PI's PHD work. If this doesn't work, then nothing will work and it is a problem resolvable only with changing professors or schools, which I have already set my mind on.

 

I cannot write a proposal - DOE and NSF give grants to PIs and there is no reason for the PI to even consider my proposal. Also, I thought about it - why the hell should I stress myself for writing this proposal that may or may not be even looked at? I came to graduate school to do materials science, and if I cannot do materials science at one professors lab or at one school, then I should change.

[dr. t]

It is literally one of the safest possible projects and a direct extension of my PI's PHD work.

 

Do you have any concerns over the professor's personal motives?

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Do you have any concerns over the professor's personal motives?

 

No concerns, I already know what is going on with his personal motives: he wants everybody to work on a different topic so that he can get the maximum amount of possible grants.

[Eigen]

Also, if it's what he did his doctoral work on, no one will ever take it seriously as *his* work. It will be forever considered his PhD advisors work. 

 

He might be able to revisit it down the road when he has more of a name made and is tenured, but doing so now would be really stupid for his career. 

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Also, if it's what he did his doctoral work on, no one will ever take it seriously as *his* work. It will be forever considered his PhD advisors work. 

 

He might be able to revisit it down the road when he has more of a name made and is tenured, but doing so now would be really stupid for his career. 

 

I see. That means it indeed is an irresolvable problem. I just needed a reminder of that. Thanks.

[dr. t]

He might be able to revisit it down the road when he has more of a name made and is tenured, but doing so now would be really stupid for his career. 

 

Right, that was kind of my question - does he want it to still be their to revisit?