10 Steps to PhD Failure

[rising_star]

Times Higher Education has an interesting post about 10 steps to PhD failure. Several of these are things you hear and see around here often (like not doing an unfunded PhD, not staying at the same school for all your degrees, and not expecting others to understand) but a few others are pieces of advice that probably aren't shared enough. I can't say that I agree with all of their advice but, it's food for thought. What do others think?

[TakeruK]

I think this is a good article overall. It summarizes a lot of the thoughts and tips that many experienced people here have said and is similar to a lot of things my friends/colleagues have said to each other as well as to our undergraduate mentees. I also found reading the article helpful--even though I am more often on the "giving advice about grad school" side of things rather than "getting advice" (I'm now in the "getting advice" stage for postdocs!), you sometimes forget things and being reminded of things you already know is good.

I'm going to pick out a few of these points that I would discuss further, if I was going to share this list to an undergraduate student or a new graduate student. I'm going to rephrase the section titles to reflect the advice given:

1. "Don't stay at the same university": Lots of good reasons given to back up this advice. It's certainly true if you want to maximize your chances of getting the most opportunities available. The authors seem to define this as "success". However, I don't think it's the only way to be successful. I know a bunch of academics that stayed at the same university for BSc, MSc, PhD, and now works there as a permanent member of the research staff (with a few teaching duties). These people are very happy and I think most people would agree that they are "successful" because they achieved their goal: a steady job doing what they like living in a location they like. I know for others, this would be considered very unsuccessful, since to some people, their goal would be a tenured position, for example. So, the caveat to this advice would be: when you get advice like this, consider carefully what the author means by "success" and whether or not your definition is the same.

Also, these authors are Canadian and we have a undergrad-masters-PhD path, which is why they refer to "three degrees" as the norm. It's a little hidden in the paragraphs, but this doesn't mean you have to be in a new university for every degree--just not the same one for all three!

3. "Don't choose the most charismatic supervisor": Very good points here. Just remember that everyone works differently so someone who is great for person X might not work at all for person Y. And, someone who was a terrible supervisor for person Y might be a great match for person Z. However, don't get caught in the fallacy that you are special and that although this professor had problems with many students, you and him/her will get along great! Although every student is indeed a little different, be honest with yourself when you are comparing yourself to the past students with good/bad experiences. Are you comparing the traits that are actually there, or just what you want to be there?

8. "Don't write like the stereotypical academic": I like this paragraph a lot! Academic writing does not have to be an exercise in flexing your GRE vocabulary muscles. In my opinion, we should strive to use as simple words as possible, even when writing to other academics. Sometimes, another more obscure word might have a slightly more precise meaning, but using it will come at a cost of being harder to understand. I hope academics use judgement in making these decisions. Some of my colleagues disagree on this, and call it "dumbing down" academia, but I think if we really want our work to be international, we need to write at a level where people who don't work in English can still understand. To use some examples, just yesterday I read a paper that used the word "exacerbate" when they could have very easily used "made worse" or "became worse". 

9. "Don't have a thin skin": Normally, I disagree with this advice because it's normally phrased in a way that means "grad students will get abused and treated unfairly and you just have to suck it up". I don't think that is true--if we find a situation where the conditions are crappy, we should make a big deal of it and get it changed. However, the example the authors gave here made it clear that the advice is really "Don't take academic criticism personally" and I think it is really good advice. Although our work becomes our passion, we should not take an valid, respectful attack on our ideas as an attack on us as a person nor as an attack on our abilities. Being too "attached" to an idea for non-academic reasons might also make us blind to an exciting discovery and we might end up "barking up the wrong tree" for awhile, so to speak. In terms of interpersonal interactions, I don't think a "thick skin" is necessary to be an academic. But in terms of receiving constructive criticism on our work, we should definitely not take it personally.

I'd like to hear other thoughts too!

[fuzzylogician]

I think I can agree with some version of all of these, but there is a lot that's left up to interpretation. It also assumes that your goal is to become a professor, which may not be (read: is not) correct for everyone. If you aren't going to stay in academia, there may be very good reasons for staying at the same school and not worrying too much about building your CV, for example.

Some of the advice I would just phrase differently (and I wonder if the copy editor chose the headlines and subheadings, because the text doesn't always exactly match the heading). Like "don't choose the coolest advisor" is really a warning to ask around about your potential advisor and learn about their communication style, advising style, etc. and make sure they are compatible with what you want and need. That is very important.

Likewise, I definitely agree with the "don't have a thin skin" one, though again the heading may not be worded the best. If you are going to be in academia, there will be harsh criticism, and lots of rejections, and (the worst, if you ask me) a whole lot of prolonged periods uncertainty that will affect your life to its core (will I have a job next year? what city/country/continent will it be in? will my spouse be able to find work there? will I have to move again the following year, if I am lucky enough to find another job, etc.). If you can't (learn to) deal with that, you absolutely should find another line of work. 

[Eigen]

It was well written, but as mentioned all the points have to be taken from the perspective in which they are written- it's the problem with many pieces about academia or graduate school. They try to advise a disparate group of individuals (different fields, different goals, different institutions and even different countries) about "general" rules or guidelines. 

They always have a good element of truth to remember, but very rarely should they be taken as gospel. 

I usually file articles like this away in the "remember that there are people with these opinions in academia". 

To me, I interpret the "thin skin" comment as a reminder that lots of academia can be adversarial, and that you will be held to high standards. It doesn't just apply to grad school! Getting used to lots of heavy comments on your writing and research, getting used to paper rejections, and learning how to shrug them off and move on is essential. It even applies to teaching- not letting the smattering of unsubstantiated negative comments you'll always get weigh on you. 

[TeaGirl]

3. "Don't choose the most charismatic supervisor": Very good points here. Just remember that everyone works differently so someone who is great for person X might not work at all for person Y. And, someone who was a terrible supervisor for person Y might be a great match for person Z. However, don't get caught in the fallacy that you are special and that although this professor had problems with many students, you and him/her will get along great! Although every student is indeed a little different, be honest with yourself when you are comparing yourself to the past students with good/bad experiences. Are you comparing the traits that are actually there, or just what you want to be there?

 

I did this. I thought I was a special snowflake. Do NOT do this.

Seriously. I don't care how awesome you think this professor might be, or how great their research is, or how smart and tough and can manage stress you think you are: If the prof is super charismatic, very successful, shows no sign of humility or respect for other people's work in the field, talks like they know everything, and if you hear that other students have left his/her group and either consider them difficult or advise against working with them then: RUN. RUN. RUN.

These professors tend to be not as knowledgeable as they seem, delegate everything, busy themselves with a lot of academic politics to further their own careers, milk their students and employees and their work for all they are worth for their own benefit, treat their subordinates like doormats, and often have no idea about your own project yet are perfectly fine with swooping in and dictating what should be done without discussion that every step becomes a fight of proving them wrong, which you constantly have to do wasting huge amounts of time and energy, and they have to micro-manage everything.

I am in my third year and I would quit the whole PhD had it not been for my visa situation. These difficult high stress professors will make your life just constant anxiety and depression. Don't be deluded by a good first few months, they are likely busy making someone else's life miserable, but believe me it will happen.

/rant.

[TakeruK]

(re: #3), I was also speaking from experience! Although luckily the way it's set up, it's not that awkward to end things with one of your projects here within the first two years because everyone has at least two simultaneous projects in the beginning. I did naively think that I would somehow be a special snowflake, but since our system is very open to supervisor changes, no long term "damage" was done, so I'm still glad for the learning experience.

[rising_star]

A response addressing 10 Steps to PhD Success is also quite interesting.

I disagree with this author's assertion that it's okay to do an unfunded PhD because you can find sufficient support

Edited August 31, 2015 by rising_star

[TakeruK]

A response addressing 10 Steps to PhD Success is also quite interesting.

I disagree with this author's assertion that it's okay to do an unfunded PhD because you can find sufficient support

Agreed! But I guess if it's the other way around--that is you have already fund sufficient support through other means and your only option to a PhD is an unfunded one, then I guess who am I to judge how you want to use your resources! I certainly would advise very strongly against relying finding support after the fact.

But if you somehow already have the resources lined up (e.g. a company sponsorship, a military appointment, a rich relative/family member, your own savings) and you're willing to spend that money on yourself to get a PhD, then sure, in ideal circumstances, I don't think the fact that your money is coming from your company/the military/your family/yourself is going to make you any more or less likely to finish a PhD program. I say "ideal circumstances" because it's often the case (at least in my field) that if a school does not offer you funding, they are either 1) going to treat you as a second-class student and/or 2) do not think you can actually succeed. If that's the case, then you may be wasting your money (but hey, it's your money to waste I guess). 

So while I could imagine a very limited set of circumstances that would make funding-your-own-PhD a good piece of advice, I also think that it is a little irresponsible to give the advice the way this author did because it does seem like they are saying "don't worry, you can work it out later". Highly do not recommend that.

[knp]

When the level of funding in the humanities is steadily decreasing, it seems shocking to advise somebody NOT to do a PhD because they didn't get funding. I know so many people who successfully completed their PhD without full funding and have never been judged by senior academics for it. (my emphasis)

What is this author talking about that it's ridiculous and irresponsible to advise students not to go for unfunded PhDs? My god. Sure, I can imagine going for a PhD with 90% funding could be fine, like the author's friends. But "shocking" to advise people not to take a job that does not feel like paying them? I guess there are all sorts of opinions out there.

[Eigen]

A response addressing 10 Steps to PhD Success is also quite interesting.

I disagree with this author's assertion that it's okay to do an unfunded PhD because you can find sufficient support

I also think starting the response with a statement that the article has met with "derision" without providing any of this outcry to be.... a bit off. 

Since I'm interested in seeing if I'm in fact missing some of this widespread derision, I also cross-posted both articles to the CHE forums. 

On review, I realized both articles are from the UK- I'm wondering how much of this is differences between the UK and US systems in terms of funding and/or program structure.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Eigen

[TakeruK]

Although the first article is published in a UK publication, the authors are currently at Canadian institutions according to the biographies at the bottom of the article. Since this doesn't mean they have always been in Canada, I did a quick look to find their department pages and learned that they both have PhDs from UBC, so they at least also did grad school in Canada!

[Eigen]

Just wanted to cross-post the CHE thread and responses to both the original (and responding) articles back here:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,188135.0.html

Seems there was a lot of backlash to the authors of the original piece that I missed.

 

Although the first article is published in a UK publication, the authors are currently at Canadian institutions according to the biographies at the bottom of the article. Since this doesn't mean they have always been in Canada, I did a quick look to find their department pages and learned that they both have PhDs from UBC, so they at least also did grad school in Canada!

The response is definitely a UK academic, so perhaps some of that specific backlash is more UK specific? I don't know, I'm not as familiar with that PhD system.

[TakeruK]

Thanks for the interesting perspective from the other forums. The response is indeed from a UK academic but I don't think there was anything that was UK-specific, except for a brief mention to the 3-4 year length of the PhD (which is the same as in Canada as the Canadian and UK systems are similar).

[Eigen]

My thoughts were actually more towards funding- not sure how common full funding is in e humanities in the UK vs the US and Canada. 

[Saggy]

This is an interesting article but I dont think there are many people who go to uni get romantically involved with faculty compared to the student population.

[rising_star]

This is an interesting article but I dont think there are many people who go to uni get romantically involved with faculty compared to the student population.

I wouldn't say that people go to grad school to get romantically involved with faculty but, it definitely happens. I know a number of faculty who are involved or married to (former) grad students in the same department.

[RunnerGrad]

I always laugh at the "Don't stay at the same university" advice.  I know professors who have their bachelor's, master's and PhD all from the same institution, and they are now assistant, associate, or full professors at that same institution.  So they didn't move at all.

Of course, they are in the minority.  But the fact that I know of several, just off hand, shows that it is certainly possible.  Especially in niche fields and in a country like Canada, where there may not be a lot of programs available in your field of choice.  And I've seen it not just at the smaller schools in Canada, but also some of the larger universities.

[TakeruK]

I definitely agree with Eigen, RunnerGrad and the "rebuttal list of 10 things" (and probably others, sorry if I missed you) that the advice given in the first list, while mostly good, cannot really be applied to every student in every situation. They might be great for the authors in the past and for future students that are in the same shoes as the author, but because we all have different goals, motivations, values, faculty, etc. it doesn't always work. 

Although I only highlighted a few points in my first response here, I think each one of those 10 items can be refuted or shown with a counter-example in some way. Even the "Don't get romantically involved with faculty" advice! The advice is generally good, but I know of some faculty-student relationships that work out well. It depends what you are looking for in life. 

I think the main problem with these "lists" is that they take on the tone of preachiness where they almost seem to say "This is what you must do in order to succeed" or "If you do/don't do this things, you will fail". Instead, I think these advice articles would be much better articulated as "Here are the norms in the field" or "Here is what worked for me" and then encourage and allow the reader to evaluate each statement and determine whether or not that particular piece of information is something that they want to do to "fit in" with the community, or work to change.

It's a little ironic, because as academics, we are trained to critically evaluate everything we read academically, but when reading some non-academic work (like this article), we generally don't view it the same way. And I think that's good--I don't want to have to always have my "critical thinking cap" on all the time. I think it's a mistake that many authors of "advice lists" don't switch from "academic writing" mode to "popular writing" mode when writing for non-academic audiences like this. (I say we're a non-academic audience because for the most part, we're not academics studying graduate school, i.e. education is not our field!)

I also personally dislike how a lot of these "advice lists" are so fatalistic. Sometimes I read these lists by established and powerful and prominent faculty that say how terrible something is, and then instead of using their influence and power to actually make a change, they instead advise students to just "suck it up". For example, another "advice list" I read recently: http://www.quora.com/What-advice-did-you-wish-you-had-before-undertaking-a-PhD-in-science/answers/14496760 contained all of the criticisms directed at the first list, but multiplied by like 100.

[Eigen]

I always laugh at the "Don't stay at the same university" advice.  I know professors who have their bachelor's, master's and PhD all from the same institution, and they are now assistant, associate, or full professors at that same institution.  So they didn't move at all.

Of course, they are in the minority.  But the fact that I know of several, just off hand, shows that it is certainly possible.  Especially in niche fields and in a country like Canada, where there may not be a lot of programs available in your field of choice.  And I've seen it not just at the smaller schools in Canada, but also some of the larger universities.

Giving advice base off of possibilities that are unusual (usually niche) circumstances, however, is bad practice. 

The vast majority of search committees will look at someone with all degrees from the same institution, and worry that they are not well academically socialized. I even know some that worry if all degrees are from the same state. 

If you're a good applicant, it's possible for the rest of your application to outweigh the negatives, just as with anything else. But that doesn't mean that it's a good practice, or helpful long term. 

[TakeruK]

Giving advice base off of possibilities that are unusual (usually niche) circumstances, however, is bad practice. 

The vast majority of search committees will look at someone with all degrees from the same institution, and worry that they are not well academically socialized. I even know some that worry if all degrees are from the same state. 

If you're a good applicant, it's possible for the rest of your application to outweigh the negatives, just as with anything else. But that doesn't mean that it's a good practice, or helpful long term. 

This is true, however, giving advice assuming that your audience has the same goals as you is also bad practice. I think the "Don't stay at the same University" advice really only belongs in a list that is titled something like "How to get a top notch tenure tracked position" etc. Or I guess, in general, these lists should clearly define the audience it is meant for. 

When I write advice, sometimes I say "Don't bother going to graduate school if it's not a top 10 school". I think this is terrible advice overall. However, when it comes with a ton of caveats and conditions and qualifications and I know the person I'm speaking to meets these conditions, then it is good advice.

But when you write advice meant for certain situations as if they should apply to all PhDs, that causes problems. It makes it sound like there is only one "path" that is considered "success" in academia and that is bad! PhD programs should empower their graduates to achieve what they want later in their career. PhD programs should not define success as one single thing and push their students towards that one goal only.

[Vene]

I think this advice sounds pretty good (based on my limited experience). There are caveats and subtlety to the statements being made and it is very much an opinion piece. If you break one of the rules here or there it probably won't destroy your career, especially if you break one of the rules carefully (such as doing your undergrad and grad degree at the same institution, that doesn't appear to be the black mark it used to be). After all, there is no single 'right' way to do a PhD, live your life, or build your career.

[Eigen]

This is true, however, giving advice assuming that your audience has the same goals as you is also bad practice. I think the "Don't stay at the same University" advice really only belongs in a list that is titled something like "How to get a top notch tenure tracked position" etc. Or I guess, in general, these lists should clearly define the audience it is meant for. 

When I write advice, sometimes I say "Don't bother going to graduate school if it's not a top 10 school". I think this is terrible advice overall. However, when it comes with a ton of caveats and conditions and qualifications and I know the person I'm speaking to meets these conditions, then it is good advice.

But when you write advice meant for certain situations as if they should apply to all PhDs, that causes problems. It makes it sound like there is only one "path" that is considered "success" in academia and that is bad! PhD programs should empower their graduates to achieve what they want later in their career. PhD programs should not define success as one single thing and push their students towards that one goal only.

While true, I feel like you're boiling down a several paragraph discussion of "why" not to go to the same school to the bullet point "don't stay at the same school". And in my response to RunnerGrad, they seemed to be using the same metric for success (i.e., TT job in Academia) as the authors of the post likely were- just using anecdotes to wave away a general message, which I take exception to. 

There are lots of reasons to stay at the same school (family commitments, good research fit) but anyone doing so should also realize the long term implications of that.

[RunnerGrad]

While true, I feel like you're boiling down a several paragraph discussion of "why" not to go to the same school to the bullet point "don't stay at the same school". And in my response to RunnerGrad, they seemed to be using the same metric for success (i.e., TT job in Academia) as the authors of the post likely were- just using anecdotes to wave away a general message, which I take exception to. 

There are lots of reasons to stay at the same school (family commitments, good research fit) but anyone doing so should also realize the long term implications of that.

The title of the article is "10 step to PhD failure."  Yet people have had success doing all of their degrees at the same institution.  My point is that someone is not a failure for doing all of his/her degrees at the same institution.  It can lead to success.

Maybe it depends on your field, and what country you are studying in, as well.  In my field, in Canada, there are a tiny number of accredited institutions, and an even smaller number of them have PhD programs.  Plus, several of the accredited programs are in French.  So if you want to study in English, your options are further limited.  It also depends on the type of research you want to do.  One of my research interests requires me to be at an accredited program, as I need access to students in accredited programs.  That said, my master's institution is different from my undergraduate institution, although my PhD institution will likely be the same as my undergraduate one.  Everyone I've talked to in my field, in Canada, tells me that's not a problem, including the chair of the department for my undergrad and hopeful PhD program, and the recent search committee chair for hiring a professor in my field in my undergrad department.

I've seen in outside my field as well, in Canada.  There's even one department I'm aware of, outside my field, but related to it, that has quite a number of faculty members who did all their degrees at one institution.  They are a variety of ages, as well, so at least in that department, they don't look down on those whose degrees are all from the same institution.

[Eigen]

The title of the article is "10 step to PhD failure."  Yet people have had success doing all of their degrees at the same institution.  My point is that someone is not a failure for doing all of his/her degrees at the same institution.  It can lead to success.

Maybe it depends on your field, and what country you are studying in, as well.  In my field, in Canada, there are a tiny number of accredited institutions, and an even smaller number of them have PhD programs.  Plus, several of the accredited programs are in French.  So if you want to study in English, your options are further limited.  It also depends on the type of research you want to do.  One of my research interests requires me to be at an accredited program, as I need access to students in accredited programs.  That said, my master's institution is different from my undergraduate institution, although my PhD institution will likely be the same as my undergraduate one.  Everyone I've talked to in my field, in Canada, tells me that's not a problem, including the chair of the department for my undergrad and hopeful PhD program, and the recent search committee chair for hiring a professor in my field in my undergrad department.

I've seen in outside my field as well, in Canada.  There's even one department I'm aware of, outside my field, but related to it, that has quite a number of faculty members who did all their degrees at one institution.  They are a variety of ages, as well, so at least in that department, they don't look down on those whose degrees are all from the same institution.

It seems like you're basing your issue with the point on the title of the article, rather than the content. 

If there's only one field in your country that offers a PhD, it's pretty obvious that you're going to go there. I wouldn't think an article would need to have an exception specifically written in for cases like that. 

Some people can be successful doing all degrees at the same University. That doesn't mean it's not a handicap to do so. If you don't have other options, you don't have other options. But if you do, it's worth considering that it will be a handicap to you in the future to have stayed at the same institution. How much of a handicap depends on the field, but there are a lot of reasons to move around as you get degrees.

[juilletmercredi]

1. I think this depends on what university it is. In my field (psychology), if a person gets all three degrees at Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, or Princeton, that would be completely understandable and I don't think anyone would care. Those are top 10 programs in my field, and I've seen successful professors who got all 3 degrees at those kinds of places. Another example would be if someone got their BA at UCSB and then stayed on to get their PhD there and work with Brenda Major. She's huge in my field, and her influence would probably outweigh attending there - and also, it's a top 15 program. There are other ways to show scholarly breadth and independence, like collaborations, networking, and postdocs.

 

Staying at the same university becomes more of a problem if it's not clear why you stayed - you attended an undergrad with a middling PhD program or stayed but worked with a professor who was not a good fit for your interests.

 

4. I wish programs would be MUCH more explicit about this in the beginning, particularly for people who are coming from undergrad or only had a small gap between undergrad and grad school. While I theoretically realized this when I started, I didn't realize the extent that it went to - that I'd have to ask my advisor to get on papers I was interested in rather than him offering the chance; that I'd have to seek out my own opportunities for publishing and networking; that I'd basically have to design my own program; that a lot of the job-hunting and professional development skills were on me. Once I did realize that I got into full gear, but it took me a little while, and I could've started publishing much earlier had I realized that.