Comps - how did you do it

[ConcentricCarl]

I'm plagued with imposter syndrome, as all of you are. I've always been insecure about my ability to get through papers. I've made it to PhD comps (have to pass to move-on to thesis stage), but I feel like i'll be discovered at this point. 

I'm not a patient person - I read papers just about as much as possible for the general jist, I've never spent time on the fine details. If I don't follow at all, I get frustrated and put it on the backburner and come back later. But I feel like this won't work for comps. 

What are people's habits here? How do you schedule each day so you feel like its been successful?

[AP]

Hey, first of all, relax!  Things always work better when you are relaxed. 

Second, read this forum on strategies and this post on some advice (by me, hahaha). 

Third, as far as getting a sense of accomplishment, set out a BIG aim (passing comps) and then work backwards in time setting little objectives that can help you achieve your aim. For example, read X amounts of books/reviews/papers a day/week. I wrote a lot of outlines for questions I thought I might get. So you can also set an aim as write three outlines by Wednesdays and Saturdays. And so on.

All the best!

[juilletmercredi]

One of the secrets of academia I found out around my third year is that very few people actually read journal articles for the "fine details". Most researchers quickly scan articles - they read the abstract, and then if they decide to read further, they skim the methods and results with a quick glance at the discussion. The volume of research papers that come out every month in an area is just too great to devote time to close reading of each article.

When I studied for comps I didn't set reading goals. Instead, I set goals of being able to answer certain questions that would mirror what I'd be asked on the exams. For my written exams, there were past exams that I could access with examples of questions that had been asked going back 10 years or so, so I spent some time looking at those questions, then determining what I needed to know to answer the question. Early in comps study, I worked backwards from there and worked through my reading list in a rough priortization order - starting off by reading the material that I most needed to answer the questions, but had new concepts that I didn't already know from prior classes/readings. Then I went and filled in the gaps, and lastly I read the sort of supplemental/extraneous material that really just fleshed out the answer. All along, I practiced answering questions by outlining and then writing full responses. You want the truth? I think I read maybe 10-15% of what was on the 12-page reading list for my program (which including full-length books!!), and a lot of that I skimmed really well.

Honestly, you don't really need fine details for comps (well, most comps, in my experience). You should be able to cite big/seminal works in the field, but nobody expects you to remember all the little details of the results and design and xyz for your comps papers.

[serenade]

On May 16, 2016 at 4:26 PM, ConcentricCarl said:

I'm plagued with imposter syndrome, as all of you are. I've always been insecure about my ability to get through papers. I've made it to PhD comps (have to pass to move-on to thesis stage), but I feel like i'll be discovered at this point. 

Ditto for me on this. 

On May 17, 2016 at 10:54 AM, AP said:

Second, read this forum on strategies and this post on some advice (by me, hahaha). 

These were helpful, thanks. 

On June 1, 2016 at 5:29 AM, juilletmercredi said:

Honestly, you don't really need fine details for comps (well, most comps, in my experience). You should be able to cite big/seminal works in the field, but nobody expects you to remember all the little details of the results and design and xyz for your comps papers.

That's exactly what I thought too, but it looks as though that isn't going to be the case for me, which brings me to the point of reviving this thread (and hijacking it about my own situation - sorry!). I am planning on taking comps in 3 months (to the week, actually) and I had a meeting with a committee member yesterday (not my advisor) who has been on research leave all year so this was the first face to face meeting we've had. To say it did not go well would be an understatement. I went into the meeting with a list of big ideas/themes that I pulled from the reading list and was planning on talking over those, but he instead wanted to get into more specific information. On the one hand, it is basic information that I should have already known and should have anticipated him asking, but on the other, I was caught off guard by the level of specificity he wanted. Ten minutes into the conversation he told me that as of right now, he could not pass me. He told me that he was very worried that I didn't already know this information and even asked if there was another field that I could consider doing (realistically, the answer to that is no). He was perfectly kind about it, but very firm and honest. I felt humiliated that I couldn't answer his questions and ashamed of myself for not anticipating needing to know this information.

Since we'll both be traveling and unable to meet in person this summer, he told me he'd like me to submit weekly reports on my reading so that he can give me feedback (we had already started this actually, though only week before last). I also came up with the idea of including in each of those reports a list of key terms/ideas and what I think they mean for that body of reading so that he can ensure I haven't left anything major out that I need to know. Not the same as being grilled one on one in person (which I think would prepare me better than anything for the oral), but it's better than nothing. 

The two things that give me some shred of hope is that from talking with a past student who took exams with him, the student told me his questions were completely predictable based on the readings/meetings they had done together. The other is that I took his seminar two years ago, for which he very rarely gives out A's and often gives B+'s even to his own advisees (said student above, who is his advisee, got a B+ in two out of three seminars with him, the other being A-). I came out of the seminar with A-, not because I was brilliant, but I think primarily because I submitted a draft of my paper to him in advance, got his feedback, met with him several times, and revised enough to somewhat please him. So I've seen that with him, hard work can pay off, despite the fact that I struggled through that class. I'm also meeting with another student today who took exams with him to ask for help. 

But I'm still kind of freaking out about the exam, particularly the oral part. After the meeting yesterday, I couldn't bring myself to do any work for the rest of the day because I was so distraught and humiliated. As to the imposter syndrome above, I can hardly think of a more prime example of feeling "found out" or "discovered" than having a professor ask you questions that you can't answer, then telling you they can't pass you (right now). He didn't realize how off target for exams I was until yesterday, which feels like someone finding out that you really aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they thought you were (I think it's easier to hide in seminars when someone else can chime in if you don't know the answer to a specific question), which makes you feel like an admissions mistake, and makes you question how you've gotten this far and not been found out, which leads to a whole spiral of anxiety and other feelings.

I was planning on spending this summer studying, of course, but also working on my diss proposal, literature review, and a paper I'd like to submit for publication. But I've decided to put all of that on hold for the summer and worked out a schedule where I could get all of it done in the fall instead after comps in late August. Ideally, I know should be multi-tasking, but I think focusing just on exams is the best decision. It's only three months and better to do a solid job preparing and pass them the first time then multi-task, not do well, and have to retake them. Does that sound like a good idea? So, other than that, basically, this post doesn't have a specific question...it's more just public commiseration! But any advice or similar experiences are always welcome.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by serenade

[AP]

5 hours ago, serenade said:

Ditto for me on this. 

These were helpful, thanks. 

That's exactly what I thought too, but it looks as though that isn't going to be the case for me, which brings me to the point of reviving this thread (and hijacking it about my own situation - sorry!). I am planning on taking comps in 3 months (to the week, actually) and I had a meeting with a committee member yesterday (not my advisor) who has been on research leave all year so this was the first face to face meeting we've had. To say it did not go well would be an understatement. I went into the meeting with a list of big ideas/themes that I pulled from the reading list and was planning on talking over those, but he instead wanted to get into more specific information. On the one hand, it is basic information that I should have already known and should have anticipated him asking, but on the other, I was caught off guard by the level of specificity he wanted. Ten minutes into the conversation he told me that as of right now, he could not pass me. He told me that he was very worried that I didn't already know this information and even asked if there was another field that I could consider doing (realistically, the answer to that is no). He was perfectly kind about it, but very firm and honest. I felt humiliated that I couldn't answer his questions and ashamed of myself for not anticipating needing to know this information.

Since we'll both be traveling and unable to meet in person this summer, he told me he'd like me to submit weekly reports on my reading so that he can give me feedback (we had already started this actually, though only week before last). I also came up with the idea of including in each of those reports a list of key terms/ideas and what I think they mean for that body of reading so that he can ensure I haven't left anything major out that I need to know. Not the same as being grilled one on one in person (which I think would prepare me better than anything for the oral), but it's better than nothing. 
 

Oh my! That must have been horrible! Writing reports is great because you are already writing for your exams. You are thinking about possible questions, possible answers, possible angles, possible readings that go together. From what you posted, is seems you are making the right decision in putting your life on hold for exams. I don't think I have ever done that before, only for the bloody comps. 

You also seem to have a great advantage: you know this guy. You can envision possible future meetings, and you can anticipate to his questions now. Exams are something that -in general- nobody prepares you for and you will never do again. So it is a weird way of assessing whatever faculty are assessing (I don't think they know what they are doing either). So, take the reports as an opportunity to think about the big stuff and the detailed stuff. Use the little stuff to connect the dots of the big stuff. For me, this happened towards the end, when I had read a lot and could make connections. 

Is this person the only faculty in your field?

[serenade]

No, definitely not the only faculty in this field, but the one with whom I've taken a seminar in this field and thus did some of the reading for this list in that class (though my retention level is obviously abysmally low).  

Thanks for your thoughts. And you're right - thank goodness they're a one time thing (...unless you fail....) 

[juilletmercredi]

There's always that one faculty member in a department who envisions themself a hardass - gives out B+s to everyone, asks lots of specific, detailed questions, expects graduate students to know nitty-gritty details most of his colleagues have probably forgotten, etc.

The good news is you have three months and you have forewarning - that's plenty of time to prepare. Don't feel bad - you simply weren't aware of the level of detail that you were expected to know. That's no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. The whole point of this process is to learn more, and the fact that you couldn't pass your exams three months before you were expected to actually take them is not a bad thing - it's an expected thing.

[Cheshire_Cat]

After studying for a very difficult professional certification (with 4 parts), the GMAT, and now comps, something I've learned is that you can't really retain things for a test past 6 weeks, so having 3 months to prepare is more than enough time.  Use the next six weeks to sketch out the major ideas and a game-plan on how to tackle the rest, but don't study too hard until you are six weeks out or you will be burnt out before the exam.

[serenade]

Thanks, guys. You've made me feel much better and given me some perspective here. 

[surefire]

FWIW, it sounds like you've got a good plan and a good sense of how to deliver on his expectations (talking to other students can be hard when you're feeling impostery but it's a smart move). I've written two comps, with 6 different committee members total, and part of the studying work is meeting with them and getting a good read on their expectations and then doing the work to deliver on them. I've had members that liked specificity, members that liked 'big picture' stuff, and one committee member who said that he thought that grad students played it too safe on comps and he'd be open to a creative/risky submission where I bash the classics (if I could support it) and had 'fun' with the material. Meeting with your committee member and strategizing is part of the work, so acknowledge yourself for putting the work in.

Before I wrote my comps, a senior student in my department gave me insight on failing comps that made me feel immensely better during studying: (1) There are a number of acclaimed and accomplished scholars who failed their own comps whilst in grad school, it happens and struggling with comps doesn't make one an imposter, and (2) It's actually a pain in the ass to fail people; like, it's a lot of paperwork for committee members and a headache and a general time-sink and even the hard-ass faculty should recognize that there's little incentive to do so - if the committee says you're ready to defend and then you fail, it reflects poorly on them, so even if you put work in over the next few weeks and your committee member still doesn't think you're ready, try to see that as them doing you a solid, even if it's disappointing in the moment, and if they DO say you're ready, try to have faith in that, as they have some skin in the game on this too.

Good luck!