It's Decision Season in academia.
Across the country, high-school students are losing sleep at night worrying about where to go to college next year. We've had our annual Accepted Students Open House days (the second was Monday, with the turnout significantly reduced by the bad weather), at which we meet with students who are considering coming to Union, show them around, and try to talk them into coming here next fall. Our chairman desevres a special award of merit for the effort he puts in-- in addition to going to the massive all-campus lunch, and talking to students there, he'll conduct individual tours of the department facilities for any student who shows up in the office. This is not completely altruistic, of course, since it's in our interest to get the best students possible, and our research facilities are one of the biggest selling points for the department.
At the college level, students are in the process of deciding on graduate schools. They've spent at least a weekend or two being wined and dined and flown across the country by various graduate programs, and now's the time for them to make a decision about where to go. The senior physics majors who are definitely going to grad school next year have all made their decisions, and they've all gotten into good programs, which makes me very happy.
And, in the bloggy corners of academia, Brad Hagen is headed in the other direction:
I have decided, after countless hours deliberating, discussing and researching, that I will leave grad school for a "real" job. I applied for and accepted a position at a company in the Bay Area that does some pretty cool work. The job will be technical but also interdisciplinary and (hopefully!) interesting.
I mention this not just for the contrast, but because it brings up an important point about graduate school: Grad school is not an eternal committment.
Brad explains a bit of his reasoning in that post:
I gradually came to the conclusion that I don't fit into the academic mold. I realize that academics come in all shapes and sizes, but I can't imagine spending the rest of my life studying galaxies or cosmology. Part of the reasoning here is that I need some ties to the "real world". I also dislike the pure research atmosphere and crave a little more structure. I want some semblance of job stability and an ability to put down roots. Please understand: it is amazing stuff that needs to be worked out, but I feel that my future does not lie here. Given my distaste for continuing research work after grad school, I started to seriously consider the point of finishing grad school itself. I don't need the Ph.D. to feel good about myself.
A parallel self-conversation concerned the fact that I never really enjoyed grad school. I understand that this is not exactly a unique or meaningful statement. I knew going into grad school that it would suck on some level. Nevertheless, there should be a few moments of accomplishment and excitement sprinkled into it. I accomplished a few things, yes. But the excitement never surfaced. My motivation for conducting research was never the subject itself or a thirst for understanding. I did the work because my advisor would be upset if I didn't. This force alone does not a good researcher make.
This can't have been an easy decision to make, but from his description, it's almost certainly the right one. Grad school is not a path to riches, fame, or glory. If you don't enjoy what you're doing, for the love of God, stop.
And his post is an important example for current and prospective grad students to see, because it points out the other important truth that is too often forgotten: there is life after graduate school, and there are options outside academia. You don't need to slog all the way to the end of the Ph.D. to be able to get a job doing something that you'll probably enjoy more than continuing to be a graduate student.
As has been said a million times, here and elsewhere, the decision to go to graduate school is not one that should be taken lightly. It's not going to be just like continuing your undergraduate career for a few more years, and it's not going to be a carnival of fun all the time. It's something you should do if and only if you really want to do research for a living, either as a faculty member somewhere or a research scientist in industry.
At the same time, as Brad demonstrates, it's not an irrevocable decision. If you go to grad school, and find that you don't enjoy doing research as much as you thought, it's OK to leave. You're not a failed person if you don't get a Ph.D., and you'll almost certainly have a better and happier life by getting off the academic track than you would by trying to stick it out to the bitter end.
- Log in to post comments
If you don't enjoy what you're doing, for the love of God, stop.
What fascinates me is that he almost apologizes for leaving the fold. I won't say it surprises me, since I've seen that reaction before. Not just in academia, but at times when some given person is no longer doing what he feels obligated or expected to do, and obligation and expectation is a big part of academia.
Dammit, Chad! That's it! You had to write this didn't you, "You're not a failed person if you don't get a Ph.D....." I don't need this right now. I really don't!
[Must get back to the dissertation... must get back to the dissertation... REALLY must get back to the dissertation!]
John commented:
What fascinates me is that he almost apologizes for leaving the fold.
I'm not even in grad school yet, but I feel like apologising whenever I explain to a physics person (grad student, professor, fellow undergrad, whatever) that I will probably forgo physics grad school and try to become a philosopher instead. From speaking to other philosophers who have made similar choices to the one I'm considering, I gathered that they, too, went through the "I'm not being a proper scientist" guilt process. There seems to be a prevailing assumption at science departments in academic institutions that being a research scientist is the highest calling, and even those who don't consciously suscribe to it are subconsciously infected by it.
"You're not a failed person if you don't get a Ph.D....."
"...being a research scientist is the highest calling..."
These are extremely important in "subconsciously infect[ing]" Academe, i.e: they are part of the paradigm, both consciously and unconsciously operated within.
I have deep feeling and have worked literally thousands of hours in fighting the destructive aspects of that paradigm, which overlaps the pernicious "Two Cultures" thoeory of C. P. Snow.
To use emotionally charged language:
(1) Teaching is a calling, a holy profession, at the core of civilization itself. For academics who valorize research and disparage "mere" teaching, they are not just atheists against the holiness, they are ivory tower barbarians, attacking the roots of civilization while climbing higher in the branches.
(2) A Ph.D. is a union card, extremely valuable in the job market. The difference between having the PhD and being "All But Degree" even if one actually has a PhD Thesis, amounts to over $10,000 per year for the rest of your life. But more dollars does not mean "better human being" or even "better in advancing the dscipline."
There are "mere teachers" who broke through to new areas of research, to pick an example almost at random, the fourth dimension, beginning with Ludwig Schlafli work's in the 1850's while a schoolteacher.
"He lived and worked throughout the eighteen hundreds when information was transferred by the written word and delivered by horses and boats. He started out as a translator in the field of mathematics. When the French, Italians, Germans or Americans wanted to share information about mathematics, they took Ludwig along to translate for them. As a result he had the opportunity to learn from the leading mathematicians of his time. Imagine transferring such information from one genius to another. Imagine the skill he must have obtained in understanding new concepts. As a result of this, Schlafli developed some of math's most far reaching theories. Theories with names like The Theory of Manifold Continuity and Euclidean space Rn of n dimensions."
"Transcending Math", as it were. Schlafli was said by the experts in his field, 'to have had the sad misfortune of those who are ahead of their time.' Sadly even in the field of mathematics his main theories were 'rejected (until after his death) by the academies of Vienna and Berlin because of their great length'."
[Ludwig Schlafli is Alive and Well
and now living on the Big Island in a foundry called Maori Iron Works, Laszlo Gyore]
There have been huge breakthroughs by people without PhDs, including by laymen and housewives. These examples are rare, but anomalies that challenge the prevailing paradigm.
So far as I know, there has been only one Nobel Prize ever awarded to someone teaching in a Community College. One. Yet the teaching a a Community College affects vast numbers of people, teenagers and older adults, and can be superb. Whjereas we all know that some famopus professors in the very top-rated universities can't teach adequately.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that Chad has identifed something very very important here.
If you go to grad school, and find that you don't enjoy doing research as much as you thought, it's OK to leave.
In the first year or two.
Once you've put four years into the PhD, you might as well finish, even though you don't see yourself staying in the field.
In the first year or two.
Once you've put four years into the PhD, you might as well finish, even though you don't see yourself staying in the field.
******************************
It depends on the person and situtation. For some it might be worth it and for others it might not. Either choice is valid. If the person is making an informed choice based on where she/he wants to take his/her own life then I applaud him/her and think she/he should hold his/her head high.
In my grad program it isn't until your third year that you are really devoting your time to research so you wouldn't really know until that point. First year you rotate in labs working no more (well according to the policy book) than 15 hours/week and take most of your classes. 2nd year students go through the qualifying process, TA, and take advanced courses along with starting their thesis research.
Like to throw in there as well. If you are uncertain about graduate school or something else in life, it is perfectly fine to take time after college to decide. Myself and a number of classmates made that choice and it worked out great for us.
A timely post. I've been in the "real world" for many years, and now am considering a move to a more technical version of what I'm doing now (essentially as close to academia as possible in the "real world"), or getting back into academia somehow.
It's hard to decide which is the most appealing route. I would pretty much fall on opposite sides of Brad's opinions... I enjoyed grad school, I love understanding for its own sake, and I'm a decent and sometimes inspired (if a little inexperienced) teacher. Anyone from the academic trenches have a list of positive and negative things to say about it? I've been away from the fold for some time, and I fear the grass only appears greener.
In the humanities we're in for a longer haul, on average. At seven years one can take a step back and assess whether one's done enough work to make finishing worthwhile, or whether it's still better to leave (nearly always with ample teaching experience, which is transferrable to other things).
It interests me that some individuals all but apologize for leaving mid-grad school, as though a university or its faculty and staff needed emotional compensation for resources spent.
Even if one's grad stint was enjoyable, one feels much less apologetic for choosing something besides conventional academia after finishing, from the little anecdotal evidence I've collected... yet one's enjoyed more resources, usually. heh.
How exactly do colleges and universities view those graduate students they accept, but never take to dinner or show off their labs to? Only a small subset of students I think get this special treatment, so what about the rest of us...
greythistle: In the humanities we're in for a longer haul, on average.
Yes, absolutely.
Anything I say about graduate school should be assumed to have a parenthetical "(in the natural sciences)" after it. Humanities grad school is a different thing entirely.
Matt: How exactly do colleges and universities view those graduate students they accept, but never take to dinner or show off their labs to? Only a small subset of students I think get this special treatment, so what about the rest of us...
My impression has always been that at least in physics all of the students accepted into a program are invited to visit before making their decision. I could be wrong about this, as I've never been involved with graduate admissions, but I don't think most physics programs are large enough that inviting a whole accepted class to visit would break the bank.
If there are students who get accepted, but not invited to visit, I don't know what that means. You'd have to ask someone who teaches at a school with a Ph.D. program about that.
I bailed on my PhD Eng. Physics program right after passing quals (2.5 years in). After an entire lifetime of planning on getting a PhD and doing Fusion research you might have thought it was traumatic. I had an hour long discussion with my adviser where he gently broached the topic while we were discussing my distaste for magnetohydrodynamic level math. I walked out of his office with my mind in turmoil...and by the time I had made it to the parking lot felt 50 pounds lighter as I realized I was going to bail. Best decision I've ever made.
And, especially with an engineering degree, having a Masters is just fine. In fact, I'm much more employable in the jobs I want by NOT having a PhD.
Having been through the experience, I'm pretty sure I can give a reasonable interpretation about what it means if a department is willing to accept you but not to spend the resources to fly you in and wine and dine you like they do other students. It means that the department in question thinks highly enough of you to consider using you as backup for the possibility that not all of the people it REALLY wants decide to enroll there.
It can be emotionally painful to realize that you were not valued highly enough to be a first list candidate for the program. I can't imagine it not being painful. But a department has only so many resources and therefore it makes sense for them to focus on the people they think will make the best gamble.