[simonbarker87]

Two things I would add to this that I learned early on in my PhD:

1. Presentations aren’t really about conveying information.

I sat though so many dull presentations, they were very informative but I can read a paper quicker than they can badly present the same information.

The best presentations were the ones that covered the whys of the work, the applications, the next steps, the specific problem areas - often these aren’t covered in the paper but, armed with that extra insight I am far more likely to read the paper and remember it.

Presentations are (as the author says) about telling stories.

2. Show up. So many PhDs waft around not doing a whole lot, and so land up being on the program forever. This only benefits the uni and is detrimental to the student. I noticed in the first month of my PhD that most people did a lot more work at the end than the beginning - so I flipped it, worked consistently from day one and got done in just under 3 years.

Carry this over to your daily life and it’s almost a super power for getting stuff done. Consistently showing up and plugging away in something reaps rewards.

[tchalla]

> So many PhDs waft around not doing a whole lot, and so land up being on the program forever. This only benefits the uni and is detrimental to the student. I noticed in the first month of my PhD that most people did a lot more work at the end than the beginning - so I flipped it, worked consistently from day one and got done in just under 3 years.

Amen. PhD is a marathon. Other degrees may be a 100m or 400m race but PhD is about consistency.

[DrBazza]

100% agree with number 2. A PhD is a job. 5 days a week, 9 to 5, or you’ll never finish in 3 years. Fastest I saw was 2 years, which was a guy that put in all the hours. Slowest was a guy that took 8 years, ‘full time’, though he was never there, but clearly didn’t have a job. Goodness knows how they supported themselves for all that time. In the uk you had a grant for 3 years when I did mine.

[simonbarker87]

Yep, this was my attitude - I was technically done in 2.5 years but my uni wouldn’t let you submit until 2yr 10 months - so I started my first company in those intervening months.

To anyone reading this who is considering a PhD, start writing up your thesis as soon as you can, like 6 months in if you can and have enough to start. You can always go back and change when you’ve written but it makes life so much easier if you’re “always writing up” then you’re not terrified of starting.

Oh and yeah: 9 to 5, full time, give yourself a standard holiday allowance and stick to it.

[rgrmrts]

Thanks for that perspective. I just finished my applications last month and am anxiously waiting on decisions. I always thought 4 years was the absolute minimum.

[pmyteh]

It depends on the discipline, the programme, and (particularly) the country. I did mine in the UK, where the funding is for 3 years and the expectation is ≤4. I managed that (modulo two terms of sick and paternity leave) and so do most others in my field. The quickest I saw was 2 years 6 months, by someone with an impossible combination of intelligence and relentless 9-hour productive days. Some take longer (financially and professionally problematic), not that many drop out.

In some places in the US taking >8 years is normal. In some parts of Europe it's an actual job, with delineated teaching responsibilities, a pension scheme and everything. In Russia the equivalent isn't even called a PhD. It's not a standardised process.

[rgrmrts]

I guess that makes sense - in the EU a masters degree is usually required for a PhD which is not the case in the US. That accounts for 1-2 years at least.

[pmyteh]

Yes. The standard "1+3" funding programme covers a 1 year MRes or other masters degree with methods training in advance of the PhD programme starting. I got mine separately, so just had "+3" funding. Like in the US, a PhD without funding is normally a bad idea.

Edit: It generally remains shorter than a US programme, though. We tell ourselves that our focused BA/BSc programmes provide a better foundation than the broader US undergraduate degrees, but I suspect the truth is just that it's cultural differences.

[simonbarker87]

I was very lucky to not need a masters, 3 years BEng and then 3 PhD. I couldn’t have done another year. I was dying to get out but the end. My wife did 3,1,3 and I have no idea how she did that extra year.

[selimthegrim]

>In Russia the equivalent isn't even called a PhD.

Are you thinking of Candidat Nauk or habilitation?

[pmyteh]

Candidat Nauk. As I understand it the Russian doctorate/habilitation is closer to our 'higher doctorates' (DSc/DLitt/DM etc.) which are rarely awarded and are mid/late career distinctions. There's no requirement for habilitation here, so PhD is almost always a final degree.

[behnamoh]

While I agree with no. 2, I think part of the reason that makes me not do it is realizing that I will have to do it all my life if I become a faculty. I have seen my friends graduated from Ph.D. and they literally told me that their life is basically the same, except that they now have service tasks to do on top of research. To think that I will always have to plug away and not have enough time for family or relationships makes me a bit demotivated.

[robotresearcher]

Research, teaching, and service.

As a faculty member, each of your three constituencies is almost completely invisible to the others. So each one thinks you work hardly at all. Only your family sees the total hours, and only your tenure and promotion committee sees the total contributions (and typically they up-weight research, so don't skimp there).

[low_tech_love]

“Showing up” is the best advice of all, better than any of the (great) ones presented by the article. Actually, none of the other advices will work unless you show up. I’ve seen people digging around for advice in the hopes that it will save them from disaster or help them do more with less time, but the truth is that the advice only works if you are actually willing to suffer through the working hours.