Programs For those who have or about to complete your phd

  • Thread starter Thread starter facetten
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complete Phd
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on perceptions of expertise in academia, particularly after completing a PhD. Many participants express that while they may feel knowledgeable about their specific research topics, they do not consider themselves experts in their broader fields. The analogy of paving a road illustrates this point: PhD candidates become highly familiar with their narrow research areas but lack comprehensive knowledge of the entire field. Some participants note that although they may know more about their specific topics than their advisors, the advisors have a broader understanding due to their experience. The feeling of expertise is often complicated by psychological factors, such as imposter syndrome, and the realization that achieving mastery in a field is a long-term process requiring continuous learning and effort. Overall, the consensus is that while a PhD signifies a level of expertise, it does not equate to being an all-encompassing authority in one's field.
facetten
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
do you think you're an expert on your field? or just about as competent as your advisor?

like i just want to know how it feels, i spent lots of hours on this one computer game , i can sort of feel what's like to be very good at one thing. i wonder if that's how you feel after completing a phd? obviously the ceiling is much higher in academia. but, I'm asking because I'm about to leave school, i still hope to have a phd one day, the sad thing is that, I'm not very focused right now and need a break from school. i can handle the material for my master program, but i feel like I'm not learning much at all. i guess, my question is, how long does it take you to become one of the best?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
facetten said:
do you think you're an expert on your field? or just about as competent as your advisor?

Both answers are NO.
 
facetten said:
do you think you're an expert on your field? or just about as competent as your advisor?

I believe I have become relevant in the narrow subfield of my field that is all. I am able to do research in it, and others' have communicated, and emailed me with regards to my papers. That is all.
 
facetten said:
do you think you're an expert on your field? or just about as competent as your advisor?

To the first, not really.

To the second, in certain narrow areas related directly to my thesis, I'm probably significantly more competent than my advisor. In terms of broad understanding of the field, not at all.
 
When I had just completed my PhD I was an expert in the problem I was working on. I knew more about the problem and methods for solving it than most people in my field and was generally on par with others that were working on it.

An analogy I might draw is that doing the PhD was like paving a road. You make your way down the road inch by inch, sometimes having to repave over the bumpy parts. By the end you know that road really really well. But you don't know too much about the roads through the rest of the city. You know some general stuff about them, because you know the road you worked on really really well and most roads are fairly similar.

Supervisors have paved more roads, so they naturally know more of the city.
 
Choppy said:
When I had just completed my PhD I was an expert in the problem I was working on. I knew more about the problem and methods for solving it than most people in my field and was generally on par with others that were working on it.

An analogy I might draw is that doing the PhD was like paving a road. You make your way down the road inch by inch, sometimes having to repave over the bumpy parts. By the end you know that road really really well. But you don't know too much about the roads through the rest of the city. You know some general stuff about them, because you know the road you worked on really really well and most roads are fairly similar.

Supervisors have paved more roads, so they naturally know more of the city.

that is a very good analogy, i think i get it now thanks
 
This: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

I think a lot of people have described it well above...

I just defended a couple of weeks ago. I felt like I could answer the questions my committee asked me well, and I'm very confident in describing my specific tiny area of research. But that doesn't even mean I feel like an expert in my major (nuclear engineering), or the more specific subfields either... only when you get down to your very specific topic do you feel like one of the most knowledgeable people in the room.

Don't expect to feel like you have all the answers when you get your PhD, but you do learn a lot about how to figure out answers to interesting questions.
 
facetten said:
do you think you're an expert on your field? or just about as competent as your advisor?

1) Yes. They will not give you a Ph.D. unless you are an expert in your field. Now whether or not you *feel* like an expert is a psychological issue (i.e. google for the imposter syndrome).

2) In the particular topic of my Ph.D., I know more than my adviser. There are lot of things that my adviser knows more about than me, and that's a function of the fact that he is older than I am.

like i just want to know how it feels, i spent lots of hours on this one computer game , i can sort of feel what's like to be very good at one thing. i wonder if that's how you feel after completing a phd?

It actually doesn't feel like that. Once you climb one mountain you realize that there are about a dozen more mountains that you weren't aware of.
 
One should always know more about the subject of PhD thesis than anyone else in the world. However, I do not think that this makes the person a master of the field. Just the particular (sub)subfield... Building mastery takes years of hard work, that's why one usually would not be better than his/her supervizor in the whole field.
 
  • #10
How long does it take you to become one of the best, it depends on one merit. I think merit is the main thing for to be a successful one.
 

Similar threads

Other Am I compatible with a PhD?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Programs Physics Masters at undergrad school before PhD?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Finding a PhD program which is compatible with GPA 3.485
Replies
9
Views
2K
Other Could/Should I still go for a PhD?
Replies
4
Views
946
Admissions What are my chances of getting into a competitive physics PhD program?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Studying How do you handle a toxic supervisor undermining your contributions?
Replies
25
Views
2K
Admissions Non-thesis masters in Material Science to Material Science PhD
Replies
9
Views
2K
Other What Makes a Strong PhD Applicant in Physics?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Admissions Getting into a top tier Physics PhD Program with a Masters Degree
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Recommendations on research topic for string theory (M-theory)
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top