Giving Up a Doctorate - A Personal Reflection

[muppet]

Hi all,

Those of you with long memories might remember various posts I made one, possibly two years ago about what I needed to do to stand a realistic shot at getting a PhD place in theoretical HEP. Well, irony of ironies, I got one and I'm not enjoying it.

One problem is a lack of confidence in my own ability- one that's possibly justified relative to the challenge of HEP. I'm about 7 months into my doctorate and just came across a new review article on a topic that's very important in what I'm working on, based on some lectures the prestigious author gave at a prestigious summer school. In it are homework exercises inviting you to work out stuff that I still don't understand properly after all that time.

A second is that my main motivation for doing it is probably so that I keep learning interesting things, and get paid for it. But I'm failing miserably at balancing my time between reading textbooks and doing what I'm paid to do, and still not looking at half of what I'd like to. It's occurred to me that doing an undergrad degree in maths and physics is like reading the edited highlights of 400 years of scientific endeavour since Galileo; a century's effort of an entire scientific community distilled into each year. Now I'm seeing how the people you've not heard of spend the the 396 years that don't get mentioned. Working my way through Weinberg's QFT text isn't easy, but it's not impossible and the end of each page seems worth the effort it takes me to get there; I'm not sure I can say either of those things about my research project. I'm not sure if I'd be better off doing something else for a living and reading what I actually want to read in my spare time, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. (I know Hurkyl for example seems to have done a great deal of self-study, but I'm not sure how much I'll feel like settling down to some algebraic topology after a full day's work in most jobs!) Sure, I'm learning: mostly that even fairly trivial non-textbook problems necessitate hypergeometric and Meijer-G functions I'd never heard of before and have no interest in learning about.

Related to this is the way PhDs in the UK work- you only have 3 and a half years to do everything, and that means specialising early and getting on with computations that you don't really understand until later, which is completely anathema to the way I've always worked.

My supervisor has suggested that it's just the pain that he says is associated with the necessary learning when you do anything interesting. I don't doubt that I'm at the sharp end of the learning curve right now, but I'm really doubting it's worth the effort. The little I'm gleaning from the external speakers at our departmental seminars doesn't make me want to go and find another more interesting project; I'm not sure that there's anything out there that's conceptually more interesting to me-in broad outline- than what I'm working on. Part of the problem is that I'm naturally sceptical- I probably won't believe any extension of the standard model, higher-dimensional models, string theory,... until the LHC shows us something interesting, and won't enjoy working on something I don't believe in- except that by the time I believe in anything the work on it will probably already have been done!

As for said supervisor, my relationship with him is mixed. He can be a very harsh critic, although invariably his criticisms are justified (which is usually the worst thing about them ). In one sense it's a good thing that he's a spur against my dithering aimlessly for the next three years, but I don't like speaking to him about work if I can avoid it. Another thing is that he strikes me as a man who values pushing yourself for the sake of it- whether you're talking about your career or some extreme sport where people risk life and limb to shave a fraction of a second of some previous nutter's attempt to laugh in the face of Darwinian selection pressure. (I think the contrast with my own views on the matter are apparent.)

I really don't want to give up on physics, but I don't know if I'm cut out for research. If I thought that the phd was a necessary badge of honour that would allow me to teach quantum mechanics for a living then that's what I'd do; but invariably academic employment here is based on a good research output.

Comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Mapes]

These feelings are normal. Getting a PhD is about nothing so much as continuing to work and make progress in the face of self-doubt, uncertainty, and criticism. Believe it or not, you're in a fantastic position of power. The trick is to keep going forward. Hang in there, and keep communicating.

 

[twofish-quant]

My supervisor has suggested that it's just the pain that he says is associated with the necessary learning when you do anything interesting. I don't doubt that I'm at the sharp end of the learning curve right now, but I'm really doubting it's worth the effort.

The way I see it, research is like mountain climbing. You spend months, perhaps years of frustration and annoyance doing something that consists mostly of unglamorous stuff, and the payoff is when you have a tiny fragment of knowledge that no one has ever come up before, maybe. Personally, if at the end of the annoyance, you come up with something *anything* that hasn't been known before, it's worth the effort.

Part of the problem is that I'm naturally sceptical- I probably won't believe any extension of the standard model, higher-dimensional models, string theory,... until the LHC shows us something interesting, and won't enjoy working on something I don't believe in- except that by the time I believe in anything the work on it will probably already have been done!

If you can come with some argument that shows that string theory just won't work, that Nobel prize winning stuff. It's unlikely that you will get that, but you should be able to get something.

Also, don't belief or disbelief. Part of research is that you may be spending a few years of your life going down something that's the totally wrong path. If you knew it was the right or wrong path, then it wouldn't be research. If you spend five years, and you can write a dissertation that theory X just won't work, that's the piece of new truth about the universe that you've discovered.

Something that you have to realize is that what you learned as an undergraduate is highly misleading in that you were shown things in which the trails and the landscape has been mapped out. Once you get into real research, you are in unknown territory. It's dense, unknown jungle that no one has ever walked into, and making one step is a grinding slow, annoying, and sometimes painful process.

Most people can't stand this, which is why there are extremely few Ph.D.'s out there. But since I like being at the frontiers of knowledge, I'll put up with the annoyance.

As for said supervisor, my relationship with him is mixed. He can be a very harsh critic, although invariably his criticisms are justified (which is usually the worst thing about them ). In one sense it's a good thing that he's a spur against my dithering aimlessly for the next three years, but I don't like speaking to him about work if I can avoid it.

The relationship with your advisor is that most important part of the Ph.D. If you don't feel comfortable talking with your advisor, then that's something that you have to figure out how to deal with.

I really don't want to give up on physics, but I don't know if I'm cut out for research.

This is one of the "what do I want to do with my life" questions that you are going to have to answer... However,

1) learning how frustrating research is, is part of your education
2) most other things in life end up equally frustrating. Starting a restaurant, for example.

If I thought that the phd was a necessary badge of honour that would allow me to teach quantum mechanics for a living then that's what I'd do; but invariably academic employment here is based on a good research output.

A Ph.D. is a badge of honor, because it means that you got through the frustration and came up with something. In the US (and probably the UK), it's not terribly useful for getting a job in academia. Also, it doesn't get any easier. If you want to do anything in research, you are going to have to deal with the frustrations of research for the rest of your life.

 

[muppet]

Thanks for the responses, and the encouragement, guys.

 

[chrisbaird]

Your post seems to have the underlying tone that physicists with PhD's know all the hard stuff about physics, or at least know all the hard stuff in their specialty. It sounds like you think because you are not anywhere close to that, you will have to spend every waking moment reading textbooks to get a PhD and you are wondering if it is worth it.

The truth is that, except for a handful of famous people with grey hair, most of us don't understand all of the hard stuff, even our specialty. Getting a PhD just shows that you know enough to do original research. It takes decades after the PhD to get to the level of understanding you probably have in mind. Reading a journal article for the first time and only understanding half of it is normal. Physics is just too broad and deep these days for anyone to really understand it all after a handful of years in a PhD program. And the PhD research does not have to be completely new and earth-shattering. You just build on what others have done.

If you really feel like you need to change course, I would suggest getting a new advisor or even a new program before giving up physics entirely.

 

[mal4mac]

1) learning how frustrating research is, is part of your education
2) most other things in life end up equally frustrating. Starting a restaurant, for example.

I find reading Dickens and listening to Mozart a lot less frustrating... if i needed the money I might go and work for Gramaphone magazine...

 

[elkement]

One problem is a lack of confidence in my own ability

Hi muppet,

in my very first lecture at the university the professor has told us: As a student in natural sciences you will work extremely hard and you might have considerable self-doubts. And he said that it is often the most talented students whose lack of confidence is serverest. He warned us not to give up and leave.

And right he was!

As for said supervisor, my relationship with him is mixed. He can be a very harsh critic, although invariably his criticisms are justified (which is usually the worst thing about them ). In one sense it's a good thing that he's a spur against my dithering aimlessly for the next three years, but I don't like speaking to him about work if I can avoid it. Another thing is that he strikes me as a man who values pushing yourself for the sake of it- whether you're talking about your career or some extreme sport where people risk life and limb to shave a fraction of a second of some previous nutter's attempt to laugh in the face of Darwinian selection pressure. (I think the contrast with my own views on the matter are apparent.)

I know this problem well. I believe if you are very self-critical you need somebody 'who values pushing yourself for the sake of it' like a hole in the head - because you might be pushing yourself too much anyway.

I do not know any solution than trying to avoid to work with such people in the long run - learn to detect early enough if a supervisor or manager thinks this way. This situation might come up again and again in your professional life - 'corporate world' with its 'competitive spirit' is attracting people with that type of personality.

Maybe it might also help to simply address the issue and talk with him openly - probably your supervisor does not recognize that his behaviour or statements are actually exerting that pressure.

But it really depends... I can remember that discussions about that used to go like that:

'You are leaving the lab quite early(*) - I believe you could work a bit more.'
[which meant after a standard working day of 8-9 hours]

'But I am publishing most papers in the group and I am achieving best grades only - I think it is results per time that matters and not the amount of working time per se.'

'Yes, but just because of this I think you could do much more ...'

 

[chrisbaird]

I find reading Dickens and listening to Mozart a lot less frustrating... if i needed the money I might go and work for Gramaphone magazine...

Yes, listening to Mozart may be less frustrating, but try composing like Mozart or directing an orchestra as they play Mozart. Sitting back and being entertained is not a career path. We must produce. Any career path where you are moving forward will have its frustrations. With that said, physics does have its own flavor of frustration that is longer-term and more uncertain than, say, software development. I've done both. But the rewards are also deeper.

 

[thegreenlaser]

in my very first lecture at the university the professor has told us: As a student in natural sciences you will work extremely hard and you might have considerable self-doubts. And he said that it is often the most talented students whose lack of confidence is serverest. He warned us not to give up and leave.

And right he was!

This is true, I find that feelings of inadequacy usually are a good thing, which I think is what your professor alluded to by saying that it's often the talented ones who feel inadequate. To give a non-physics story, about 3 years ago, I started playing guitar. I had played piano for 6 years before that, so I picked up on it quite a bit quicker than most people do. About 6 months after I started playing, I started thinking "Man, I'm an amazing guitar player. I'm better than most people and I've only been playing for 6 months!" This lasted for a while, and I had a huge amount of confidence, thinking that I was a prodigy... but I had next to no skill. Looking back, I'm really embarrassed about all the times I would "show off" because, quite frankly, I SUCKED. Sure, I had the confidence to play in front of people, but it was fairly obvious to them that I didn't have any skill to back it up.

It was only once I grew more in my abilities over the next year that I started to realize just how little I knew. I began to realize that, yeah, maybe I could hack my way through a half-difficult song, but I had no finesse or polish in my playing what-so-ever. It was then that I really began to get better. I used to be so impressed with my abilities, but I've turned that into a habit of being super-critical of my playing. I notice every little mistake I make, and I refuse to accept them. Sure, it's killed my confidence, but it's been very good for my playing abilities. If I didn't see all those mistakes, I would never fix them; I'm miles ahead of where I would be if I had stayed in the made up world where I was a guitar genius.

Having the humility to see just how much there is that you don't know is actually a good thing. If you can avoid wallowing in self-pity, and instead turn a critical eye to your work and try, bit by bit, to understand that vast amount of seemingly-unattainable knowledge, you'll get much further than if you think you know everything. I mean, sure, you'll probably always feel like you understand nowhere near as much as you'd like to, but you'll be a heck of a lot better off than if you're too confident in your abilities to work on improving. Don't back down, see that vast plane of stuff you don't know as a vast, unexplored territory that you get to explore. The more of your inadequacies that you see, the more room you have for improvement.

 

[a7d07c8114]

Hey, you made it this far, very few people can say they've gotten as far as you have. Doubt is human and perfectly acceptable, but give it a bit longer at least. The great thing about a learning curve is that it does actually curve and level off. Give yourself time to get used to everything, and you may remember why you wanted this in the first place.