Graduate school: details on role of the advisor

In summary: SUPERVISORS - these are people who are usually experts in the field, but may not have direct experience with the student's specific research project. They help with guidance and bouncing ideas off each other, and are also invaluable when it comes to networking and finding jobs.
  • #1
deRham
410
0
I wanted to ask the many experienced members of PF what they feel the role is. My interest is in math, but I am sure many physics students want to know.

As in, are they primarily there to alert us to things we should be thinking about in relation to our research problems? Help us with actual technical points so we can further our work and not stay stuck for too long? I know they will be crucial in recommending one for academic jobs, but what is it they help most with? Since as a PhD student, one is obviously responsible to do a lot independently, often select one's own problem, I have wondered this. The answer to this would be crucial to selecting schools.

How common and/or feasible or advisable is it to obtain an advisor from a school other than one's own in: case 1, when the other school is not far off and in person meetings are not hard, case 2, when they are tough? I know for instance MIT students may have Harvard advisors.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
deRham said:
As in, are they primarily there to alert us to things we should be thinking about in relation to our research problems? Help us with actual technical points so we can further our work and not stay stuck for too long?

Both of those things, and more.

deRham said:
I know they will be crucial in recommending one for academic jobs, but what is it they help most with? Since as a PhD student, one is obviously responsible to do a lot independently, often select one's own problem, I have wondered this.

Not so much, actually. In the initial stages, a PhD is heavily guided. The supervisors often spell things out quite clearly, though of course the student is the one that goes away and calculates the result, the ideas and perhaps more relevant to your thread, the experience, is brought by the advisor. The supervisor isn't just there to spell out work, however, their experience is that they know and understand a large part of the literature in the field. As someone new to research, PhD students don't - it means that even when they have ideas a supervisor is a great person to bump points off of, since they can normally easily be told if a) the idea is new, b) it is worth pursuing. This part of the relationship obviously changes as the PhD progresses.

deRham said:
How common and/or feasible or advisable is it to obtain an advisor from a school other than one's own in: case 1, when the other school is not far off and in person meetings are not hard, case 2, when they are tough? I know for instance MIT students may have Harvard advisors.

I've never seen any arrangement like this at my current institution for a main supervisor. For me, the first supervisor is always (and actually it's specified in most funding arrangements in the UK) at the home institution though 'second' supervisors may be based elsewhere.


Finally, I'll mention that all supervisors are different. Most people will not agree on the specifics of the role of the supervisor - some are very hands on and believe PhDs should be very heavily guided, some like to sit back a little and only offer help as requested. For me, I think a supervisor and student should have weekly meetings to bounce ideas, and develop their work together. The initial stages are really always spelled out, since one is so unfamiliar with the literature to start with. The relationship you have with your supervisor is very important, too - they are the expert you have to consult with on your work. In research, remember your supervisor will often be a world-authority on the topic that they study, and to have someone like that at your disposal is invaluable. They can help you network and integrate into the field as well as helping design your thesis. I wouldn't really say your "they help you find a job" point is worth mentioning, since they don't really. By the time you finish a PhD you'll know most of the same sources of work that your supervisor does, though dropping their name may help they don't need to be, and often aren't, directly involved.
 
  • #3
The initial stages are really always spelled out, since one is so unfamiliar with the literature to start with. The relationship you have with your supervisor is very important, too - they are the expert you have to consult with on your work.


Your post was helpful, but I want to try to crystallize what you're saying. So you think the basic structure is:

INITIAL STAGES - the student may have ideas of his/her own, but has to heavily consult with the advisor to figure out what is good to pursue, since it takes experience to decide those things...and of course, it is hard to navigate the literature and know what hasn't been done and what should be done [and is reasonably doable for someone at the stage of a PhD student].


LATER STAGES: More familiarity with the literature and what is worth pursuing, and more independent, less guided work.

---

Might I also ask if there is more significant overlap between those stages at some schools? For instance, what about a graduate student at a school like Princeton in math? I hear they hardly take classes (in fact there may be no classes) and often come in with a serious idea of things they want to research. And the advisor becomes more of an expert to talk to and bounce ideas off of than someone who heavily guides the work itself?

I wouldn't really say your "they help you find a job" point is worth mentioning, since they don't really.

Well, you have to search for jobs yourself, but is there not a "letter of reference from advisor" component to the academia job applications?
 
  • #4
deRham said:
INITIAL STAGES - the student may have ideas of his/her own, but has to heavily consult with the advisor to figure out what is good to pursue, since it takes experience to decide those things...and of course, it is hard to navigate the literature and know what hasn't been done and what should be done [and is reasonably doable for someone at the stage of a PhD student].

That is roughly my experience, yes.

deRham said:
LATER STAGES: More familiarity with the literature and what is worth pursuing, and more independent, less guided work.

Yes. After a while, the student will become aware that they actually know more about the topic than their supervisor does. However, the supervisor is still invaluable as a consultant. In my opinion, even at this point, It's still very important to keep in good contact/up-to-date with your supervisor.


deRham said:
Might I also ask if there is more significant overlap between those stages at some schools? For instance, what about a graduate student at a school like Princeton in math? I hear they hardly take classes (in fact there may be no classes) and often come in with a serious idea of things they want to research. And the advisor becomes more of an expert to talk to and bounce ideas off of than someone who heavily guides the work itself?

I'm from the UK, and our PhD programmes mostly don't really have any serious component of classes (though that is sort-of changing, now math programmes in Scotland for instance require students to take 3 classes in the first six months of their PhD - but that's it.). The situation will obviously vary from student to student and from supervisor to supervisor, but the point is that very few students will have the machinery, knowledge or experience to make anything productive out of research in say, the first year of their project on their own. Even the ones that do know what's going on will benefit massively from close contact with their supervisor - having someone that has 20, 30 years experience take a quick glance and tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree can save months of potentially effort.

deRham said:
Well, you have to search for jobs yourself, but is there not a "letter of reference from advisor" component to the academia job applications?

I've worked at a few universities (all in the UK) and at least at my institutions we seem to have a different atmosphere to things in the states. PhD programmes are much shorter, students are more specialised at undergraduate (and pay for it in being less-well rounded) and letters of reference aren't nearly as important. In academia simply knowing someones name gives you a leg-up - applying for a post-doctoral position with someone that happens to be friends with your supervisor is a good thing, for instance, since they're likely to have faith in their students. Handing over 10 letters of reference doesn't carry nearly as much weight as a few meetings/discussions, for me anyway.

From a supervisors point of view in all of this, the important thing is to be adaptable. Experienced supervisors will get to know how their students work pretty quickly - who needs the weekly meetings, who needs extra reassurance, who needs things spelled out a bit more - and in the same vein, those who prefer to work more independently, those who have the confidence to work things out for themselves. Most supervisors tailor their 'attitude' to each student individually: they want to make a success of each of their PhD students and they want to do it in the best/easiest way for all parties.
 
  • #5
Thanks for the response. I still have a question, which is one of the reasons I posted this thread: what happens if I don't get into a school which really has people heavily into what I want to do, but has people in neighboring areas who could give some good ideas, but ultimately would have to leave me to my own work relatively more?

This is why I was wondering how much help one can get from a professor long-distance, if not officially affiliated with that school. I know for a fact people can and do arrange to have advisors from neighboring schools. I also know people whose advisors have moved schools during their PhD studies have managed to keep in touch through Skype, for instance, and apparently the advising turned out to go smoothly.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
deRham said:
As in, are they primarily there to alert us to things we should be thinking about in relation to our research problems? Help us with actual technical points so we can further our work and not stay stuck for too long? I know they will be crucial in recommending one for academic jobs, but what is it they help most with?

Just as no two Ph.D.'s are the same, no two advisers are the same, and the student-adviser relationship can be very different and it all really depends on who the student is and who the adviser it. You can think of an adviser as an "academic godfather/godmother" and everyone has a different relationship with their parents.

The answer to this would be crucial to selecting schools.

I don't think it is. With Ph.D.'s things happen at the adviser level, and it's really not possible to figure out how an adviser behaves based on the school.

How common and/or feasible or advisable is it to obtain an advisor from a school other than one's own in: case 1, when the other school is not far off and in person meetings are not hard, case 2, when they are tough? I know for instance MIT students may have Harvard advisors.

It's not very common, since it's an administrative nightmare. The problem is that if you wanted an adviser at school X then why didn't you apply to school X.

Having someone on your committee is something different. Also one thing that happens when you have lots of universities in one place is that people will go to each other's seminars.
 
  • #7
deRham said:
Thanks for the response. I still have a question, which is one of the reasons I posted this thread: what happens if I don't get into a school which really has people heavily into what I want to do, but has people in neighboring areas who could give some good ideas, but ultimately would have to leave me to my own work relatively more?

Put them on your dissertation committee. Also show up at seminars and mingle.

This is why I was wondering how much help one can get from a professor long-distance, if not officially affiliated with that school.

You'll need to put together a committee, and it's usually encouraged (and sometimes required) that the members of your committee contain people from other schools. As far as getting help, a lot depends on how busy/friendly the other professors are.

I know for a fact people can and do arrange to have advisors from neighboring schools.

It can be done, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops, and someone can just say no.
 
  • #8
What is the specific role of the committee - to validate the thesis defense?

You seem to suggest that it would be wise to put someone from a school I did not get into but whose help I would like on my committee, if I am having a hard time finding as good of a research match in an advisor...of course assuming they even agree. So what is the relationship between someone on the committee and myself that may allow them to help me with my research? When is a committee selected, at least typically?
 
  • #9
deRham said:
So what is the relationship between someone on the committee and myself that may allow them to help me with my research? When is a committee selected, at least typically?
Your committee is supposed to consist of people who are experts in your field (or the various fields that make up your research*) , so arguably the members are supposed to be able to provide feedback on your research, like what's totally off and what might be worth looking into.

The timing depends on the school, but usually you'll need at least a rough idea of who's on your committee by the time you propose your thesis topic (usually end of 2nd or 3rd year in the US). Also, in theory at least, your adviser is supposed to help you put together your committee.

*For example, if you're studying internet social networks of historians from a physical systems perspective, your committee can end up with people from physics, EE, psychology, sociology, history, math, CS, the media lab (which itself is usually an interdisciplinary collective), and maybe even some other random department.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Very interesting, thank you for this insight into a part of the PhD process I think I was quite poorly informed about. I did not realize that the members of the committee are commonly understood to provide feedback with the research. I will have to look into the logistics of the specific programs I am interested in at this point.

Any other comments are welcome, but I think a lot of my questions are answered.
 

1. What is the role of an advisor in graduate school?

The role of an advisor in graduate school is to provide guidance and support to students as they work towards completing their degree. They serve as a mentor, helping students navigate the academic and professional aspects of graduate school and providing advice on research projects and career paths.

2. How do I choose an advisor for my graduate program?

Choosing an advisor for your graduate program is an important decision. It is recommended to research potential advisors, read their publications, and talk to current and former students to get a sense of their advising style. Additionally, meeting with potential advisors in person and discussing your research interests and goals can help you determine if they are a good fit for you.

3. What are the expectations for the advisor-graduate student relationship?

The expectations for the advisor-graduate student relationship may vary depending on the specific program and advisor. Generally, the advisor is responsible for providing guidance and support, while the graduate student is responsible for their own progress and meeting deadlines. It is important for both parties to communicate regularly and establish clear expectations for responsibilities and goals.

4. How involved should an advisor be in a graduate student's research?

The level of involvement an advisor has in a graduate student's research can vary. Some advisors prefer to be more hands-on and involved in every aspect of the research, while others may take a more hands-off approach and allow the student to take the lead. It is important for the advisor and student to discuss and agree upon their preferred level of involvement in order to ensure a successful working relationship.

5. What should I do if I am having issues with my advisor?

If you are having issues with your advisor, it is important to address them as soon as possible. The first step is to communicate openly and honestly with your advisor about your concerns. If the issue cannot be resolved, you may consider speaking with a graduate program coordinator or seeking advice from other faculty members or a counselor. It is important to remember that the relationship between an advisor and student should be a positive and productive one, and seeking help is not a sign of weakness.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
63
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
673
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
55
Views
1K
Back
Top