Programs Questions About PhDs: What's the Process and How Long Does it Take?

[RestlessMind]

I heard that there's a lot of people with a PhD here, and I was curious about that, so I figure this would be the best place to ask.

I have just a few questions for the Americans here that have PhDs, regarding the process required to get one.

1. How long is it supposed to take?

2. Is it extraordinarily difficult?

3. What did you do on a day-to-day basis?

4. Did you have time for a job while earning your doctorate?

5. What was your thesis?


Thanks!

 

[fss]

American PhDs are usually 5-6 years of intense study and research for your thesis. PhD students typically do not have other jobs while in their course of study.

 

[Pengwuino]

As fss said, PhDs take 5-6 and up to 8 years. Something that takes this long is bound to be tough, but if you're willing to go through that, it should be worthwhile.

Most students in Physics are funded through various channels. They work as teaching assistants, readers, graders, research assistants, etc.

 

[G01]

I heard that there's a lot of people with a PhD here, and I was curious about that, so I figure this would be the best place to ask.

I have just a few questions for the Americans here that have PhDs, regarding the process required to get one.

1. How long is it supposed to take?

2. Is it extraordinarily difficult?

3. What did you do on a day-to-day basis?

4. Did you have time for a job while earning your doctorate?

5. What was your thesis?


Thanks!

1. A PhD in the sciences probably averages about 6 years. In the humanities, I hear its closer to 8 or 9. (A lot more writing involved! :) )

A PhD has some coursework involved, but it mostly involves a several year long, in-depth research project where the student discovers something new in their chosen field. The student must write up a formal, usually book length, report on the project, which is called a dissertation or thesis. Then, to graduate, the PhD student must defend his or her work in front of a panel of professors, who determine if the work is satisfactory.

So, in this sense, a PhD degree means that the holder has added to the collective knowledge of that field.


2.A PhD is challenging, but not everyone who has one, or is in the process of earning one is a genius. Instead the commonality between most PhD students is a passion(perhaps obsession is a better work...) that drives them to do the work. Most PhD students are working on PhDs because they wouldn't want to be doing anything else. They want to learn as much as they can about their field.

3.I'm a second year PhD student. I take one class but most of my time is spent in the lab. I also have spent some time making posters for conferences, figures for journal articles etc. (i.e. There is a good deal of professional training involved. A PhD student is, in a sense, apprenticed to a professor, who teaches them how to be a professional in their field.)

4. I have had funding through teaching assistantships and reasearch assistantships, and hopefully will until I finish. They cover my tuition and pay me a modest stipend to live off. This is pretty standard for most science and engineering grad students.

5. I'm an experimental physicist who designs and studies meta-materials through terahertz time domain spectroscopy. I've been working in the lab for only a little less than a year now, so I don't actually have a formal thesis topic yet.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I have just a few questions for the Americans here that have PhDs, regarding the process required to get one.

1. How long is it supposed to take?

2. Is it extraordinarily difficult?

3. What did you do on a day-to-day basis?

4. Did you have time for a job while earning your doctorate?

5. What was your thesis?

1) The nominal duration, from the start of graduate school to graduation, is around 6 or 7 years. YMMV.
2) Hard to say- difficult compared to what? Being a doctoral student is a high-stress low-paying job, with no clear career path afterwords. Even so, I can't easily think of anyone who regrets their decision to earn a PhD.
3) Work. Every day was different- planning and executing experiments, writing papers and presenting results, data analysis, etc. etc.
4) Being a PhD student *was* my job- I was paid (NASA grant) to do #3.
5) "Statics and Dynamics of Vibrating Liquid Bridges"

 

[thegreenlaser]

If I may, I have a question I'd like to ask as well:

What is the time commitment for a PhD on a week-to-week basis? i.e. Approximately how many hours a week does a PhD student work on average?

 

[G01]

Personally, I work at least 60 hours a week. I've had 80+ hour weeks in the past, especially when deadlines for conferences, etc. came up.

Its not awful, though. I love my work, so I like spending 60+ hours a week doing it.

I have enough time to get to a judo class several times a week and I pick up my guitar every now and then. I have a beer or two on Saturday night ( I hardly every drink enough to meet most people's definitions of drunk however.)

So, a PhD students life is not all work, but still, you shouldn't do it if you don't think you'd like the work. This is one reason why having undergrad research experience is important. You may not make any novel discoveries as an undergrad, but you'll get to see what doing research is like.

EDIT: It may be worthwhile to point out that, at this moment, I am willingly in the lab, taking data on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If I may, I have a question I'd like to ask as well:

What is the time commitment for a PhD on a week-to-week basis? i.e. Approximately how many hours a week does a PhD student work on average?

I worked (and continue to work) in excess of a 10-hour day. There are/were times (like G01) I am/was in on weekends, at 2 am, thanksgiving/christmas/<insert holiday>. Science doesn't punch a clock or follow a calendar.

 

[Ryker]

Personally, I work at least 60 hours a week. I've had 80+ hour weeks in the past, especially when deadlines for conferences, etc. came up.

Its not awful, though. I love my work, so I like spending 60+ hours a week doing it.

I worked (and continue to work) in excess of a 10-hour day. There are/were times (like G01) I am/was in on weekends, at 2 am, thanksgiving/christmas/<insert holiday>. Science doesn't punch a clock or follow a calendar.

So would you say that is the norm amongst PhD's or is there a wider range of weekly time spent that is still conducive to successful completion and good research?

 

[Andy Resnick]

So would you say that is the norm amongst PhD's or is there a wider range of weekly time spent that is still conducive to successful completion and good research?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you asking if you can slouch your way to a PhD?

 

[Ryker]

No, I am not asking if one can slouch his way to a PhD, I am asking if one can work hard, but not kill himself over, and still do well. If this is a weird question, then I guess I just come from a weird culture, where working hard every day for, say, 8 hours, is hardly considered slouching, and where work-life balance is not just a phrase.

Inb4 my dedication and worthiness of a career get questioned.

 

[Pengwuino]

I personally worry about how serious people are when they throw around numbers like 80 hours per week for 6 years and talk about working during Christmas and Thanksgiving and what have you. Personally, psychologically, I don't think I could handle such a thing. As it is being presented, it almost sounds like you're in jail.

As much as one could love a subject, we're all human with certain social needs and families and what not. Hell, there's a high rate of cardiac arrest among CEOs because they work hours like that. I think someone questioning exactly how realistic these numbers are isn't something to ignore.

 

[bhimberg]

My father managed to earn his in 4-5 years while working a full time job and cooking dinner most nights (for his family of 5). He even got very ill in the middle of it (looked like cancer, turned out to be auto immune).

Given that his full time job is 40+ hours a week, and he does actually sleep, I doubt he managed 60 hours a week on research. Though technically his job was research-related, so they were complimentary. Anyways I think someone mentioned it earlier: it is about passion or, in this case, sheer will power. Myself I'm hoping to do the same without the full time job and family.

Would like like a scan of his brain? Could be useful in your study. I actually do have it saved, somewhere.

 

[twofish-quant]

I personally worry about how serious people are when they throw around numbers like 80 hours per week for 6 years and talk about working during Christmas and Thanksgiving and what have you.

Absolutely dead serious. Getting a Ph.D. is a lot like being in the military, it's your life. How many hours a week does a soldier become a soldier. It's his entire life.

The other thing is that it doesn't stop when you get your Ph.D. Post-docs, junior faculty, and senior faculty also work 60-80 hours a week. It's not insane hours for six years, it's insane hours for your entire life.

But people that do it are a little crazy (or perhaps very crazy). It's not hard for you to get me to spend 80 hours/week on physics like things. The hard part is to get me to *stop* doing physics like things.

As much as one could love a subject, we're all human with certain social needs and families and what not.

Once you are in the system, then most of your social relationships are with other academics. It's relatively common for scientists to marry each other and have scientist kids.

Hell, there's a high rate of cardiac arrest among CEOs because they work hours like that. I think someone questioning exactly how realistic these numbers are isn't something to ignore.

It's pretty realistic. Also some of the times, when you aren't working, you are still thinking.

 

[Pengwuino]

The other thing is that it doesn't stop when you get your Ph.D. Post-docs, junior faculty, and senior faculty also work 60-80 hours a week. It's not insane hours for six years, it's insane hours for your entire life.

Disturbing, in my opinion, to say the least.

But people that do it are a little crazy (or perhaps very crazy). It's not hard for you to get me to spend 80 hours/week on physics like things. The hard part is to get me to *stop* doing physics like things.

Sure but don't you want to sleep in some days? Have a day where you just zone out and play games all day? Take a trip to some far off land for a week? There seems to be a LOT of emphasis on how intense the work is, with little to no emphasis on any possible glimpses of normalcy.

Once you are in the system, then most of your social relationships are with other academics. It's relatively common for scientists to marry each other and have scientist kids.

This is quite expected. However, unless you literally work with your future wife, when do you find time to cultivate relationships? See your kids?

It's pretty realistic. Also some of the times, when you aren't working, you are still thinking.

It almost sounds ridiculous, however. While I love thinking about physics all the time and find it wonderfully fascinating, sometimes it seems like there's a track I could follow that is just a waste of my life.

I think it comes down to one real ultimate question. Can you have well-developed, healthy activities in your life that are not in any way related to Physics or whatever your field of study is and still be heavily involved in the field? Maybe another way of putting it is, if I am with a group working on something wherever I end up, is the state of science such that if I decide to just take a day off, will the world collapse around me?

 

[twofish-quant]

Sure but don't you want to sleep in some days? Have a day where you just zone out and play games all day? Take a trip to some far off land for a week?

Once you've stared at the creation of the universe, everything else gets kind of boring.

There seems to be a LOT of emphasis on how intense the work is, with little to no emphasis on any possible glimpses of normalcy.

This is normal.

However, unless you literally work with your future wife, when do you find time to cultivate relationships? See your kids?

For most academics, one's social relationships are within the context of academia. Your closest friends tend to be people that are part of the community. As far as kids, you are logged on doing your homework while they are doing theirs.

While I love thinking about physics all the time and find it wonderfully fascinating, sometimes it seems like there's a track I could follow that is just a waste of my life.

That's something that you have to decide. Most people in the world would find the life of an academic to be totally nutty, and that's fine because it sort of is.

But then you have to ask yourself what you want to do with your life. Centering your entire life around discovering the secrets of the universe might seem bizarre, but it makes more sense to me than centering it around other things.

Can you have well-developed, healthy activities in your life that are not in any way related to Physics or whatever your field of study is and still be heavily involved in the field?

One problem is that physics is related to everything. If you put me on a desert island, I'm going to start looking at the waves and trying to write equations to describe how they work. Yes, I do go out walking, but I'm usually thinking about some physics related thing while I'm doing it.

Maybe another way of putting it is, if I am with a group working on something wherever I end up, is the state of science such that if I decide to just take a day off, will the world collapse around me?

No, but you will likely be so trained into working that people will have to *FORCE* you to take a day off. Also, there is this bit of paranoia that if you take a day off and the person next to you doesn't, that he'll get the job and you won't.

Think about it this way. Only a small fraction of physics undergrads become Ph.D.'s, and only a small fraction of Ph.D.'s become faculty and it's the faculty that create the cultural standards. It's the crazy, obsessive people that end up going through the process, because if you aren't a little weird, then you are going to decide that you are going to be happier doing something else.

 

[Pengwuino]

One problem is that physics is related to everything. If you put me on a desert island, I'm going to start looking at the waves and trying to write equations to describe how they work. Yes, I do go out walking, but I'm usually thinking about some physics related thing while I'm doing it.

Ah but what if I want to do some gardening? Sure there's physics somewhere... but in the end, it's a garden. In the end, that's what I'm talking about. Can I grow a garden while my experiment is falling apart back at the office? :)

No, but you will likely be so trained into working that people will have to *FORCE* you to take a day off. Also, there is this bit of paranoia that if you take a day off and the person next to you doesn't, that he'll get the job and you won't.

Think about it this way. Only a small fraction of physics undergrads become Ph.D.'s, and only a small fraction of Ph.D.'s become faculty and it's the faculty that create the cultural standards. It's the crazy, obsessive people that end up going through the process, because if you aren't a little weird, then you are going to decide that you are going to be happier doing something else.

What about in industry? And what about academic positions where you're really not trying to break into the tenure track of a top 25 university or the likes? My university, for example, has a small department. No one is openly working their *** off to gain a prestigious tenure position as it is not really all that big of a deal. Most of the professors have checked in at 8 or 9am and have checked out by 5pm and are still capable of publishing and doing actual research in between teaching responsibilities.

I suspect I should have made a clear distinction. The reality of someone trying to get that coveted tenure position at a top school vs. someone at a decent state school or industry must have noticeable differences. Then again, I wonder what the situation is like if you look at industry. Certainly working at a small engineering firm is different than trying to get a project manager position at Lawrence Livermore or whatever the equivalent to the top academic positions are in industry.

 

[twofish-quant]

Ah but what if I want to do some gardening? Sure there's physics somewhere... but in the end, it's a garden. In the end, that's what I'm talking about. Can I grow a garden while my experiment is falling apart back at the office? :)

Sure, but most people in academia will be thinking (at least subconsciously) about their research even when they are gardening. And the people that you end up meeting in the garden will be other people in academia. At the graduate student housing at UT Austin, there is a nice garden where people end up meeting.

What about in industry? And what about academic positions where you're really not trying to break into the tenure track of a top 25 university or the likes?

I may be a terrible person to talk to about this since I tend to gravitate to high stress/high pressure jobs. There may be some low-stress high tech jobs out there but I don't know of any of them. Also there is no direct correlation between status and hard work. Adjunct teachers at community colleges are also highly stressed.

I know of a few professors (not in science) at universities that you've never heard of. They don't have it easy because 1) until you get tenure you have zero job security and 2) if you don't get tenure, you are going from contract to contract, being paid diddly, and you are working like crazy, because if you stop you are going to be out in the street.

Most of the professors have checked in at 8 or 9am and have checked out by 5pm and are still capable of publishing and doing actual research in between teaching responsibilities.

If you go to the house of any professor that I know of, you'll find it full of books. The fact that the professor isn't in the office doesn't mean that they aren't doing research. Being a prof is not a job in which you punch a time clock.

The reality of someone trying to get that coveted tenure position at a top school vs. someone at a decent state school or industry must have noticeable differences.

There isn't. Jobs are scare enough so that it's hard to get a faculty positions *anywhere*. Also the major state universities all have research programs that are as good or in some cases better than the big name universities.

One mistake is that undergraduates make is that they assume that getting a professorship is the same as applying for undergraduate admissions. It's not.

Then again, I wonder what the situation is like if you look at industry. Certainly working at a small engineering firm is different than trying to get a project manager position at Lawrence Livermore or whatever the equivalent to the top academic positions are in industry.

Different. Less stressful, usually not. Small start-ups, if anything, are *more* stressful than large corporations.

 

[cristo]

I personally worry about how serious people are when they throw around numbers like 80 hours per week for 6 years and talk about working during Christmas and Thanksgiving and what have you. Personally, psychologically, I don't think I could handle such a thing. As it is being presented, it almost sounds like you're in jail.

Don't worry, you don't have to work 80 hours per week. I know several people (myself included) who try and keep regular office hours: 10-6ish during the weekdays. Sometimes during the past few years I worked some hours over the weekend, but that was mainly to try and get undergraduate coursework marking out of the way, or if I was very close to finishing a paper I'd take the weekend to do it.

Maybe this is just the students/postdocs/academics that I know, but having a work/life balance is an important thing.

 

[Goldbeetle]

In those average 5-8 years to get a PhD there must also be many graduate courses included. Am I right?

 

[George Jones]

In those average 5-8 years to get a PhD there must also be many graduate courses included. Am I right?

See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388292.

 

[Andy Resnick]

No, I am not asking if one can slouch his way to a PhD, I am asking if one can work hard, but not kill himself over, and still do well. If this is a weird question, then I guess I just come from a weird culture, where working hard every day for, say, 8 hours, is hardly considered slouching, and where work-life balance is not just a phrase.

Inb4 my dedication and worthiness of a career get questioned.

I personally worry about how serious people are when they throw around numbers like 80 hours per week for 6 years and talk about working during Christmas and Thanksgiving and what have you. Personally, psychologically, I don't think I could handle such a thing. As it is being presented, it almost sounds like you're in jail.

As much as one could love a subject, we're all human with certain social needs and families and what not. Hell, there's a high rate of cardiac arrest among CEOs because they work hours like that. I think someone questioning exactly how realistic these numbers are isn't something to ignore.

I'm very serious- doing science is *hard work*. There's a lot of people out there smarter than you, are willing to work *much* harder than you, and you are competing against them for jobs and grant dollars- and that includes slots in graduate school.

Balancing work and family is not a problem limited to science. Women, in particular, have a *very* hard time in regards to childbearing/rearing.

Do you *have* to work an extreme amount? No, of course not. FWIW, I enjoy what I do and don't consider the amount of time I spend on science as an onerous burden that strips me of a life.

 

[G01]

I personally worry about how serious people are when they throw around numbers like 80 hours per week for 6 years and talk about working during Christmas and Thanksgiving and what have you. Personally, psychologically, I don't think I could handle such a thing. As it is being presented, it almost sounds like you're in jail.

As much as one could love a subject, we're all human with certain social needs and families and what not. Hell, there's a high rate of cardiac arrest among CEOs because they work hours like that. I think someone questioning exactly how realistic these numbers are isn't something to ignore.

I never said I don't have a life outside of work, just that science is a large priority in my life.

The point is that, as much as I may complain from time to time, I love doing science and like working in the lab.

As I said: I train in Judo, I play the guitar, I have friends outside of the lab.

However, I'm a scientist. Science is a huge part of my life, as it should be.

If you don't want to immerse yourself in science, then why do you want to go to grad school? If spending that much time in the lab or at work seems like being in prison, they why do you want to be in grad school? This is a question that everyone should ask before they apply to grad school. I did. I worried a bit, sure. But I think I ended up in the right place.

And yes, I have known other people, who decided differently, and left.

 

[JaWiB]

Keep in mind the amount of work you put in depends not only on yourself but on where you go to school and who you choose as your advisor. Some professors expect a lot more work out of their students than others.

 

[G01]

Keep in mind the amount of work you put in depends not only on yourself but on where you go to school and who you choose as your advisor. Some professors expect a lot more work out of their students than others.

Very true. I once was given the following advice regarding advisers:

Remember, your adviser can either be, your mentor or your tormentor, so choose them well!

I'm lucky enough to have a very good adviser who is a great mentor and let's us work at our own pace.

However, our group is full of people who are very self motivated, so it seems he set a group that just works.

 

[Ryker]

Do you *have* to work an extreme amount? No, of course not. FWIW, I enjoy what I do and don't consider the amount of time I spend on science as an onerous burden that strips me of a life.

It's a good thing you enjoy it so much that you don't mind spending so much time on it. I guess by setting questions I try and probe the landscape to see what it really looks like, so I can then decide whether I'd be happy immersing myself in it. Right now, research is something I really want to do for the rest of my life, but, again, that isn't to say I don't have other interests. For example, what would you consider someone willingly working hard on something 40 hours per week and thoroughly enjoying it? A fleeting interest? Because I wouldn't, and that's exactly the reason I'm asking if there is a distribution of working hours. And here I'm also not saying that is all I'd prepared to work in a week, because even now while studying I do a lot more.

But I get the feeling such questions are sometimes seen as blasphemy and I, in turn, as a mongrel for even asking them. And that despite the fact that they are just honest questions that can lead to answer that would let me better decide on what to do in the future. I mean, this is science after, and you are supposed to question things, aren't you?

I never said I don't have a life outside of work, just that science is a large priority in my life.

The point is that, as much as I may complain from time to time, I love doing science and like working in the lab.

As I said: I train in Judo, I play the guitar, I have friends outside of the lab.

However, I'm a scientist. Science is a huge part of my life, as it should be.

If you don't want to immerse yourself in science, then why do you want to go to grad school? If spending that much time in the lab or at work seems like being in prison, they why do you want to be in grad school? This is a question that everyone should ask before they apply to grad school. I did. I worried a bit, sure. But I think I ended up in the right place.

And yes, I have known other people, who decided differently, and left.

I get what you're saying, and at this time, I think that should be a good place to be, as well. That being said, sometimes too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and even though you want to immerse yourself in science, that doesn't mean you should detach yourself from everything else. I guess if there are people willing to do that, then they probably do deserve to be there in place of someone who is "only" willing to work hard, but that was exactly my question - are all PhD's like that or only some percentage of them? I also think it's never a bad thing to question the status quo, and I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.

Keep in mind the amount of work you put in depends not only on yourself but on where you go to school and who you choose as your advisor. Some professors expect a lot more work out of their students than others.

I heard that basically the higher ranked school people go to, the more work they to put in, and that it is essentially that which distinguishes the most renowned schools from the other ones. Is there any truth to this? I do realize it is not a linear relationship, and I also took this with a pinch of salt, as I wasn't given hard, but only anecdotal evidence. Still, from what I gathered, it is mostly the top schools that have grad students working on research 24/7, while the other ones still require them to work hard, but just allow for a better work-life balance.

I realize may come across as antagonistic to what some people are saying here, but in truth some of it is due to my curiosity, and some of it due to me wanting to spur a discussion on these matters and attract more people with PhD experience to offer their opinion, and not just stick to one-liner replies.

edit: Also, two-fish, you always say how you've read on multiple things other than Physics, as well, and emphasize how important that is. But here it seems to me you've taken the opposite view, where you say it's "normal" for one to only care about science (ie. immerse himself in it), in particular, the thing (s)he's working on as part of her research. I know you didn't say that explicitly here, but if you say it's normal to work, say, 70+ hours, then I don't see how you'd have time to pursue other such interests. I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts in this thread, though, so would you care to elaborate on how these two things can go hand in hand? And don't take this as an attack or anything, because your emphasizing balance and fostering other interests is actually one of things I like most about your posts, hence the confusion

 

[DrummingAtom]

No, but you will likely be so trained into working that people will have to *FORCE* you to take a day off. Also, there is this bit of paranoia that if you take a day off and the person next to you doesn't, that he'll get the job and you won't.

Think about it this way. Only a small fraction of physics undergrads become Ph.D.'s, and only a small fraction of Ph.D.'s become faculty and it's the faculty that create the cultural standards. It's the crazy, obsessive people that end up going through the process, because if you aren't a little weird, then you are going to decide that you are going to be happier doing something else.

I consider myself a slightly obsessive person but something I read from Andre Geim (2010 Nobel in Physics) was a bit disturbing:

"He started at the Moscow Technical University at the age of 17 and worked hard. He says that getting an undergraduate degree in Russia is much harder than in most western countries, because the course is more comprehensive and goes into greater depth. He says he may have learned a lot more than he really needed to, but the course was so tough that many people simply dropped out, or even cracked under the strain.

He says: ‘The pressure to work and to study was so intense that it was not a rare thing for people to break and leave, and some of them ended up with everything from schizophrenia to depression to suicide. I would say that people work 10 times harder than in any UK university, even Oxford and Cambridge. Many of the things I learned I never used in my professional life, but I guess it helped develop some of my axial lobes. I used those lobes to replace the lobes I lost due to the amount of alcohol we needed to wipe out after the exams.’"

Anyone else get a little nervous about being "broke" from the obsession that comes along with science? There are many famous scientists throughout history that have experienced breakdowns along the way. I'm not trying to high jack the thread with this question but I feel it can be discussed along with the lifestyle needed to finish a PhD.



http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1

 

[G01]

It's a good thing you enjoy it so much that you don't mind spending so much time on it. I guess by setting questions I try and probe the landscape to see what it really looks like, so I can then decide whether I'd be happy immersing myself in it. Right now, research is something I really want to do for the rest of my life, but, again, that isn't to say I don't have other interests. For example, what would you consider someone willingly working hard on something 40 hours per week and thoroughly enjoying it? A fleeting interest? Because I wouldn't, and that's exactly the reason I'm asking if there is a distribution of working hours. And here I'm also not saying that is all I'd prepared to work in a week, because even now while studying I do a lot more.

But I get the feeling such questions are sometimes seen as blasphemy and I, in turn, as a mongrel for even asking them. And that despite the fact that they are just honest questions that can lead to answer that would let me better decide on what to do in the future. I mean, this is science after, and you are supposed to question things, aren't you?

I get what you're saying, and at this time, I think that should be a good place to be, as well. That being said, sometimes too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and even though you want to immerse yourself in science, that doesn't mean you should detach yourself from everything else. I guess if there are people willing to do that, then they probably do deserve to be there in place of someone who is "only" willing to work hard, but that was exactly my question - are all PhD's like that or only some percentage of them? I also think it's never a bad thing to question the status quo, and I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.

There is a distribution of working hours, for sure. It depends on many things. How much is going on that week. Is everything working in the lab? Do you have a lot of samples to fabricate or measurements to take that week? Does your adviser need a figure for a pressing grant proposal?

Many many things can affect the amount you work in a given week. I have had weeks where I've worked about 40 hours and that was that. Those weeks, I had no pressing deadlines and everything was working.

Other weeks, my adviser had a grant proposal due and needed simulations from me. I needed to write a two page abstract for a conference, I had a problem set due, and the laser was not functioning as it should. Those are my 80+ hour weeks. (However, though I describe them in a way that makes them seem like outliers. There are more weeks like this than you may think.)

The point is that you do not have to work 80 hour weeks in grad school, but you should be prepared to put in as many hours as needed, and that can fluctuate depending upon a lot of things.

I think the lesson to take away from the discussion we're having is the following:

1. Instead of asking yourself if you would be happy doing science 80 hours a week, you should ask yourself if you would be happy doing science, regardless of how many hours you needed to work. Because in grad school, you just don't know, and that is the truth.

2. If you want a job that gives you steady, definite hours with a steady amount of time, every week for other activities, then you do not want to be a grad student. If you don't want to build your schedule around your job, then grad school is not for you. If you want a job that pays you well for your time, then you do not want to be in grad school.

In regards to #2 above, if there is one thing I have noticed that all grad students have in common it's the following: They are not concerned with: having a definite schedule, having definite hours, having good pay. These are just not concerns. If you consider these things to be huge priorities in your life, then you should reconsider going to grad school.

Don't get me wrong, its not bad to be concerned about these things. They are entirely legitimate concerns. But it doesn't change the fact that grad school will not give you these things. They are not the point of grad school and never should be.

I've heard it said in a recent thread that getting a PhD is like joining the marines or becoming a Catholic priest. (Forget who the original poster was, sorry.) It can't be closer to the truth. Like these careers, a PhD is a calling. It can make someone very happy, but requires sacrifices that not everyone will be willing to make.

 

[twofish-quant]

For example, what would you consider someone willingly working hard on something 40 hours per week and thoroughly enjoying it? A fleeting interest? Because I wouldn't, and that's exactly the reason I'm asking if there is a distribution of working hours. And here I'm also not saying that is all I'd prepared to work in a week, because even now while studying I do a lot more.

One thing that does happen is that when you work at something mental, at some point you'll hit a wall when you reach your limits and your mind just shuts off. You actually get more done if you don't work 100% at it, and you spend time doing other things.

But I get the feeling such questions are sometimes seen as blasphemy and I, in turn, as a mongrel for even asking them.

They are good questions, and one's that I've asked myself. The thing that you have to understand is that the system is set up so that pretty much everyone that makes it to a position of authority is pretty obsessive. If you are, you are going to get pushed out by someone that is.

But is it a good thing? And how much is too much?

That being said, sometimes too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and even though you want to immerse yourself in science, that doesn't mean you should detach yourself from everything else.

You have to distinguish between how things are, and how things should be.

And maybe you shouldn't. All I can tell you is how things work. Whether they work in the way that they should or not is another question. One reason this are the way they are is that people that end up in positions of power that determine how things "should be" tend to be rather obsessive people.

A large part of the problem is that there are so few positions open, and the people that end up getting them end up to be extremely competitive and driven people.

I guess if there are people willing to do that, then they probably do deserve to be there in place of someone who is "only" willing to work hard, but that was exactly my question - are all PhD's like that or only some percentage of them?

All the ones that I know. If you aren't willing to make physics and academics the center of your life, then I don't think that you are going to enjoy graduate school. Also, if you *do* make physics and academia the center of your life, and then you find that you are getting kicked out after you get your Ph.D., that leads to some pretty serious emotional trauma.

If you want to make academia your career, then you have to realize that post-docs and junior faculty are even more cut throat. Once you get tenure, you might be able to relax a bit, but the people that I know that make it to that level have spent so many years being ultra-competitive that they can't stop.

I also think it's never a bad thing to question the status quo, and I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.

People that do it in the hopes of something better are going to be rudely disappointed. If anything the pressure gets worse once you get at the post-doc and tenure track levels.

I heard that basically the higher ranked school people go to, the more work they to put in, and that it is essentially that which distinguishes the most renowned schools from the other ones. Is there any truth to this?

There's a bit of truth in this. On the other hand, neither Harvard or MIT have weed-out classes in physics, and one thing that MIT faculty are always trying to get students to do is to *relax*. In most public state schools, the faculty are trying to push the students to do the work, whereas the culture of MIT is such so that the faculty are trying to keep the students from doing too much. I remember seeing a big poster next to the physics turn in boxes saying "GET SOME SLEEP." The thing that the faculty were always telling us was "don't worry about grades, things will work themselves out."

The difficult part of getting students to relax at MIT is that the professors are the same way.

You are also dealing with the fact that when you work this hard, you are running pretty close to human limits. One thing that MIT does is to monitor students pretty closely to see when they are going over the limits, because *really* really really bad things happen when things get out of control.

The other thing is that you have to be careful with samples. I can say that the average UT Austin undergraduate is less hyper-competitive than the the average MIT student. On the other hand, I think that the average UT Austin physics or CS major is either as competitive or in some cases more so than physics or EECS majors at MIT.

Still, from what I gathered, it is mostly the top schools that have grad students working on research 24/7, while the other ones still require them to work hard, but just allow for a better work-life balance.

That's not true (at least in my field). The problem with astrophysics is that it's either up or out. You either are in the running for working at Harvard or you are teaching community college. There really isn't a middle ground.

Also this talk of "top schools" is pretty bogus. The major state schools have physics programs that are as good as the big names. Having worked at both, I don't think that I got an inferior education (or would have worked less) at UT Austin than at MIT. One reason why it was good for me to have gone to UT Austin was that so that I could see first hand that the quality of the graduate education is about the same and in some areas much better.

People talk about work-life balance, but in order to get it, you have to basically change the whole system. I don't think about work-life balance because ***my work is my life***.

Yes I know that's a scary statement.

Some of it due to me wanting to spur a discussion on these matters and attract more people with PhD experience to offer their opinion, and not just stick to one-liner replies.

I think you are getting pretty consistent responses from the people here. If there are any Ph.D. students that have wildly different experiences than mine, I'd really like to hear from them (seriously).

But here it seems to me you've taken the opposite view, where you say it's "normal" for one to only care about science (ie. immerse himself in it), in particular, the thing (s)he's working on as part of her research.

It's "normal" for me. What's normal for me may turn out to be freaking insane for someone that is not me. One thing that I do believe in is diversity, and it would be a sad, sad world if everyone were the same.

Also, we have to distinguish between what "is" and what "should be." What I'm saying is that if physics is not the center of your life, then you really should reconsider whether or not graduate school is a good thing for you.

I know you didn't say that explicitly here, but if you say it's normal to work, say, 70+ hours, then I don't see how you'd have time to pursue other such interests.

You can think about physics while jogging or at the supermarket. (It's a seriously bad thing to do while driving, which is why public transportation is useful.)

Also, the reason that I didn't end up tenured faculty is that I like thinking about things other than physics. Because I took things other than physics seriously, I didn't get into my choice of graduate school, and because I thought family was more important than physics, I got out before doing a post-doc. This means that the people that did get those jobs are more insane than I am.

The other thing is that there is a trade-off. I spent some serious time learning computer programming and economics. This meant that I was in good shape when I got knocked out and had to find a job, but it pretty much doomed any chance of getting an academic career through the traditional route.

Physics is the center of my life. Getting a research professorship isn't, and that knocked me out of the game.

I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts in this thread, though, so would you care to elaborate on how these two things can go hand in hand?

They don't. You have to make some decisions.

And don't take this as an attack or anything, because your emphasizing balance and fostering other interests is actually one of things I like most about your posts, hence the confusion

One thing that you have to understand is that I'm crazy, and that maybe my life may be a warning for what not to do. Also a lot of the times I may seem like I'm contradicting myself, because I still haven't got it figured out.

You have to realize that I didn't get into my choice of graduate schools. I was totally unqualified for any post-doc, and the "one in ten" chance that people generally have in getting a faculty position turned out to be "zero in ten" for me.

If you've decided that your life's goal is to become a research professor or to have a career in physics, then I'm the perfect example of what not to do. Practically every decision that I've every made has hurt my "career" which doesn't matter for me, because I really don't value "career" very much.

It took me a while to figure it out, but my life really revolves around "figuring out cool things about the universe" and that may or may not conflict with other things. In particular, once I took a look at what it involved, I really didn't want a "career in physics."

However, getting a Ph.D. was useful. Also the fact that I had to *focus* helped me a lot. The problem with the universe is that there are too many cool things about it, and I usually need some external force to keep me from getting too distracted.

 

[twofish-quant]

Anyone else get a little nervous about being "broke" from the obsession that comes along with science?

It's something that physicists have to deal with. My anecdotal observation is that theoretical astrophysicists tend to have relatives with schizophrenia and also have themselves have a very high prevalence of mood disorders.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That being said, sometimes too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and even though you want to immerse yourself in science, that doesn't mean you should detach yourself from everything else. I guess if there are people willing to do that, then they probably do deserve to be there in place of someone who is "only" willing to work hard, but that was exactly my question - are all PhD's like that or only some percentage of them? I also think it's never a bad thing to question the status quo, and I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.

Anyone else get a little nervous about being "broke" from the obsession that comes along with science? There are many famous scientists throughout history that have experienced breakdowns along the way. I'm not trying to high jack the thread with this question but I feel it can be discussed along with the lifestyle needed to finish a PhD.

This thread started out by asking for personal experiences- and the two people with personal experience (and willing to answer) gave similar answers.

Maybe you didn't like those answers- that's fine. But I'm not going to tell you "do it this way or else you are doomed to failure", nor will I say "do whatever you want, who knows what the future holds".

I can't tell you how to live your life.

 

[Diracula]

I think it's pretty clear there has to be some distrubution of amount of time required to complete a PhD among individuals (in total time and hours per week). Everyone works at different rates and efficiencies. It also of course depends on the department, your advisor, and your project.

The average may be something like 60 hours a week for 5.5 years (I just made that up, no clue if it's close or not). But, put someone with Ed Witten's brain and personality in a really supportive environment with a project on the low end of the distribution in "time required to complete" and you can probably do the minimum to complete a PhD in like 30 hours a week and 2 years. Put someone of average intelligence on a harder project and crappy environment (department + advisor) and a very thorough worker (i.e. doing the "maximum" rather than the "minimum" to complete the PhD) and you could probably get someone that works like 80+ hour weeks for 8+ years before they are done.

Basically, I think it's clearly true that certain individuals in certain circumstances can complete a PhD without putting in crazy hours.

(Disclaimer: not a PhD student nor graduate)

Edit: Oh, you probably shouldn't go into it EXPECTING to be one of those outliers (in talent, personality, and research situation) who *CAN* complete a PhD putting in 40 hours a week in 5 years. I'm just saying it's clearly possible for the right people put on the right project.

And I do think it would be useful for those deciding on graduate school or not if some organization kept stats not just on average completion time, but also average hours per week worked and overlay that with the distribution for completion time. It would give a clearer picture of "what it takes" to get a PhD.

 

[G01]

OK. So here is some more personal experiences to help paint the picture:

I'm still taking these measurements, about 70% of the way through the samples I need to measure.

The postdoc in my group needs the laser I'm working with by tomorrow. Hes going to move prisms and change the bandwidth to the point where I won't be able to take measurements afterwards.

So, I have to finish today, but I won't be done by 5:00. I will be here at 10:00-11:00 tonight almost certainly. Maybe later. There's no way around it. I'll get dinner, and maybe go to the gym while I have a sample running, but I will need to come back at what most people will consider unreasonable hours to work. I did nothing wrong. It's just how the dice fell!

This is what I mean when I say you just have to be prepared to put in the time needed, whatever that may be.

Also, as a caveat:

Don't think that theorists have easier hours! On Sunday, when I was here starting measurements, once I got a sample going, I got dinner with two of my theorist friends, who were working at 8:00PM on a Sunday. All three of us came back to the office/lab after dinner as well.

To Diracula (which, by the way, is a great forum name!) : I think your lower limit on time is too low. I don't think it's possible to find any statistically significant group of people who finished a PhD in 2 years with 30 hours a week. This is way too short. Most people are just taking quals at this time...

 

[ParticleGrl]

My experience is about the same as the other two phds on the forum. Throughout graduate school I routinely worked 60-80 hours a week, and still constantly felt like I was behind where I wanted to be. Research takes time.

Further, life turns into physics. Most of my friends were physicists, all of my friends were academics. Grabbing dinner with friends, we discussed physics. At parties, we discussed physics, etc. Graduate school was a lot of fun, but old hobbies and interests suffered terribly.

My one concession to "balance," and the one thing that kept me somewhat well-rounded is that I was in a relationship with a non-academic for all of graduate school (still am). All of the effort I wasn't spending on research went into keeping the relationship alive, which was not easy.

Perhaps ironically, the priority given to this same relationship has made it impossible to continue in academia. I don't think I am alone in this- the people I know who had the most balanced lives in graduate school are the ones who are leaving the field, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

 

[Diracula]

To Diracula (which, by the way, is a great forum name!) : I think your lower limit on time is too low. I don't think it's possible to find any statistically significant group of people who finished a PhD in 2 years with 30 hours a week. This is way too short. Most people are just taking quals at this time...

Thanks! :)

I agree about the statistically significant comment. Just pointing out that I think it's possible to perhaps find one person here or there that is capable of doing it in the perfect situation. Talking about the far far tail end of the distribution; the anomalies that probably don't even mean anything. FWIW, I don't think even someone like Ed Witten would do it because he's probably the type of guy that would push himself to better results and publications (just guessing that's his personality type based on his success), rather than put in the minimum necessary to complete the degree requirements.

 

[RestlessMind]

If you go through the years of work to get a PhD, can you earn more money as a physicist outside of the university than other physicists who may only have a bachelor's or master's?

 

[TMFKAN64]

Did Ed Witten really get a Ph.D. in two years, or did he get it in five years (with an MA along the way)?

And somehow I doubt if he works 30 hours per week, anyway...

 

[Diracula]

Did Ed Witten really get a Ph.D. in two years, or did he get it in five years (with an MA along the way)?

And somehow I doubt if he works 30 hours per week, anyway...

I don't think he got it in 2 years, but I don't know how long he took. I was just using him as an example of someone at the relative "peak" for someone with the mind and personality to succeed in physics, and hypothesized that someone like him could get a PhD in a really short amount of time in the right situation if he/she wanted to. I'm just emphasizing that there has to be some kind of distribution for "hours worked" to PhD completion as not everyone has the same aptitude, personality, working style, etc. Not everyone takes 3 years at 40 hours/week, not everyone takes 5 years at 55 hours a week, and not everyone takes 7+ years at 80 hours/week.

I would guess that the relatively rare PhD who gets done in 3 years works 80+ hours a week though.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I wonder how many people that are immersed in science really enjoy such immersion and how many just do it in hopes of a better tomorrow.

I am immersed in science and really enjoy such immersion, working - i.e., doing what I enjoy (well, almost; there are also administrative duties which I only do because it is demanded or needed) 70-100 hours a week, most weeks of the year, even during holidays, for many, many years now. And I regret not having twice the time for it.

Working hard and seeing the results is very gratifying, though there are times where one needs patience since one works hard and things seem to go nowhere. One also needs to learn to balance this and accept times of meagerness and times of progressing beyond expectation.

 

[Ryker]

1. Instead of asking yourself if you would be happy doing science 80 hours a week, you should ask yourself if you would be happy doing science, regardless of how many hours you needed to work. Because in grad school, you just don't know, and that is the truth.

2. If you want a job that gives you steady, definite hours with a steady amount of time, every week for other activities, then you do not want to be a grad student. If you don't want to build your schedule around your job, then grad school is not for you. If you want a job that pays you well for your time, then you do not want to be in grad school.

A great post, and I guess the "problem", at least for me personally, is that the answer to the second question in your first point is yes, but I can't come up with one to the first question yet. I guess at this time, if hard-pressed, it would be no, but that isn't just doing science for 80 hours per week, it's doing anything for such an amount of time (I'd probably even get bored of hockey, if I had to watch that much of it, and that says a lot ). Now if that disqualifies me from research, then it seems I'm going to either have to develop an even stronger interest in the coming years or change my expectations.

You have to distinguish between how things are, and how things should be.

I agree, sometimes I do tend to idealize things and think about how things should be, instead of how things are. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, though. If everyone always just took things for what they were and never tried to change them, then there would never be any progress or change. Then, on the other hand, I know it doesn't make much sense fighting against the windmills.

There's a bit of truth in this. On the other hand, neither Harvard or MIT have weed-out classes in physics, and one thing that MIT faculty are always trying to get students to do is to *relax*. In most public state schools, the faculty are trying to push the students to do the work, whereas the culture of MIT is such so that the faculty are trying to keep the students from doing too much. I remember seeing a big poster next to the physics turn in boxes saying "GET SOME SLEEP." The thing that the faculty were always telling us was "don't worry about grades, things will work themselves out."

The other thing is that you have to be careful with samples. I can say that the average UT Austin undergraduate is less hyper-competitive than the the average MIT student. On the other hand, I think that the average UT Austin physics or CS major is either as competitive or in some cases more so than physics or EECS majors at MIT.

I guess your answer applied to undergraduate programs, if I gather correctly. But the thing I heard was for graduate studies, so would you agree with that, as well? And I do realize this is a gross simplification, and that the relationship isn't as straight-forward, even if there is some truth to it.

Also this talk of "top schools" is pretty bogus. The major state schools have physics programs that are as good as the big names. Having worked at both, I don't think that I got an inferior education (or would have worked less) at UT Austin than at MIT. One reason why it was good for me to have gone to UT Austin was that so that I could see first hand that the quality of the graduate education is about the same and in some areas much better.

When I was talking about top schools, I guess I actually meant "top schools" then. I just meant schools with the highest reputation and rankings, I didn't want to go into whether they offer superior education or not.

People talk about work-life balance, but in order to get it, you have to basically change the whole system. I don't think about work-life balance because ***my work is my life***.

Yeah, again I agree, and the reason I ditched my original career and am now doing a second degree in Physics is exactly due to the realization that work constitutes a huge chunk of everyone's life, so I want(ed) to work with something that I see as an important and satisfying part of my life anyway.

Also, we have to distinguish between what "is" and what "should be." What I'm saying is that if physics is not the center of your life, then you really should reconsider whether or not graduate school is a good thing for you.

I guess you're right, but then again, what is the center of one's life? Does it mean that if something is the center of your life that you are prepared to forego everything else? I don't know, I think it doesn't, so maybe we disagree here.

Also, the reason that I didn't end up tenured faculty is that I like thinking about things other than physics. Because I took things other than physics seriously, I didn't get into my choice of graduate school, and because I thought family was more important than physics, I got out before doing a post-doc. This means that the people that did get those jobs are more insane than I am.

The other thing is that there is a trade-off. I spent some serious time learning computer programming and economics. This meant that I was in good shape when I got knocked out and had to find a job, but it pretty much doomed any chance of getting an academic career through the traditional route.

Physics is the center of my life. Getting a research professorship isn't, and that knocked me out of the game.

They don't. You have to make some decisions.

Alright, that's a fair assessment and a good explanation. I guess my problem is I tend to want it all, to be the best I can in everything (that is, not the best when compared to others, but just to be at my best), and get frustrated when I can't due to time constraints.

It took me a while to figure it out, but my life really revolves around "figuring out cool things about the universe" and that may or may not conflict with other things. In particular, once I took a look at what it involved, I really didn't want a "career in physics."

However, getting a Ph.D. was useful. Also the fact that I had to *focus* helped me a lot. The problem with the universe is that there are too many cool things about it, and I usually need some external force to keep me from getting too distracted.

Based on what you've written, I would perhaps be happier taking a route akin to yours, as well. That is, taking a route, which makes, as you say, physics and maths the center of one's life, but still allows pursuit of other interests.

But I really like that people have given their honest views here, and I'm pretty sure that while there's not that many different people posting in this thread, even those that are just reading it can learn a lot, especially undergraduates. It's also the reason why I spend so much time on these boards, as some of the insight posted is golden. And even though I've only quoted you guys, I appreciate everyone's responses, and would be glad if even more people chipped in, if only to just say they agree with this or that.

 

[A. Neumaier]

it's doing anything for such an amount of time (I'd probably even get bored of hockey, if I had to watch that much of it, and that says a lot ).

You don't have to watch science - but to do it. If hockey were your life interest, you'd watch, play, discuss it with others, practice, get tuition, learn new practices, read stories about great players, great matches, and the history of the subject, buy equipment, prepare for special occasions, win medals, give interviews, etc. -- more than enough to give you a varied and fulfilling life.

what is the center of one's life? Does it mean that if something is the center of your life that you are prepared to forego everything else?

You love something only if you are prepared to sacrifice a lot for it.
And it is simple wisdom to center one's life around one's strongest love.

 

[Diracula]

I'd like to note that I'm of the opinion that the very best researchers have a variety of interests and don't spend all of their waking hours on physics. Read some cognitive science/neuroscience articles on the modern view of how creativity works to see why.

 

[deRham]

I do think what has been said is accurate. The funny thing is that as a PhD student, you get the freedom to decide not to work as much one day and work more another. But as anyone who ever took a course in math or physics has certainly observed, solving a problem snd writing it up when it is pretty complicated means a lot more time spent than merely leafing through the topic. There are always a million things to verify. Not being almost unreasonably tenacious means stuff just will not get done.

To me, this is the main reason why there would be a high dropout rate from the PhD stage to that of a permanent academic position. People get positions to do the dirty work and produce results, not just to contemplate beautiful ideas. Usually this is not a problem for people who are very interested in the field to an obsessive point. However, there are special cases where someone may not really want to spend the time doing all the dirty work to make a career in the field despite being obsessed with the field.

 

[deRham]

You love something only if you are prepared to sacrifice a lot for it.

True, but a career in science is not the same as doing science. You probably knew this while posting, but not everyone reading likely gets the sharp distinction.

 

[A. Neumaier]

True, but a career in science is not the same as doing science. You probably knew this while posting, but not everyone reading likely gets the sharp distinction.

I advocate learning science and doing science with love, and keeping the eyes open for all the things that are needed to do that well, which includes finding out how to see and get the opportunities to do it, finding supportive friends, and figuring out how to remain mentally balanced in the ups and downs of one's life.

Then the career will come by itself, though perhaps not as quickly as someone who puts the career first. But sacrificing one's love for a career is short-sighted.

 

[G01]

I'd like to note that I'm of the opinion that the very best researchers have a variety of interests and don't spend all of their waking hours on physics. Read some cognitive science/neuroscience articles on the modern view of how creativity works to see why.

That is why I try to play the guitar and exercise regularly...

Doesn't change anything, though. The job can still necessitate more hours than many people will consider acceptable, regardless of you opinion of the optimal amount of hours to work.

I'll ask the question again, Are you will to put in the time needed or just the time you think optimal?

The following is not directed at one of Diracula's posts.

An analogy from my Judo experience may help here. Very regularly we have people take a class, get very excited about it and ask how long its takes to get a black belt in Judo.

We tell them 6-7 years on average (which is true for judo).

They immediately show less excitement.

The point is that the black belt itself is meaningless. It's what it represents. The bruises. Being thrown time and time again by people better than you. Training when you're sore. Competing and winning, and more importantly, competing and losing.

The same reasoning applies for a Ph.D.

It's what you put into it that matters. The reason why people respect the title of doctor so much is that it is a very hard title to earn! It involves lot's of hard, grueling work, and with it comes a lot of hard earned skill. Just like a black belt bought on the internet is meaningless, so a Ph.D. becomes less meaningful the less work you put into it!

It seems like a lot of people are seeing how much work is involved in a Ph.D. and responding, "I don't think I'd like working like that. Should a Ph.D. require that type or that much work or these crazy hours?"

Really you should think, "This is what a Ph.D. is, and I may have to deal with some long hours or late nights. Am I willing to do this?"

As someone living the life of a Ph.D. student right now, I'll say I honestly think the degree should require this type of immersion. If we remove that immersion, lessen it, or take some of the workload away, aren't we taking away the meaning of the degree with it?

 

[Diracula]

I'll ask the question again, Are you will to put in the time needed or just the time you think optimal?

I don't know if this was directed at me or the OP, but for me, pretty much the definition of "optimal" requires that (optimal amount of time put in) > or = (amount needed).

As someone living the life of a Ph.D. student right now, I'll say I honestly think the degree should require this type of immersion. If we remove that immersion, lessen it, or take some of the workload away, aren't we taking away the meaning of the degree with it?

I can't speak for OP, but what I think he was getting at was that "total immersion" for a lot of people, maybe him, is perhaps spending 40-45 hours a week, occasionally 50-60+ when necessary, at work/school/lab/office with a lot of time outside of this arena (perhaps at home) studying, reading, and thinking about your work. I personally think this is completely reasonable, and I don't think spending <60 hours a week at the office necessarily means you are not immersed in the PhD environment. Or at least that's the hope.

I do think once you start expecting (and it is necessary to complete the degree) an average of 70-80+ hours a week at the office/lab it is excessive and based on what I understand about creativity I do think most people's results would actually be better if they substituted 10-20 of those hours with some other challenging mental endeavor.

I also think OP may have been asking if it is possible, for some people, to do a PhD putting in something like 40-50 hours a week. My answer is that yes, this almost certainly has to be true, because as I said before there is a distribution of "physics ability" among physicists. It is dangerous to assume you are one of those people though without some kind of evidence, so don't go to graduate school expecting you can complete a PhD with these hours if it is a necessary condition for you to matriculate.

 

[LAHLH]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a Prof of Mathematics recently, he had worked in the US and then come over to the UK and was joking (half joking) that when he sends his colleagues in the states an email they reply within a couple of hours whether it's the weekend or evening, but if he sends the same email to the other UK profs and it's the weekend he doesn't get a response until Monday morning...

I really do think (despite Physics being an international endeavour and so on), that academia is more relaxed in the UK. I'm a PhD student and consider that I work quite hard (usually working one day of the weekend), but I know a lot of people here that absolutely refuse to work weekends and make a point of demarcating their time to do other things. I think I probably work around 50 hours on average, with the occasional time when I need to do much more, like deadlines for presentations and things. Only when I started coming on this forum did I get a taste of how seriously some people take "gradschool". Kind of strange really since UK PhDs are also typically 3-4 years vs the US 5-8!, so you would think it would be the other way around (of course I only have my own dept experiences to go by and conversations with other more experienced people, so I may be generalizing).

When I was an undergrad and talking with my MSc advisor he also told me the US academic culture is much more "publish or perish" than in Europe so maybe there is something to this, also I know you guys only typically take 2 weeks hol a year in regular jobs, where in the UK 4-5 is the norm, haha. Maybe we are just lazy over here...

 

[Ryker]

Interesting perspective, and I had/have a suspicion a lot of the experiences people have here have to do a lot with the US culture. For example, I worked in a law firm back home and compared to other jobs, I had bad hours and I had to work more than any of my friends or acquaintances did. However, even then my workload didn't come close to the stuff you hear about the US law firms or the UK Magic Circle ones. So even in an unrelated field I could see the differences in the approach, and perhaps it is the competitiveness being "enforced" upon people there that drives everyone to work such long hours and actually makes them feel as if that's normal. What's weird, though, is that I don't really feel as if the US is producing that much more groundbreaking research, or maybe that's just me being ignorant.

But in any case, does anyone have any experience with doing a PhD in Physics in continental Europe (especially Germany, Netherlands and Belgium), Canada or Australia? It would be interesting to see additional input to maybe draw further comparisons.

 

[twofish-quant]

Everyone works at different rates and efficiencies. It also of course depends on the department, your advisor, and your project.

It depends mostly on "dumb luck." You are doing research. If you knew how long it would take and what you'd find, there wouldn't be any point in doing it.

But, put someone with Ed Witten's brain and personality in a really supportive environment with a project on the low end of the distribution in "time required to complete" and you can probably do the minimum to complete a PhD in like 30 hours a week and 2 years. Put someone of average intelligence on a harder project and crappy environment (department + advisor) and a very thorough worker (i.e. doing the "maximum" rather than the "minimum" to complete the PhD) and you could probably get someone that works like 80+ hour weeks for 8+ years before they are done.

Doesn't work like that. There is minimal correlation between how long your Ph.D. takes and how smart you are.

Also there's a big problem in that people like Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking are seen as "ideal physicists" when they aren't. Witten hasn't produced anything substantial in physics that I'm aware of, and Hawking has produced only one thing of note. It's not that they aren't brilliant, but this is research and luck and persistence matters more than brilliance.

Basically, I think it's clearly true that certain individuals in certain circumstances can complete a PhD without putting in crazy hours. (Disclaimer: not a PhD student nor graduate)

I was, and I don't see how it's possible.

And I do think it would be useful for those deciding on graduate school or not if some organization kept stats not just on average completion time, but also average hours per week worked and overlay that with the distribution for completion time. It would give a clearer picture of "what it takes" to get a PhD.

If it really matters then you shouldn't get a Ph.D. It's done when it's done.