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

[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.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

Curiously, that's why I didn't end up applying for post-docs.

The moment I figured out that I really didn't want to go the academic route was when I was in a Babies R' Us buying stuff for our then unborn daughter. It was painful to realize that I couldn't afford most of the stuff there, and even more painful to realize that the fact that the store existed meant that most other people could.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

In fact they likely do, even if they aren't aware of it. I've found that I'm found most productive when I stop consciously thinking about something and let my subconsciousprocess it.

When I say that I'm spending 80 hours in physics, it doesn't mean that I'm tied to a computer. I could be taking a walk, doodling in a coffee house, or in a bookstore. I figured out enough of how my brain works to be able to tell when it's thinking deeply about some problem, even if I'm not consciously aware of it. One way that I can tell I'm thinking deeply is that I get extremely absent-minded. which is why I avoid driving while thinking.

This is one reason it's hard to get an answer "how much time do you spend on physics?" It's not like there is a time clock. An outside observer will just see me staring into space, and there is no way of telling that I'm working. Sometimes I can't tell you that I'm working on physics although I am.

This is also why it's important for graduate schools to get people that *love* physics. There's no way for an outside observer to tell whether someone is "working" or not.

 

[twofish-quant]

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

I don't think Ed Witten has been particularly successful at physics at all, and I'm curious why you think he is. He is a brilliant mathematician, but he has been spectacularly unsuccessful at physics.

Not that this says anything bad about him. He is brilliant, but if the universe doesn't work via string theory, then the universe doesn't work via string theory. That's research for you.

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.

Wrong. It's like saying someone really smart could make it rain if they wanted to. When you are doing your Ph.D. you *will* run into unexpected and time consuming difficulties. This *will* happen because you are doing something original, and if you knew what all of the issues were, then it wouldn't be research.

 

[twofish-quant]

II 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.

That's why most people would be seriously unhappy getting a physics Ph.D.

It's like being in the military. How many hours a week do people in the military spend being a solider? Answer: your entire life in the army is being a soldier.

Graduate school is like that. Your life revolves around your dissertation. Even when you are sleeping, you are working on your dissertation. Even when you are on vacation, you are working on your dissertation.

I don't think spending <60 hours a week at the office necessarily means you are not immersed in the PhD environment.

In graduate school. I spend hardly any time physically in my office. I was only there when I had office hours or when I had to get something.

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

And most people in graduate school don't. There is no particular reason to work in your office. I spent most of my time in the computer lab, but that was "pre-wifi" so you can do work in the park or in the coffee house.

That's not necessarily a good thing. One good thing about people with office jobs is that you can leave the office. When the world becomes your office, you can't.

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.

And I'm saying that this is totally wrong. Physics ability has nothing to do with it.

And it's not just me. Everyone else in this thread that has actually gotten a Ph.D. is saying pretty consistent things. This is one reason I think it's essential to get a Ph.D. if you want to do research, because it let's you see what physics research is like.

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.

It's even more dangerous to think that you will spend less time if you are smart. Smart has nothing to do with it. Also a lot of the really time consuming parts of physics aren't the parts that require a lot of brilliance. About 80% of my time was spending finding the @#$@#$#@ bug in the #@$@#$#@ program. The key "ah-hah" moment was something I figured out in a weekend. The next *two years* was spending debugging FORTRAN code.

It takes roughly nine months to produce a baby. There isn't much that you can do about that, and seriously bad things happen if you try. That dissertation is your baby.

 

[Reshma]

Nice posts twofish-quant and G01!

If it helps, one can read this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=407096883&ids=0Mdj4Pd38McjgIcPwUdzAMdP0Qb3kVdPAOejsMd2MUd3cTcjgUc3gId34UczAPcj4Q&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=yiaag-68

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

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.

I don't know about America, but I thought PhD students normally have an assistant position with their professor. Either as a teaching assistant or a research assistant are both possibilities.

Is it really that you have to work 60h/weeks on your personal research?

Cheers

 

[twofish-quant]

Nice posts twofish-quant and G01!

If it helps, one can read this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=407096883&ids=0Mdj4Pd38McjgIcPwUdzAMdP0Qb3kVdPAOejsMd2MUd3cTcjgUc3gId34UczAPcj4Q&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=yiaag-68

The problem is that none of that advice really helps much in the end.

If you have ten people and one job, if one person listens to that advice and nine people don't, then that one person gets the job. However, it really doesn't work that way, because what happens is that all of the people will listen to that advice, they all will work their tail off, and in the end, only one person will still get the job.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't know about America, but I thought PhD students normally have an assistant position with their professor. Either as a teaching assistant or a research assistant are both possibilities.

Is it really that you have to work 60h/weeks on your personal research?

When you are working as a research assistant (and also as a teaching assistant) then you are working on your research. The professor is a collaborator and an adviser, but in the end, its your work. He can give you advice, but in the end, you have to do the heavy lifting, because the prof is busy doing his or her stuff.

No one keeps a time clock, people don't monitor what you are doing. This is in part because it's impossible. If you see me drinking coffee in a coffee house, then how do you know what I'm thinking about. You can't. No one can.

The other thing is that you usually *wish* you had more time. You go to the library, start reading, and when you look at the clock, you suddenly realize that five hours have passed, and you still have a stack of thirty papers that you have to read. It's amazing how quickly time flies when you are doing something that you like to do.

 

[Diracula]

I don't think Ed Witten has been particularly successful at physics at all, and I'm curious why you think he is. He is a brilliant mathematician, but he has been spectacularly unsuccessful at physics.

The guy is a particle physicist at the IAS. It actually kind of boggles my mind that you think he's 'spectacularly unsuccessful' at physics. Even if string theory turns out to be incorrect, he's a physicist by most people's definition of physics and has put out an extremely large body of work that is considered important by a large group of physicists. If relativity or QM turn out to be 'incorrect' in 100 years because someone finds a better theory it doesn't suddenly make Einstein and Dirac spectacularly unsuccessful at physics.

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

Wrong. It's like saying someone really smart could make it rain if they wanted to. When you are doing your Ph.D. you *will* run into unexpected and time consuming difficulties. This *will* happen because you are doing something original, and if you knew what all of the issues were, then it wouldn't be research.

No, it's not like that at all. Different people work at different rates. If you've worked with anyone else you know this. Everyone runs into unexpected and time consuming difficulties at work, doing a PhD, whatever. Not everyone fixes those difficulties at the exact same rate. This is slightly different then making it rain if you want it to.

 

[Diracula]

And I'm saying that this is totally wrong. Physics ability has nothing to do with it.

And it's not just me. Everyone else in this thread that has actually gotten a Ph.D. is saying pretty consistent things. This is one reason I think it's essential to get a Ph.D. if you want to do research, because it let's you see what physics research is like.

No. Everyone in this thread is saying they put in something like 60'ish hours a week, and some weeks when things get crazy they can put in a lot more. And this happens relatively often. They're not saying everyone puts in the exact same hours and if you get a phd you are absolutely positively going to be putting in 60+ hours a week without exception. If the average amount of 'work time' per week of PhD students is something like 60 hours then this is to be expected. That doesn't change the fact that there are some which complete the degree that put in more like 50.

I mean, they keep stats on this stuff. 2% of physics PhDs complete their degree in 3 years or less.

It's even more dangerous to think that you will spend less time if you are smart. Smart has nothing to do with it.

I don't think I said "smart". If I did that's not exactly what I meant. I think I said "physics ability". And by that I just loosely meant "ability to complete the physics project you are working on". Different projects will require different abilities. A condensed matter theorist probably requires different mental abilities to do really well than particle experiment. And all I'm saying is different people have different abilities in different areas.

Also a lot of the really time consuming parts of physics aren't the parts that require a lot of brilliance. About 80% of my time was spending finding the @#$@#$#@ bug in the #@$@#$#@ program. The key "ah-hah" moment was something I figured out in a weekend. The next *two years* was spending debugging FORTRAN code.

And everyone probably has wildly different rates that they can debug FORTRAN code.

Look, you keep throwing around terms like 'brilliant' and are acting like I'm claiming if you're really really smart you'll get done way faster than these other chumps. That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact I've said numerous times (like you) that a lot of it depends on the research environment you are in and the nature of your project. All I am saying is a lot depends on how fast you work as well. I'm not even talking about "brilliance", although that probably helps. And if you want to argue everyone works on physics at the exact same rate and efficiency, I'm really not sure what to say.