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

[Andy Resnick]

The thing is, though, that scientists often tend to be so over-suspicious to crackpots that the suspicion often takes legitimate theories as bycatch too.

Peer review is not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. Everyone has a story about how their (rejected) paper/proposal got an unfair review.

Even so, the stories you mentioned also serve as excellent examples, per G01, on the difference between scientists having a new idea and crackpots- the scientists, both of them, after getting rejected, *worked their a$$es off* getting proof of their ideas. They didn't sit around and moan about how some cabal is out to get them- they put in long days and years slowly building up *evidence* to support their ideas.

 

[Mobusaki]

Peer review is not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. Everyone has a story about how their (rejected) paper/proposal got an unfair review.

Even so, the stories you mentioned also serve as excellent examples, per G01, on the difference between scientists having a new idea and crackpots- the scientists, both of them, after getting rejected, *worked their a$$es off* getting proof of their ideas. They didn't sit around and moan about how some cabal is out to get them- they put in long days and years slowly building up *evidence* to support their ideas.

You make a good point. My counter point would be to ask why anyone who worked their *** off 60 hours per week for 4-6 years to join a scientific community would be ostracized by that same community for having an outrageous idea? I'm not saying we should all smoke dope and hold hands, but I also don't think we should be so quick to ostracize people who worked just as hard as everyone else to be able to voice their ideas.

I understand (and hope) that it happens rarely, but I do think there is a strong tendency to spit people out of the community who disagree with you.

Look at the scientists who disagree with global warming. An argument can be made the scientific community has tried to silence their voice. Let them disagree. So what if they're wrong? They'll offer their evidence, global warming supporters will offer theirs, and then people can decide themselves what to believe.

I think that's how it should be in all cases, instead of shutting people down because we're convinced their wrong. It surprises me how, with all the twists and turns in human knowledge up to this point, we can still be so sure in what we know so as to try to destroy others based on what they think they know.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I always marvel at the number of undergraduates who are certain that "the system is broken" without having even taken a close look at it. Here we have someone a couple days into their research program, and that's enough to tell.

Yes, a lot of unconventional ideas don't get through peer review. A lot of excellent ideas don't get through peer review. For those of us who have reviewed for the NSF, proposals are ranked in three categories - "must fund", "fund if possible" and "do not fund". At the last panel I was on the tentative "must fund" category was between 2 and 2.5x the entire budget.

Welcome to life in the big city.

I can remember the last three unconventional proposals I reviewed. Two of them had really clever ideas. Neither one had done the legwork to demonstrate that the proposal would actually address these ideas, and they both got turned down. The third one was maybe a little less clever, but the PI had outlined a plan that was well thought through, and would provide a definite answer one way or the other. He ended up at the top of our list of proposals to fund.

 

[Mobusaki]

I always marvel at the number of undergraduates who are certain that "the system is broken" without having even taken a close look at it. Here we have someone a couple days into their research program, and that's enough to tell.

Yes, a lot of unconventional ideas don't get through peer review. A lot of excellent ideas don't get through peer review. For those of us who have reviewed for the NSF, proposals are ranked in three categories - "must fund", "fund if possible" and "do not fund". At the last panel I was on the tentative "must fund" category was between 2 and 2.5x the entire budget.

Welcome to life in the big city.

I can remember the last three unconventional proposals I reviewed. Two of them had really clever ideas. Neither one had done the legwork to demonstrate that the proposal would actually address these ideas, and they both got turned down. The third one was maybe a little less clever, but the PI had outlined a plan that was well thought through, and would provide a definite answer one way or the other. He ended up at the top of our list of proposals to fund.

I hope you aren't referring to me. :( I'm not convinced the system is broken *or* working, just that some healthy debate about it can only make it better.

 

[ParticleGrl]

So there's two trends- 1) decreasing success rates overall, and 2) a longer period of time before a *first* successful proposal.

Both are indicative of a the funding crunch I was suggesting. My opinion is that the first trend is fueling the second. After all- the best indicator of future success is past success, which might create some bias towards established researchers.

Finally, I'd argue that any post-doc who serves as an 'idea generator' for a PI is being taken advantage of. The post-doc gets nothing and loses everything by giving someone else a fundable idea.

::shrug:: Having a big name as lead on a proposal might boost its chance of acceptance. I've never really dealt with NIH, as my field wasn't bio/health related, but I've seen it help on other proposals.

Peer review is not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. Everyone has a story about how their (rejected) paper/proposal got an unfair review.

My worry is that as funding and jobs get more competitive, the peer review system will start to break down as the incentives grow to torpedo other's work. Scientists are only human.

 

[twofish-quant]

The thing with generating ideas, though, is that scientists are oftentimes so resistant to new ideas that they think that people with new ideas are crazy

I've found that to be rarely true.

If you're working under an established scientist, however, then the ideas are more likely to be given credence.

That also may not be true. There are some idea that come from established scientists (Roger Penrose's ideas on neuroscience) that are bad crackpot.

 

[twofish-quant]

The thing is, though, that scientists often tend to be so over-suspicious to crackpots that the suspicion often takes legitimate theories as bycatch too.

He didn't have particular difficulty getting funding.

Also grant committees are a lot like admission committees, you sometimes get lucky and hit someone that likes the way that you approach problems, and you sometimes don't.

One problem with grant committees is that there just ain't enough money. In the NSF grant committees I've been on, there's usually one in ten proposals that wouldn't get funded if given infinite amounts of money.

 

[twofish-quant]

You make a good point. My counter point would be to ask why anyone who worked their *** off 60 hours per week for 4-6 years to join a scientific community would be ostracized by that same community for having an outrageous idea?

Because 1) you aren't ostracized for having outrageous ideas and 2) most outrageous ideas turn out to be bad ones. You need people that tell you what the flaws are with your ideas so that you can figure out whether to go ahead with them.

Also you need a pool of crazy ideas. The thing that separates someone who is productive from someone who isn't, is that the productive scientist figures out that crazy idea #324 doesn't work so they stop working on that and works on crazy idea #534.

I also don't think we should be so quick to ostracize people who worked just as hard as everyone else to be able to voice their ideas.

There's a difference between criticism and ostracism. The fact that your best friend is willing to spend three hours going into point by point why crazy idea #324 just won't work tells you that they are your best friend.

Also "hard work" doesn't mean much. You can work hard and be wrong.

I understand (and hope) that it happens rarely, but I do think there is a strong tendency to spit people out of the community who disagree with you.

Physicists love to argue. If I go to someone with my latest new idea and they tell me how brilliant it is, then I'm disappointed. The reason you have collaborators is so that they can tell you want a bad idea you just came up with is. Then if you still think is a good idea, you hit back, and after punching each other for an hour, you all shake hands and get something to eat.

I think that's how it should be in all cases, instead of shutting people down because we're convinced their wrong.

If you've going through a physics Ph.D. program, then merely having someone tells you that you are wrong won't shut you up.

It surprises me how, with all the twists and turns in human knowledge up to this point, we can still be so sure in what we know so as to try to destroy others based on what they think they know.

That's the whole culture of science. You get into a room of people that try to destroy your ideas.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Both are indicative of a the funding crunch I was suggesting.

Except there isn't a funding crunch- NIH's budget *doubled* in the 2000s and dollars allocated to research in general (including NSF, NOAA, NASA, DOE, Navy, AFRL, national labs, etc) has held fairly steady at 2.5% of GDP for the past 40-50 years:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-Research.pdf

"From 1953 to 2004, real (inflation-adjusted) spending for R&D in the United States rose at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent, faster than the 3.3 percent average growth of GDP".

You may have some correct elements in your idea, but "funding crunch" is not one of them.

 

[elfboy]

The problem with a lot of PHD material is that it's not that good. It tends to be boring, tedious minor regiments to larger ideas.

The outcome of attaining a PHD is to produce original work, but there's no guaranteeing this work will be interesting or useful. It doens't take a PHD to produce interesting, original research.

 

[G01]

The problem with a lot of PHD material is that it's not that good.

And you are in a position to judge the worth and usefulness of Ph.D. dissertations across a multitude of different fields, are you?

It tends to be boring, tedious minor regiments to larger ideas.

Believe it or not, but science progresses because of these boring, tedious, minor regiments. Forget what the popular science books tell you about scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts and all that. In reality, science advances slowly through these small contributions from many, many individuals.

 

[Simfish]

Interesting article I just found:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_03_04/caredit.a1100020

 

[G01]

Interesting article I just found:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_03_04/caredit.a1100020

I can't make heads or tails out of the story:

1. Canovas was a post-doc for 4 years and then ran out of funding. Yet, he thinks he was fired for other reasons? Most post docs are 2 year appointments, so a 4 year appointment seems reasonable. Given the information in the article, I don't understand why he thinks he was laid off for dubious reasons. Am I missing something or has the article left out important information??

2. His adviser gave him publishing rights, the journal asked him to add his adviser as an author, he ruined his relationship with his adviser by accusing is adviser of firing him for dubious reasons, adviser doesn't consent, so journal doesn't publish. It seems straightforward. His adviser has every right not to consent to be an author. I wouldn't think it was censorship, either. Revenge- possibly, but it's not illegal to refuse to be an author on a paper.


It seems he cut away friendly ties with his adviser when his funding ran out. Possibly he had good reasons for this, I don't know. Either way, Canovas shouldn't expect his adviser to help him out after he brought a law suit against the guy! Canovas' issue seems to be with making and keeping friends. Connections are important. No one is going to argue that.

 

[Ryker]

And you are in a position to judge the worth and usefulness of Ph.D. dissertations across a multitude of different fields, are you?

I'm sorry G01, but I believe he is. After all, he is the Dean of Troll University, so he should know what he's talking about.

 

[Mobusaki]

It seems odd to me that people would put themselves through at least 4 years of constant hard work (right after 4 years of undergrad!) if the phd work was boring. Hopefully the majority of people doing it find the work they are doing interesting and satisfying.

lol. I'll file that in the "things to not worry about" cabinet. It needs more stuff in it! :P