Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://blog.devicerandom.org/2011/02/18/getting-a-life/

We had a post a little while ago from a Dakkanaut struggling with his PhD in a hard science. I went through something similar, and came out the other side a bit bruised but a lot wiser (I hope).

This blog post summed it up amazingly well for me, so I thought I'd post it up in the general interest, and also to see if we have any true believers out there who would disagree with this assessment?

And is it as bad in other subjects? I mean, is History all that cut throat? It didn't seem to be, from my mate who went through a PhD in Naval History, but I think he was secretly pretty awesome and sorted out, which is why he breezed it.

As a War Studies Masters student (it's a cross of International Relations and History for those not in the know), I can't say its particularly cut throat. Then again, I haven't moved onto the PHD level, although it is a serious consideration right now.

I think of lot of the spleen of that article came from certain issues on the part of the writer. He talks about how he his papers will be 'lost' in all the academic papers published, about how the talented don't make it to the top, only people who sacrifice everything, and so on. I think to a large extent, he had some disillusioned dream that he was going to be the next Newton, the next Einstein, and be paid to do whatever he wanted in a top grade science lab for a living, and found out the reality is that when you get to somewhere like doing postgrad at Cambridge, brains and talent are ten a penny.

The sad fact is, computer programmers don't spend their lives designing and making the games THEY want to make. They end up chewing code for Fifa 2012 (the 86th version of the game). Most English postgrads don't become groundbreaking journalists. They end up working on the the M&S graduate scheme, because of the 97 graduate jobs they might have applied to, only one wanted them. And so on. It's a rather sad illusionment I think any graduate of a halfway decent University goes through at some point,. Rare is the career that goes exactly according to plan with fame and fortune simply dropping into your lap. Instead, you end up doing whatever is most convenient whilst you try and shuffle jobs around until you find that's either bearable for a good wage, or mildly enjoyable.

Hmmm, while you have a point there Ketara, I didn't strongly pick up on the "I wanted to be noticed, damnit!" from him in the article, that was more of a throwaway line to me. But when you're in the working environment, having a lot of the people above you being sort of cold and manipulative psychos is pretty draining on a person. I think to me, that's what came out the strongest, but that's definitely coloured by my own negative experiences.

Interesting article, how does research in the private sector compare?

Da Boss wrote:
And is it as bad in other subjects? I mean, is History all that cut throat? It didn't seem to be, from my mate who went through a PhD in Naval History, but I think he was secretly pretty awesome and sorted out, which is why he breezed it.

It depends on what you want to do your dissertation on, and who you want to do it with. Any adviser is going to take some of what you're working on, and apply it to his own work, in fact he's essentially supposed to. But the good advisers will cite your dissertation, or offer you billing as a co-author. Additionally, there's a certain amount of intellectual caution that has to be observed. If you're working on something that's really novel, and not just a theory test or case study (assume a social science background here), then you probably want to keep the critical components of your work under lock and key, so to speak, if you want to take credit for it.

Ketara wrote:
I think of lot of the spleen of that article came from certain issues on the part of the writer. He talks about how he his papers will be 'lost' in all the academic papers published, about how the talented don't make it to the top, only people who sacrifice everything, and so on. I think to a large extent, he had some disillusioned dream that he was going to be the next Newton, the next Einstein, and be paid to do whatever he wanted in a top grade science lab for a living, and found out the reality is that when you get to somewhere like doing postgrad at Cambridge, brains and talent are ten a penny.

I didn't see so much of that in the article, but I personally know many PhD candidates that are exactly like this. Generally they come from low-to-mid tier schools where they were reliably one of the best students in their department, which means their professors didn't necessarily kick them around due to favoritism, and their fellow students probably didn't (couldn't) either. By comparison, kids from upper tier schools (big research universities mostly, but some small private colleges too) generally got over the shock of having everyone else be just as smart as they are some time during Freshman year.

Da Boss wrote:
But when you're in the working environment, having a lot of the people above you being sort of cold and manipulative psychos is pretty draining on a person. I think to me, that's what came out the strongest, but that's definitely coloured by my own negative experiences.

There's a lot of truth to that. I know one of the reasons that I've done well in my department is that I'm a fairly cold, manipulative person myself, so not much of what my professors and peers do can phase me. Also, while there are plenty of long hours, I've never been one to sleep much, which means I don't struggle with it the way some do.

Another thing that I imagine has changed things for people doing graduate work is the internet, both in terms of research and maintaining at least the illusion of a social life.

Da Boss wrote:Hmmm, while you have a point there Ketara, I didn't strongly pick up on the "I wanted to be noticed, damnit!" from him in the article, that was more of a throwaway line to me. But when you're in the working environment, having a lot of the people above you being sort of cold and manipulative psychos is pretty draining on a person. I think to me, that's what came out the strongest, but that's definitely coloured by my own negative experiences.

Thing is, I'm actually kind of familiar with the situation in another field, namely that of the professional theatre. People who can sing, dance, act, and so on are usually assured of their future success. They're more talented in these fields than anyone they know. The good ones pay a good fee, and go to a good drama school. They are taught, nutured, and continually assured of how wonderful they are, how talented, and so on. And largely, its true, in their given fields, the ones who make it into the drama schools ARE the ones with talent.

Then they graduate from drama school, and find out that the job they can get, despite their considerable talent, is dancing girl 27# in the back of the chorus of Wicked. The good agents don't want to look at them. The lead roles are filled with celebrities. And, here's the crucial thing, for every decent job placement, there are forty other people just as good as them. Their talent is worthless, because for the number of jobs going, there is an excess of skilled, talented people after it.

You may be talented and intelligent. That'll get you into Cambridge. You might even be slightly smarter than the average Cambridge graduate. That'll get you into a postgradship there. But after that? Think about it. The top universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale) churn out hundreds, if not a few thousand of the most top class minds every year. However, lecturerships and professorships only become vacant every once in a while. That means in order to get those jobs, you're suddenly competing against a few hundred other people at least. Who are just as talented as you.

I very much picked up the 'I want to be noticed' vibe, not only for the comment about his paper being buried in a few thousand. But from other things too. The repeated mantra that 'it was luck and backstabbing that got the others ahead of me, not skill!'. The way he refers scathingly to ending up working in 'some tiny university or irrelevant research centre' shows that he was dreaming big. A lecturership teaching at say, Oxford Brookes, or Manchester University would be too small for this guy, no, he wants to start at the top. He's far too good for places like that. And I mean, heaven forbid you have to spend your time doing an actual job, 'working on low pay' on 'boring projects'. This guy doesn't want to work for anyone other than himself.

He has a lousy attitude, he wants to be a professor at one of the top unis in the world, where the competition is fierce. And rather than accept that he might be better placed finishing up his PHD and getting ano doubt still relatively highly paid job (he's from cambridge after all), he'd rather take his ball and go home. He doesn't want to have to do a job. He doesn't even want to start as a lecturer at a lower university. No, he wants prestige. He wants money. He wants to be noticed. And he wants it now.

And if the world isn't going to deign to simply hand it to him on a platter, then he's decided to go and try something else.

Interesting read to say the least. I intend on getting my masters, and possibly my PhD, but purely for the benefit of education. After having spoken to a number of my professors (albeit, in the Arts realm instead of Sciences), the world of academia just doesn't appeal to me. I just want to learn more about my particular area of study.

Also, Ketara, where did you study War Studies? I studied essentially the same thing at the undergraduate level (Military and Strategic Studies). Interesting to see other people out there who studied similar things.

I'm currently undertaking my Masters at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. I did my undergrad here too. I'm hoping to upgrade to kings College London for a PHD though, although I'm not averse to staying here. I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach on that end of things, its early days yet.

My ultimate goal here is to become some sort of Defense Analyst/Consultant, although dipping in and out of academia at the same time would be be nice.


I'm presuming you went to the Uni of Calgary then?

Blacksails wrote:Interesting read to say the least. I intend on getting my masters, and possibly my PhD, but purely for the benefit of education. After having spoken to a number of my professors (albeit, in the Arts realm instead of Sciences), the world of academia just doesn't appeal to me. I just want to learn more about my particular area of study.

If you don't want to be an academic/researcher, I wouldn't bother with the PhD. The same goes for your MA if you just want personal enrichment, and aren't leveraging your degree for career purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
My ultimate goal here is to become some sort of Defense Anlyst/Consultant, although dipping in and out of academia at the same time would be be nice.

No doubt we will face off as opposing strategists when London eventually decides that it wants the West Indies back.

Da Boss wrote:. But when you're in the working environment, having a lot of the people above you being sort of cold and manipulative psychos is pretty draining on a person.

Welcome to Capitalism, where sociopathy and psychotic tendencies are a benefit and not a bug.

I am currently in my second year of college studying for my A-levels and applying for a uni to do a physics masters with the desire to do a PhD purely for educational sake (and a little vanity, having the title Dr is just cool) so this is somewhat disheartening.

Though my aspiration is to become a defence researcher and I don't particularly care for going to oxbridge or being the next einstein.

dogma wrote:
No doubt we will face off as opposing strategists when London eventually decides that it wants the West Indies back.

Possibly, possibly. Are you a member of the IISS? If so, we should meet up for a drink sometime at one of the conferences.

Ketara wrote:The repeated mantra that 'it was luck and backstabbing that got the others ahead of me, not skill!'.

He is correct, though being skilled often entails being particularly good at duplicity.

Ketara wrote:
This guy doesn't want to work for anyone other than himself.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he appears to be bad at it.

corpsesarefun wrote:I am currently in my second year of college studying for my A-levels and applying for a uni to do a physics masters with the desire to do a PhD purely for educational sake (and a little vanity, having the title Dr is just cool) so this is somewhat disheartening.

Though my aspiration is to become a defence researcher and I don't particularly care for going to oxbridge or being the next einstein.

What do you mean by 'defence researcher'? I'm further along the line then you, and might be able to give a little advice in this department (since you're based in the UK).

dogma wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he appears to be bad at it.

Ketara wrote:I'm currently undertaking my Masters at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. I did my undergrad here too. I'm hoping to upgrade to kings College London for a PHD though, although I'm not averse to staying here. I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach on that end of things, its early days yet.

My ultimate goal here is to become some sort of Defense Analyst/Consultant, although dipping in and out of academia at the same time would be be nice.


I'm presuming you went to the Uni of Calgary then?

Royal Military College in Kingston actually. Though U of Calgary is the only other institution in the country that offers that degree, as far as I'm aware.

If I ever left the military, I'd probably do something similar to your goal. Definitely one of the more interesting careers I'd consider.

dogma wrote:If you don't want to be an academic/researcher, I wouldn't bother with the PhD. The same goes for your MA if you just want personal enrichment, and aren't leveraging your degree for career purposes.

The masters is highly recommended for senior positions for my career, and the PhD more or less optional. The doctorate is still just a thought for now, though I'll probably do the masters.

Well weaponry really, the dream is to work for DARPA but that is probably unlikely

Ketara wrote:
Possibly, possibly. Are you a member of the IISS? If so, we should meet up for a drink sometime at one of the conferences.

I am, though I suspect we won't be at the same conference for a while. That whole intervening ocean thing.

Would love to though.

Blacksails wrote:
The masters is highly recommended for senior positions for my career, and the PhD more or less optional. The doctorate is still just a thought for now, though I'll probably do the masters.

Put it this way, the masters is only another year out, gives you a taste of what a PHD could be like, and int he worst case scenario, gives you another bit of paper to flaunt on your CV. Not much in the way of downsides.

Well weaponry really, the dream is to work for DARPA but that is probably unlikely

I'm confused. DARPA is American. They're not going to give out security sensitive jobs to foreign nationals. Unless your flag lies to me and you are American, not British?

I probably should have mentioned that I'm planning on moving to the states after university

Even then it is unlikely I would ever get a job with them but a man can dream.

The type of person I have encountered most often who I would say is "in it to be noticed" is the "Cure Biologist" who is usually researching some life threatening disease in humans. They are convinced of their moral superiority due to the fact that THEIR RESEARCH SAVES LIVES and generally pretty pompous and self obsessed (note: not all people working on diseases of this nature are like this). It was amusing in my line of work talking to them, as I was a preventative veterinary epidemiologist, and most of them could not conceive how I could gain satisfaction from my field. Preventing animals from getting sick?! I SAVE LIVES BUSTER!

What I got from the dude in the piece was not so much that. I mean, he didn't say so much that the people who got ahead of him weren't smart, or weren't geniuses, more that they were manipulative and calculating, and driven. I found that to be true. I don't resent it as much as I might, I just came to the realisation that I didn't enjoy working in an environment like that at all due to my own personality and neurosis. I really do feel that academia is very much a cynics game, and that if you're in it for love, you will have to get used to eating a lot of crap. Especially in the hard sciences I think, were we are trying to do experiments, but constantly being hamstrung by logistical complaints and funding issues. I mean, taking my study as an example, for it to really work, I would have needed to sample somewhere in the region of 6000-8000 farms in a month. And I would have wanted to get faecal and blood samples from all those farms as well as milk. Since I was one guy in a car, I had to settle on the more "reasonable" figure of 4500 farms, with no faeces or blood, and reduce my tests sensitivity and predictive model's accuracy accordingly. Now, that's just plain bad science. I don't care how you slice it, my work was pretty badly compromised by this. I COULD have set it up to get the farms sampled properly, given a few more months prep, but a funding agency deadline meant that the work had to be done within a year, and the life cycle of my parasite meant antibody levels would only be meaningful in October. Oh, also, all my milk samples were poisoned with a really nasty poison, so I had to treat them with extreme care while handling them. So I had this desperate dash to get everything ready and then get all this sampling done, while under intense personal stress. I was also deeply unhappy about doing compromised science, because while I was not really in it for the glory (who becomes a vet parasitologist for glory, really) I did take great pride in doing GOOD science. But the prevailing attitude is (And still is, from all my mates still working in science) let's do "good enough" science.

With perspective, I can understand why this is. It's just the way the world works. But from the inside, if you love science and believe in the purity of the scientific method, it is pretty crushing to be forced into it against your will. The artificiality of the funding deadline will eat into your brain while you work incredibly long days to meet it, knowing all the time that your work is tainted because your stats are only as good as you could make them inside the deadline.

Anyhow, the resultant pressure of sampling so many farms on my own while building the models needed to analyse them and perfecting the chemical test needed to test them all at the same time (which is something I was really crap at, I have to admit. Chemistry, hsssss) caused me some serious health issues and psychological issues and I pretty much broke down. My supervisors reaction was to be concerned about my productivity levels dropping and to complain at me a bit about things not getting done, while looking into getting rid of me as a burnout case.

So I can see where the dude is coming from for sure. If you love science, you gotta be prepared to compromise, or you're gonna really hate it after a while. Two of my University buddies have learned that trick, and are becoming quite successful. One said, you better be ready to sacrifice pretty much everything for this, because it will take it from you.
He's doing a postdoc now, in Canada, and is pretty damn successful. I respect him a lot, but that statement made me go cold inside. I am glad I didn't make those sacrifices, because I find teaching a much more rewarding career.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Possibly, possibly. Are you a member of the IISS? If so, we should meet up for a drink sometime at one of the conferences.

I am, though I suspect we won't be at the same conference for a while. That whole intervening ocean thing.

Would love to though.

Well, we're both young yet. Where precisely do you work/study at? IIRC you're a PHD student in Political Science who teaches in department? Could be wrong on that, feel free to correct.

corpsesarefun wrote:I probably should have mentioned that I'm planning on moving to the states after university

Even then it is unlikely I would ever get a job with them but a man can dream.

Well, the UK equivalent is called DSTL. Pays a good wage, and they do graduate schemes and recruitment. Might want to take a look at them. I doubt you'll get in with DARPA, the Americans don't let foreign nationals anywhere near defence work in the US. Not unless you work your way up in the system of an Allied country first, and build up contacts over there.


And DaBoss, from my perspective, horrendous as your experience sounds, it doesn't seem to quite tally as an analogy with the scenario the chap was laying out in his blog. Maybe its you projecting your own experiences on top of it? Either that or I just don't get it as a non-science graduate, it could be either one.

At the same time though, I can't say I'd particularly like to have been in your shoes. In my field, primary sources and data tend to be a bit more accessible if you pick your subject carefully.

(Oh, and I'm horribly aware that I'm now the ranting disillusioned failed academic who comes along to go "BOOGA BOOGA" at the hopeful newbies. I honestly don't want to turn anyone off- each PhD is different and different fields have totally different vibes. I think hard science is worse than others, due to having such a focus on logistics and rigour. I wouldn't mind giving sociology a bash, after my stint in teaching, and the idea of a masters in sociology doesn't horrify like the idea of returning used to )

Thanks Ketara, if I end up staying in the UK for whatever reason that does seem to be a decent alternative.

Ketara wrote:

And DaBoss, from my perspective, horrendous as your experience sounds, it doesn't seem to quite tally as an analogy with the scenario the chap was laying out in his blog. Maybe its you projecting your own experiences on top of it? Either that or I just don't get it as a non-science graduate, it could be either one.

At the same time though, I can't say I'd particularly like to have been in your shoes. In my field, primary sources and data tend to be a bit more accessible if you pick your subject carefully.

Oh, I'm definitely projecting. I know I am. Anything like this resonates with me emotionally very strongly because it had such a huge, defining effect on my life and personality. Hell, watching Brittany go bonkers on the telly had my empathy meter nearly busted.

I want to point out, after my sob story, that a lot of what happened was down to my naivete and immaturity. I was pretty earnest and hardworking, but I was 21, and I didn't know half as much as I thought about personal interactions and how the world works, and I dealt with stress and problems really badly. But I still think it bears saying, and especially when people are looking into doing it, because you know, there's probably a lot of people out there with similar weaknesses, and academia isn't a "nurturing" environment at all. More shark pit.

I avoid politics and be nice to people. I don't find it as bitchy and backstabby as it seems to be made out. I tend to just work alone unless I need a lab tech for something.

I can identify with the 'do one thing only until you're uber at it' which seems pointless

Da Boss wrote:...and academia isn't a "nurturing" environment at all. More shark pit.

And those sharks? They have lasers on their heads.

Luckily even a legion of lasersharks is not a match for a single Steampunk Platypus.

Da Boss wrote:Luckily even a legion of lasersharks is not a match for a single Steampunk Platypus.

What about angry seabass?

Ketara wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
The masters is highly recommended for senior positions for my career, and the PhD more or less optional. The doctorate is still just a thought for now, though I'll probably do the masters.

Put it this way, the masters is only another year out, gives you a taste of what a PHD could be like, and int he worst case scenario, gives you another bit of paper to flaunt on your CV. Not much in the way of downsides.

Well weaponry really, the dream is to work for DARPA but that is probably unlikely

I'm confused. DARPA is American. They're not going to give out security sensitive jobs to foreign nationals. Unless your flag lies to me and you are American, not British?

My dad did some programming for anti-missile missiles for DARPA and he still got his UK citizenship,nd never got an american one.

Also ketara the PHD is necessary just so you can introduce yourself as Ketara, Dr of war

I can see sort of where the blog comes from, but he has a lot of misplaced expectations. It's true, there are some total grade-A s--ts in academia who will tread on you to get ahead, but that's the case in a lot of jobs. And frankly, a lot of people have to play the politics to get anywhere into senior positions. I've seen the fallout from 'personalities clashing' at the highest levels and it gets ugly. But there are a lot of decent people too, and it's a wonderful environment in which to work. In general the people I've worked with are good people who I trust.

The struggle of the PhD itself nearly killed me. The highs are highs, and lows are bloody awful. I felt wonderful at some points and indescribably bad at others. Only my wife and contact with people on the internet helped me maintain some sort of grip on sanity in the rough patches. I wouldn't talk about it in detail myself but know exactly of what Da Boss speaks.

That said I'm now looking for a job in science because it's what I want to do, I have no expectations of fame or money.