Hi,

I'm about to finish my PhD. I just wanted to say to go for the job.

I just wanted to say that I came the first to this forum because I felt really bad for having two PhD offers. It was a horrible experience.

I also decided not to do the same for my postdoc, but we will see :)

I just got an email inviting to review a paper. I have two questions:

1. I realized one of the authors, and probably the most experienced of the authors, is a professor I met months ago in a conference. After that, we have talked several times about working together . Is this coincidence or is there a way to choose or suggest who review your papers?

2. Do you normally put this reviews as part of your academic experience in your CV? Do you specify the journal?

My supervisors are overwhelmed with teaching and administrative activities, so they don't have a lot of time to do research. They are always lost, behind, and having dumb ideas.

Yes, I know, I've lost the count of how many times I've heard (said to me, to others, in the Internet, etc):

"It's your work. It's you who is doing a PhD".

At some point, I really believed that it is my thesis after all, so I had the control over it; however, now I'm disappointed, since I found myself forced to follow their dumb and damned ideas over and over again. I've tried to convinced them each time that their ideas won't work, but they are too clueless and arrogant to see it.


I'm also really tired of explaining things and discussing with them just to find they forgot everything a couple of days later. Usually, they even forget that they forced me to write or do something in a certain way, telling me it is nonsense, and forcing me to change it: and the loop starts again.

Is there anyone here who deals with something like this? How do you do?

Thank you all.

Yeah. Nothing new nor shocking.

I just finished my second year and I had this PhD evaluation with someone external to my university.

I was really happy I managed to get this super professor to come here to evaluate my work. He's one of the most important researchers in my field.

He was really nice, he gave me some great suggestions to both improve my work and my possibility of getting a good position in the future. He also accepted to come again for my eventual PhD defense.

I really expected some of the toughest things he told me. According to him, I should do some major changes to my approach to make it really valuable.

I'm happy with me, with my work, with my presentation skills so, what's the problem?

I really think my supervisors are crap, totally disconnected from the research reality. I feel they waste my time with outdated and unimportant shit. It's not the first time I think this, but let's say, I kind of confirmed it. I know I could've done a thousand times better.

Conclusion: I just want to quit and find a 9-5 job outside academy.

Thank you all very much for your answers.

The problem is that I'm starting my third year I feel burnt out, so I'm gonna try a 9-5 approach.

Thank you again.

Yes, I know people have talked about this a lot of times, but I wanted to know how people in this forum feel, and how do you manage your PhD.

I have tried several times to manage it as a 9-5 job, but just I can't. I just think about people who are incredible passionate, people who devote their life to work, so that makes me feel kind of behind and bad if I am not working.

Do you take your PhD as a personal quest, or as a 9-5 job?

Hi, I just needed to write this here.

Sometimes, my advisor does not have the time to read the chapters I write, or she is too lazy to do it. When that happens, she does not tell me she did not read it, but she just tell me that the writing, organization, and stuff like that are so awful that I have practically to rewrite everything from scratch.

At the beginning, when I thought she was being objective and trying to improve my work, I just felt sorry for myself or motivated to improve my writing. Eventually, I realized that when she was like that she had no idea of what she was talking about, but she had the need of telling me something, of giving me feed back.

Now, I just detest that. When she tells me things like that, I just want to tell her "but, of course, you didn't read it. You don't know what you're talking about", or just quit the PhD. :)

We had a baby one month ago and I'm supposed to finish my PhD in about one year. Fortunately (for me), my wife and her mother do most of the work; however, I have been incredibly tired since and my power of concentration, or to do anything else, has not been the same. The main problems are the hard long nights, since the baby wakes up every two hours not even crying, but screaming! :) Anyway, I feel after a month we are getting used to it and with the favor of mother nature of babies, he should start sleeping better soon.

Finally, I know many amazing female scientists who have finish their PhDs with smalls babies, and found great jobs after, both in academy and industry! Honestly, the only serious problems I know with PhD students having babies is when their supervisors, laboratory, etc, are against PhD students having babies, which I found very sad.

Maybe your 40's years old partner is in a position to help you a lot!

Hello,

I'm writing to you because I'm concerned with a situation I'm in and I wanted to hear your advice.

I'm finishing the second year of my PhD, which it turned to be a continuation of my Master's work. During my Master, I did research with my Master advisor and with my current PhD advisor. We have continue to work together and to publish papers during my PhD; however, my PhD co-advisor has not participated on any of them, not because we did not want to, but because he is always busy with his work. The only publication I have with him is a little paper I wrote for a PhD symposium.

What do you think? Is it normal to do a PhD while publishing with people other than the co-advisor? Is it going to be weird or could I have problems because of that at the end of the thesis?

Thank you for your answer. I definitively want to get the PhD and future prospect.

Hello,

The time has come for me to decide between two PhD programs in Computer Science. I want to make a decision based on the research topics. In PhD A, I would work in a very well established field with an adviser who is a star in that field and have a lot a connections within 500-fortune companies. In PhD B, I would work in a very new but exciting field, with an average adviser who is also new in the field. People have told me and I have confirmed that with my own experience that it is very difficult to do publications in conferences related to topic A, but very easy in conferences related to topic B, because there is a lot of interest, many conferences, and a lot to be done. However, with topic A I know that I also would have great possibilities in the industry.

Professors have told me that I should choose topic B for the sake of being new and have more possibilities to contribute to the community. Also, I was told that should not matter the adviser nor the university for the PhD, because I should be able to work independently and alone.

What do you think?

Hello,

I am facing the tough decision of choosing between two PhD programs in Computer Science, one in Europe and one in the USA. Both offer me complete funding. I can start the one in Europe basically any time from October 1st to January 1st, but the USA program is to start in Fall 2013. I already have a 3 year Computer Science Master degree. Here I write some things I think about the two programs to help me make a decision.

- PhD in Europe it is supposed to last 3 years vs. 5 years in the USA. It is because the european program requires a 3 years research Master degree, and it is absolutely focused on research, while the USA program does not require the Master degree and I will have to take some courses (which probably I do not really need).

-The research team in the USA university is stronger than in the european one.

-I think than in the USA I will have more and better career prospect after the PhD than in Europe. Also, people perceive Computer Science in the USA always more prestigious.

-The european city where I would living in is much, much more better than the USA city. I know I would be far more comfortable and happier in Europe, but I also think that I should not consider this point when evaluating my academic or professional future.


As I mention earlier, for the USA program I would have to wait almost a year to start and approximately wait until may to finish the enrolling formalities of the university, and I would still have to take the TOEFL and GRE exams. For Europe, everything is ready.

If I choose USA now and reject Europe, I am not sure what I am going to do this whole year. Also, I am very poor and live in a very politically unstable and very dangerous city of a third world country. I have already been victim of criminals several times , I am poor, universities here have no funding, it is a pain in the ass to go to work, to the university, therefore , losing both PhD funding is NOT an option. There is a small possibility that that could happen if I choose USA over Europe at this moment. As I told you, I would still have to pass through some formalities to enroll to the USA university and it will take time. I do not know, the professor from USA could die, change job, my country could close the USA embassy here, etc. I can not let anything to chance. Also, If I reject Europe and for some strange reason don't go to the USA, I know I will never get again the wonderful recommendation letters my professor have gave me this time.


People have told me to do the best for me (I also read that in the Internet about the same problem applied to job offers), so the clearest answer seems to be to go to Europe, take time to take the TOEFL and GRE exams, and then, if later I prefer going to the USA, just quit and go.

I thought that was really deceitful, coward, and cold hearted, but also, I am the one trying to figure out what to do whit his life and how to improve it.

What do you think?