- Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.
- On the other hand, time can be squished for older people by virtue of industry experience making them more efficient
- I'd be hesitant about remote, since so much of a Ph.D is learning from others. Hallway conversations are critical. That's possible remotely, but not common.
- Fully agreed about "side activities." Teaching is fine -- you learn A LOT from it -- but a lot of Ph.D programs give stupid administrative grunt work. The metaphorical cleaning of test tubes on a professor's project is a serious red flag.
No such thing as too old, but having a mortgage and family myself now, I definitely get much out of a Ph.D program right now.
I'll mention too: If I didn't have a Ph.D, I'm mature and disciplined enough now that I could learn the same without a formal program.
I am skeptical of new world "accelerated" programs, which often have little substance, and are designed to milk working professionals. It's like getting the piece of paper in Wizard of Oz.
> Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.
This is BS. In every other field great strides have been made by individuals who balance a multitude of life requirements. Being able to devote every waking hour to something only results in burnout. And, I suppose, graduate students slave labor, which is the real reason for wanting 100% available graduate students in the program.
Academia in the US has become a pyramid scheme where faculty lures bright, young, hard working students into doing their chores for poverty wages. It's not the faculty's fault, either; they're often overworked as well.
I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.
> I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.
By ignoring the system.
One of the biggest problems in academia is that students don't know their rights, and professors set the culture. It's a power problem. If students assert their rights -- and they have plenty of them -- they usually do okay. It's neigh impossible to fire a grad student for not doing slave labor, and it looks really, really bad for the professor.
Professors can advise students, but they have very little real power to control them, once students are in the program. The power dynamic comes mostly from a mutual belief in that power existing.
Do good research. Take interesting classes. Have fun. Explore. If your professor tells you to do menial labor, politely blow them off.
That's the deal 5-10x pay cut in return for that freedom. Make sure you get your part of the bargain.
Students need to pass their quals, and produce a good thesis.
That's it. Once you realize that, grad school gets a lot better.
There's a gap a mile wide between Ph.D+family+work (which I described as a bad idea) and "Being able to devote every waking hour"
The whole point of graduate school is to have time for intellectual exploration -- reading papers, talking to students, traveling, taking interesting classes, and so on. Grad school was a wonderful time for me, but I can't imagine doing the same while having a deadline to ship a system next week at work or whatnot.
* Family+grad school is definitely okay, if you're independently wealthy or your spouse has a decent income.
* Grad school+work might be okay if the two align, and your thesis touches on your work. But other than that, I wouldn't recommend it.
* Grad school+work+family? That's a waste of your time. You'll get a slip of paper at the end,
But yes, grad student slave labor mentality is a problem, and if you're grad student slave labor, you are wasting your time too, and working for a fraction of your market value where all you get at the end is a paper.
A thesis advisor is an _advisor_, not a boss. I professors job is to _profess_, not to control. And grad school is _school_, which happens to give a stipend, not a job. If you're not using the time for intellectual explorations, you're doing it wrong.
Yep, I agree 100%. Its just about full-time slave-ownership on disguise, you don't want to share your little slaves with any time sucker like family, hobbies, or whatever outside work they might enjoy... Better to have them full time working for nothin'. While our real professors just do nothin'
- Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.
- On the other hand, time can be squished for older people by virtue of industry experience making them more efficient
- I'd be hesitant about remote, since so much of a Ph.D is learning from others. Hallway conversations are critical. That's possible remotely, but not common.
- Fully agreed about "side activities." Teaching is fine -- you learn A LOT from it -- but a lot of Ph.D programs give stupid administrative grunt work. The metaphorical cleaning of test tubes on a professor's project is a serious red flag.
No such thing as too old, but having a mortgage and family myself now, I definitely get much out of a Ph.D program right now.
I'll mention too: If I didn't have a Ph.D, I'm mature and disciplined enough now that I could learn the same without a formal program.
I am skeptical of new world "accelerated" programs, which often have little substance, and are designed to milk working professionals. It's like getting the piece of paper in Wizard of Oz.