Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?Project design and scope: “interesting” vs “incremental” scienceWho is to decide the main idea(s) of research in a PhD Proposal, the student or his/her supervisor?How to enhance my prospects for a PhD?Is it ok for an applied mathematician to research a topic that she has personal experience with?Is it normal for a PhD candidate to be dissatisfied with their PhD thesis topic, if the field is not hot?Is it possible to get a PhD in physics in 3 years? If not, why?Lack of motivation-Changing PhDPessimistic with direction of academia-industry projectMeet with another professor in our university to discuss a paper that I wrote and her student is co-author with meHow much right does the PhD student have to choose his own advisor?How to tell pushy “advisors” to back off?

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?

Does the reader need to like the PoV character?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

Quoting Keynes in a lecture

US tourist/student visa

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

A Trivial Diagnosis

Is a Java collection guaranteed to be in a valid, usable state after a ConcurrentModificationException?

Will number of steps recorded on FitBit/any fitness tracker add up distance in PokemonGo?

How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

Why the "ls" command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

Creating two special characters

Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?

How can ping know if my host is down

How much of a Devil Fruit must be consumed to gain the power?

"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?

Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?

PTIJ: Why is Haman obsessed with Bose?

How to draw a matrix with arrows in limited space

Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?

Biological Blimps: Propulsion

What's the name of the logical fallacy where a debater extends a statement far beyond the original statement to make it true?



Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?


Project design and scope: “interesting” vs “incremental” scienceWho is to decide the main idea(s) of research in a PhD Proposal, the student or his/her supervisor?How to enhance my prospects for a PhD?Is it ok for an applied mathematician to research a topic that she has personal experience with?Is it normal for a PhD candidate to be dissatisfied with their PhD thesis topic, if the field is not hot?Is it possible to get a PhD in physics in 3 years? If not, why?Lack of motivation-Changing PhDPessimistic with direction of academia-industry projectMeet with another professor in our university to discuss a paper that I wrote and her student is co-author with meHow much right does the PhD student have to choose his own advisor?How to tell pushy “advisors” to back off?













4















I know what imposter syndrome is. But, believe me that's not the case with me. I have worked hard for the 4.5 years of my PhD, but I feel that my research is absolutely mediocre and as a result my self-confidence has taken a toll.



Now, my advisor is a brilliant person. She is well known in her field (Computational mechanics) and has many high impact publications (IF>10). I had my undergrad in materials science and was exposed to computational mechanics in my masters. I was fascinated by it and wanted to study and work on it. However, when I joined my PhD, I was asked to learn and use a different modeling technique and a different length scale which was not in the realm of my advisor's expertise. I work in continuum while she works in nano scale. Yes, the impact-factors vary in the journals for nano and continuum. But, all I am concerned with is the quality of my research work.



Post qualifiers and research proposal (my committee seemed happy with my theoretical knowledge, preliminary work and plans), I published one paper in a decent journal. But, my work was no where near that being done by my colleagues. I kept on working and completed 3 more manuscripts which are to be submitted soon. But still, my work is just mediocre and most likely will end up in average journals (IF <2).



I feel that I should not have pursued PhD and I was not fit for producing good research. I also feel that I have screwed my chance of doing anything significant in academia.



I also feel that I am still being funded and not fired because my advisor is a good person and is allowing me to stay regardless of my average performance out of pity.










share|improve this question







New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

    – Michael Schmidt
    4 hours ago















4















I know what imposter syndrome is. But, believe me that's not the case with me. I have worked hard for the 4.5 years of my PhD, but I feel that my research is absolutely mediocre and as a result my self-confidence has taken a toll.



Now, my advisor is a brilliant person. She is well known in her field (Computational mechanics) and has many high impact publications (IF>10). I had my undergrad in materials science and was exposed to computational mechanics in my masters. I was fascinated by it and wanted to study and work on it. However, when I joined my PhD, I was asked to learn and use a different modeling technique and a different length scale which was not in the realm of my advisor's expertise. I work in continuum while she works in nano scale. Yes, the impact-factors vary in the journals for nano and continuum. But, all I am concerned with is the quality of my research work.



Post qualifiers and research proposal (my committee seemed happy with my theoretical knowledge, preliminary work and plans), I published one paper in a decent journal. But, my work was no where near that being done by my colleagues. I kept on working and completed 3 more manuscripts which are to be submitted soon. But still, my work is just mediocre and most likely will end up in average journals (IF <2).



I feel that I should not have pursued PhD and I was not fit for producing good research. I also feel that I have screwed my chance of doing anything significant in academia.



I also feel that I am still being funded and not fired because my advisor is a good person and is allowing me to stay regardless of my average performance out of pity.










share|improve this question







New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

    – Michael Schmidt
    4 hours ago













4












4








4








I know what imposter syndrome is. But, believe me that's not the case with me. I have worked hard for the 4.5 years of my PhD, but I feel that my research is absolutely mediocre and as a result my self-confidence has taken a toll.



Now, my advisor is a brilliant person. She is well known in her field (Computational mechanics) and has many high impact publications (IF>10). I had my undergrad in materials science and was exposed to computational mechanics in my masters. I was fascinated by it and wanted to study and work on it. However, when I joined my PhD, I was asked to learn and use a different modeling technique and a different length scale which was not in the realm of my advisor's expertise. I work in continuum while she works in nano scale. Yes, the impact-factors vary in the journals for nano and continuum. But, all I am concerned with is the quality of my research work.



Post qualifiers and research proposal (my committee seemed happy with my theoretical knowledge, preliminary work and plans), I published one paper in a decent journal. But, my work was no where near that being done by my colleagues. I kept on working and completed 3 more manuscripts which are to be submitted soon. But still, my work is just mediocre and most likely will end up in average journals (IF <2).



I feel that I should not have pursued PhD and I was not fit for producing good research. I also feel that I have screwed my chance of doing anything significant in academia.



I also feel that I am still being funded and not fired because my advisor is a good person and is allowing me to stay regardless of my average performance out of pity.










share|improve this question







New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I know what imposter syndrome is. But, believe me that's not the case with me. I have worked hard for the 4.5 years of my PhD, but I feel that my research is absolutely mediocre and as a result my self-confidence has taken a toll.



Now, my advisor is a brilliant person. She is well known in her field (Computational mechanics) and has many high impact publications (IF>10). I had my undergrad in materials science and was exposed to computational mechanics in my masters. I was fascinated by it and wanted to study and work on it. However, when I joined my PhD, I was asked to learn and use a different modeling technique and a different length scale which was not in the realm of my advisor's expertise. I work in continuum while she works in nano scale. Yes, the impact-factors vary in the journals for nano and continuum. But, all I am concerned with is the quality of my research work.



Post qualifiers and research proposal (my committee seemed happy with my theoretical knowledge, preliminary work and plans), I published one paper in a decent journal. But, my work was no where near that being done by my colleagues. I kept on working and completed 3 more manuscripts which are to be submitted soon. But still, my work is just mediocre and most likely will end up in average journals (IF <2).



I feel that I should not have pursued PhD and I was not fit for producing good research. I also feel that I have screwed my chance of doing anything significant in academia.



I also feel that I am still being funded and not fired because my advisor is a good person and is allowing me to stay regardless of my average performance out of pity.







phd research-process thesis advisor






share|improve this question







New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









appartappart

212




212




New contributor




appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






appart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

    – Michael Schmidt
    4 hours ago

















  • Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    4 hours ago












  • maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

    – Michael Schmidt
    4 hours ago
















Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

– Prof. Santa Claus
4 hours ago






Adding to the answers below: think about the skills you've acquired. You are now equipped with a new modeling technique or tool. Can that tool be used somewhere else? Just imagine every research field as one giant jigsaw puzzle, and waiting for someone to walk up with the right piece of the puzzle. Your supervisor may have thought that the technique he/she suggested is that critical piece. Just continue to explore, and with some luck, you may find that you are just the right person holding the piece required to yield information that leads to a breakthrough.

– Prof. Santa Claus
4 hours ago














From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

– Prof. Santa Claus
4 hours ago






From a supervisor's perspective, I would say this: we make 'bets' when we do research; e.g., we suggest a direction or ask our students to explore area/tool-X. It may not pan out. We do not punish students. It is part of the research process. If it was not so, then every researcher would be guaranteed a breakthrough every time he/she thinks of an idea! Instead, the student's experience (failures or successes) helps us make better 'bets' going forward; yes, some bets will have a big payoff, but most of the time, no.

– Prof. Santa Claus
4 hours ago














maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

– Michael Schmidt
4 hours ago





maybe interesting to you concerning the aftermath of a PhD academia.stackexchange.com/q/12767/41661

– Michael Schmidt
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7














Having 4 papers published or submitted during a PhD period is actually quite substantial. Which journal they go to may be secondary, and there are many considerations. For example, at your stage of your career, getting anything accepted and published is more important than trying really hard to get that one paper into Science or Nature -- which entails a far greater risk of rejection and consequent delay, something one might be willing to accept as a well-known researcher in a field for whom one publication more or less makes no difference, but that you can ill afford.



But that's maybe not the question you're asking, so let me address that as well in the form of a story about myself: When I was a graduate student, I had always wanted to work at MIT or Stanford or a similar place, and to make breakthrough discoveries. Indeed, I know this to be true for many of my academic friends. But the longer I've been in academia (I've been a professor for 13 years now), the more I've come to realize two things:



  • By and large, science progresses not through discrete breakthroughs, but by continuously grinding problems down through the work of hundreds of people until the rare new ideas have been put into forms that can be used widely. Think about gravitational waves: yes, the follow from Einsteins equations and were theoretically well understood not long after, but then it took a hundred years until a whole community of hundreds or thousands of people had made the materials, detectors, and computational tools to actually use gravitational waves observable. All of these people made valuable contributions without which this would not have been possible, even though few of these contributions were published in the highest impact factor journals. What I'm trying to say here is that there is honor and value in doing good science, even if it never rises to the level of breakthroughs.


  • About breakthroughs to begin with: Of course, every grad student also wants to be the next Einstein. But few of us actually get to be. In fact, if you stay in a community, even if you're really really good, you will come to realize that there are people that are just so much better than you are. So not only do we not get to be the next Einstein, but almost all of us will actually never be at the top of our small sub-disciplines. But that doesn't mean that we're worthless -- there is honor in doing the everyday work moving science along and contributing to the scientific enterprise as a whole. Academia is composed of the high end of the ability scale, which is quite rarefied, and one has to learn to live with the fact that there are always people better than oneself. Take solace in the fact that the proportion of the general population who gets a PhD is already quite small, and you're in that fraction.






share|improve this answer






























    2















    1. There is something called "diminishing returns". And there can be a good argument that the amount of bodies and money being thrown at science experiences this. In other words, 10 times the Ph.D. students does not give 10 times the results. Because the last tenth (or half, or even 9/10th) of researchers are not as strong. In addition the later slew of problems may not be as tractable (less "sweet spot").



      So it is completely rational to consider that half of the Ph.D's are below average (this is not Lake Woebegone.) And this is definitely something that hits students as they experience difficulty or as they near finishing up. They ain't gonna be Dick Feynman. They may not even end up being Joe R1 Professor.



    2. This doesn't mean anything miserable. Life goes on. Do good work and look out for your own interests. Right now, you are almost done. Get it finished and collect the sheepskin. Even if you are a subpar Ph.D., it is still much better on the resume to have one, than not to have one. Especially as you move away from the hothouse of academia, into industry, into flyover country, into the long decades of your productive life. Just get it done, grab the "union card", move on.



    3. Maybe you will never be the end all be all of next gen computational mechanics. But that doesn't mean you aren't a smart guy/girl/thing in certain domains. Consider applying your skills in applied mat sci (yes, even experimental work...you don't have to be Hermione Granger in Potions class...deciding what experiments to do is way more important than technique).



      There are also huge opportunities, cool problems, and a willingness to try things in the US shale oil/gas industry. Get a gig with Halliburton. Yes, it's boom bust, but live for the moment, have fun for a few years and keep your resume updated.







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

      – llama
      3 mins ago


















    1














    The decision of your advisor/professor on which PhD student to keep and finance further not only depends on (# of papers) x (impact factor). Towards the end of my PhD I wrote 4 funding proposals for internal university funding and national foundation funding, although my advisor pushed me to bring further mediocre results to paper format after one top-tier publication. 2 have been granted luckily. Even if not funded finally, my advisor was impressed I made contacts to postdocs in other groups, developed ideas and managed common funding projects. This impressed my advisor more than writing another low/medium-impact research paper which is the current "sport competition" among PhD students in the light of publish or perish, who gets the higher # x IF product on researchgate.



    And while there are always smarter people in academia as Wolfgang wrote, academia also needs managers, organizers and idea-givers with broad interdisciplinary knowledge apart from savants and specialists. A scientific community only consisting of Einstein alikes would be a very inefficient one. So don't make yourself smaller than you are and don't think your scientific career is already over. But also be aware it is a poker game and you have to play your cards as long as they are uncovered, it even was for Einstein, also with a smaller luck factor because the truth always wins in science in the end :-)






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      appart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126854%2fdoes-an-advisor-owe-his-her-student-anything-will-an-advisor-keep-a-phd-student%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7














      Having 4 papers published or submitted during a PhD period is actually quite substantial. Which journal they go to may be secondary, and there are many considerations. For example, at your stage of your career, getting anything accepted and published is more important than trying really hard to get that one paper into Science or Nature -- which entails a far greater risk of rejection and consequent delay, something one might be willing to accept as a well-known researcher in a field for whom one publication more or less makes no difference, but that you can ill afford.



      But that's maybe not the question you're asking, so let me address that as well in the form of a story about myself: When I was a graduate student, I had always wanted to work at MIT or Stanford or a similar place, and to make breakthrough discoveries. Indeed, I know this to be true for many of my academic friends. But the longer I've been in academia (I've been a professor for 13 years now), the more I've come to realize two things:



      • By and large, science progresses not through discrete breakthroughs, but by continuously grinding problems down through the work of hundreds of people until the rare new ideas have been put into forms that can be used widely. Think about gravitational waves: yes, the follow from Einsteins equations and were theoretically well understood not long after, but then it took a hundred years until a whole community of hundreds or thousands of people had made the materials, detectors, and computational tools to actually use gravitational waves observable. All of these people made valuable contributions without which this would not have been possible, even though few of these contributions were published in the highest impact factor journals. What I'm trying to say here is that there is honor and value in doing good science, even if it never rises to the level of breakthroughs.


      • About breakthroughs to begin with: Of course, every grad student also wants to be the next Einstein. But few of us actually get to be. In fact, if you stay in a community, even if you're really really good, you will come to realize that there are people that are just so much better than you are. So not only do we not get to be the next Einstein, but almost all of us will actually never be at the top of our small sub-disciplines. But that doesn't mean that we're worthless -- there is honor in doing the everyday work moving science along and contributing to the scientific enterprise as a whole. Academia is composed of the high end of the ability scale, which is quite rarefied, and one has to learn to live with the fact that there are always people better than oneself. Take solace in the fact that the proportion of the general population who gets a PhD is already quite small, and you're in that fraction.






      share|improve this answer



























        7














        Having 4 papers published or submitted during a PhD period is actually quite substantial. Which journal they go to may be secondary, and there are many considerations. For example, at your stage of your career, getting anything accepted and published is more important than trying really hard to get that one paper into Science or Nature -- which entails a far greater risk of rejection and consequent delay, something one might be willing to accept as a well-known researcher in a field for whom one publication more or less makes no difference, but that you can ill afford.



        But that's maybe not the question you're asking, so let me address that as well in the form of a story about myself: When I was a graduate student, I had always wanted to work at MIT or Stanford or a similar place, and to make breakthrough discoveries. Indeed, I know this to be true for many of my academic friends. But the longer I've been in academia (I've been a professor for 13 years now), the more I've come to realize two things:



        • By and large, science progresses not through discrete breakthroughs, but by continuously grinding problems down through the work of hundreds of people until the rare new ideas have been put into forms that can be used widely. Think about gravitational waves: yes, the follow from Einsteins equations and were theoretically well understood not long after, but then it took a hundred years until a whole community of hundreds or thousands of people had made the materials, detectors, and computational tools to actually use gravitational waves observable. All of these people made valuable contributions without which this would not have been possible, even though few of these contributions were published in the highest impact factor journals. What I'm trying to say here is that there is honor and value in doing good science, even if it never rises to the level of breakthroughs.


        • About breakthroughs to begin with: Of course, every grad student also wants to be the next Einstein. But few of us actually get to be. In fact, if you stay in a community, even if you're really really good, you will come to realize that there are people that are just so much better than you are. So not only do we not get to be the next Einstein, but almost all of us will actually never be at the top of our small sub-disciplines. But that doesn't mean that we're worthless -- there is honor in doing the everyday work moving science along and contributing to the scientific enterprise as a whole. Academia is composed of the high end of the ability scale, which is quite rarefied, and one has to learn to live with the fact that there are always people better than oneself. Take solace in the fact that the proportion of the general population who gets a PhD is already quite small, and you're in that fraction.






        share|improve this answer

























          7












          7








          7







          Having 4 papers published or submitted during a PhD period is actually quite substantial. Which journal they go to may be secondary, and there are many considerations. For example, at your stage of your career, getting anything accepted and published is more important than trying really hard to get that one paper into Science or Nature -- which entails a far greater risk of rejection and consequent delay, something one might be willing to accept as a well-known researcher in a field for whom one publication more or less makes no difference, but that you can ill afford.



          But that's maybe not the question you're asking, so let me address that as well in the form of a story about myself: When I was a graduate student, I had always wanted to work at MIT or Stanford or a similar place, and to make breakthrough discoveries. Indeed, I know this to be true for many of my academic friends. But the longer I've been in academia (I've been a professor for 13 years now), the more I've come to realize two things:



          • By and large, science progresses not through discrete breakthroughs, but by continuously grinding problems down through the work of hundreds of people until the rare new ideas have been put into forms that can be used widely. Think about gravitational waves: yes, the follow from Einsteins equations and were theoretically well understood not long after, but then it took a hundred years until a whole community of hundreds or thousands of people had made the materials, detectors, and computational tools to actually use gravitational waves observable. All of these people made valuable contributions without which this would not have been possible, even though few of these contributions were published in the highest impact factor journals. What I'm trying to say here is that there is honor and value in doing good science, even if it never rises to the level of breakthroughs.


          • About breakthroughs to begin with: Of course, every grad student also wants to be the next Einstein. But few of us actually get to be. In fact, if you stay in a community, even if you're really really good, you will come to realize that there are people that are just so much better than you are. So not only do we not get to be the next Einstein, but almost all of us will actually never be at the top of our small sub-disciplines. But that doesn't mean that we're worthless -- there is honor in doing the everyday work moving science along and contributing to the scientific enterprise as a whole. Academia is composed of the high end of the ability scale, which is quite rarefied, and one has to learn to live with the fact that there are always people better than oneself. Take solace in the fact that the proportion of the general population who gets a PhD is already quite small, and you're in that fraction.






          share|improve this answer













          Having 4 papers published or submitted during a PhD period is actually quite substantial. Which journal they go to may be secondary, and there are many considerations. For example, at your stage of your career, getting anything accepted and published is more important than trying really hard to get that one paper into Science or Nature -- which entails a far greater risk of rejection and consequent delay, something one might be willing to accept as a well-known researcher in a field for whom one publication more or less makes no difference, but that you can ill afford.



          But that's maybe not the question you're asking, so let me address that as well in the form of a story about myself: When I was a graduate student, I had always wanted to work at MIT or Stanford or a similar place, and to make breakthrough discoveries. Indeed, I know this to be true for many of my academic friends. But the longer I've been in academia (I've been a professor for 13 years now), the more I've come to realize two things:



          • By and large, science progresses not through discrete breakthroughs, but by continuously grinding problems down through the work of hundreds of people until the rare new ideas have been put into forms that can be used widely. Think about gravitational waves: yes, the follow from Einsteins equations and were theoretically well understood not long after, but then it took a hundred years until a whole community of hundreds or thousands of people had made the materials, detectors, and computational tools to actually use gravitational waves observable. All of these people made valuable contributions without which this would not have been possible, even though few of these contributions were published in the highest impact factor journals. What I'm trying to say here is that there is honor and value in doing good science, even if it never rises to the level of breakthroughs.


          • About breakthroughs to begin with: Of course, every grad student also wants to be the next Einstein. But few of us actually get to be. In fact, if you stay in a community, even if you're really really good, you will come to realize that there are people that are just so much better than you are. So not only do we not get to be the next Einstein, but almost all of us will actually never be at the top of our small sub-disciplines. But that doesn't mean that we're worthless -- there is honor in doing the everyday work moving science along and contributing to the scientific enterprise as a whole. Academia is composed of the high end of the ability scale, which is quite rarefied, and one has to learn to live with the fact that there are always people better than oneself. Take solace in the fact that the proportion of the general population who gets a PhD is already quite small, and you're in that fraction.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          Wolfgang BangerthWolfgang Bangerth

          34.4k467121




          34.4k467121





















              2















              1. There is something called "diminishing returns". And there can be a good argument that the amount of bodies and money being thrown at science experiences this. In other words, 10 times the Ph.D. students does not give 10 times the results. Because the last tenth (or half, or even 9/10th) of researchers are not as strong. In addition the later slew of problems may not be as tractable (less "sweet spot").



                So it is completely rational to consider that half of the Ph.D's are below average (this is not Lake Woebegone.) And this is definitely something that hits students as they experience difficulty or as they near finishing up. They ain't gonna be Dick Feynman. They may not even end up being Joe R1 Professor.



              2. This doesn't mean anything miserable. Life goes on. Do good work and look out for your own interests. Right now, you are almost done. Get it finished and collect the sheepskin. Even if you are a subpar Ph.D., it is still much better on the resume to have one, than not to have one. Especially as you move away from the hothouse of academia, into industry, into flyover country, into the long decades of your productive life. Just get it done, grab the "union card", move on.



              3. Maybe you will never be the end all be all of next gen computational mechanics. But that doesn't mean you aren't a smart guy/girl/thing in certain domains. Consider applying your skills in applied mat sci (yes, even experimental work...you don't have to be Hermione Granger in Potions class...deciding what experiments to do is way more important than technique).



                There are also huge opportunities, cool problems, and a willingness to try things in the US shale oil/gas industry. Get a gig with Halliburton. Yes, it's boom bust, but live for the moment, have fun for a few years and keep your resume updated.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              • Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

                – llama
                3 mins ago















              2















              1. There is something called "diminishing returns". And there can be a good argument that the amount of bodies and money being thrown at science experiences this. In other words, 10 times the Ph.D. students does not give 10 times the results. Because the last tenth (or half, or even 9/10th) of researchers are not as strong. In addition the later slew of problems may not be as tractable (less "sweet spot").



                So it is completely rational to consider that half of the Ph.D's are below average (this is not Lake Woebegone.) And this is definitely something that hits students as they experience difficulty or as they near finishing up. They ain't gonna be Dick Feynman. They may not even end up being Joe R1 Professor.



              2. This doesn't mean anything miserable. Life goes on. Do good work and look out for your own interests. Right now, you are almost done. Get it finished and collect the sheepskin. Even if you are a subpar Ph.D., it is still much better on the resume to have one, than not to have one. Especially as you move away from the hothouse of academia, into industry, into flyover country, into the long decades of your productive life. Just get it done, grab the "union card", move on.



              3. Maybe you will never be the end all be all of next gen computational mechanics. But that doesn't mean you aren't a smart guy/girl/thing in certain domains. Consider applying your skills in applied mat sci (yes, even experimental work...you don't have to be Hermione Granger in Potions class...deciding what experiments to do is way more important than technique).



                There are also huge opportunities, cool problems, and a willingness to try things in the US shale oil/gas industry. Get a gig with Halliburton. Yes, it's boom bust, but live for the moment, have fun for a few years and keep your resume updated.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              • Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

                – llama
                3 mins ago













              2












              2








              2








              1. There is something called "diminishing returns". And there can be a good argument that the amount of bodies and money being thrown at science experiences this. In other words, 10 times the Ph.D. students does not give 10 times the results. Because the last tenth (or half, or even 9/10th) of researchers are not as strong. In addition the later slew of problems may not be as tractable (less "sweet spot").



                So it is completely rational to consider that half of the Ph.D's are below average (this is not Lake Woebegone.) And this is definitely something that hits students as they experience difficulty or as they near finishing up. They ain't gonna be Dick Feynman. They may not even end up being Joe R1 Professor.



              2. This doesn't mean anything miserable. Life goes on. Do good work and look out for your own interests. Right now, you are almost done. Get it finished and collect the sheepskin. Even if you are a subpar Ph.D., it is still much better on the resume to have one, than not to have one. Especially as you move away from the hothouse of academia, into industry, into flyover country, into the long decades of your productive life. Just get it done, grab the "union card", move on.



              3. Maybe you will never be the end all be all of next gen computational mechanics. But that doesn't mean you aren't a smart guy/girl/thing in certain domains. Consider applying your skills in applied mat sci (yes, even experimental work...you don't have to be Hermione Granger in Potions class...deciding what experiments to do is way more important than technique).



                There are also huge opportunities, cool problems, and a willingness to try things in the US shale oil/gas industry. Get a gig with Halliburton. Yes, it's boom bust, but live for the moment, have fun for a few years and keep your resume updated.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.











              1. There is something called "diminishing returns". And there can be a good argument that the amount of bodies and money being thrown at science experiences this. In other words, 10 times the Ph.D. students does not give 10 times the results. Because the last tenth (or half, or even 9/10th) of researchers are not as strong. In addition the later slew of problems may not be as tractable (less "sweet spot").



                So it is completely rational to consider that half of the Ph.D's are below average (this is not Lake Woebegone.) And this is definitely something that hits students as they experience difficulty or as they near finishing up. They ain't gonna be Dick Feynman. They may not even end up being Joe R1 Professor.



              2. This doesn't mean anything miserable. Life goes on. Do good work and look out for your own interests. Right now, you are almost done. Get it finished and collect the sheepskin. Even if you are a subpar Ph.D., it is still much better on the resume to have one, than not to have one. Especially as you move away from the hothouse of academia, into industry, into flyover country, into the long decades of your productive life. Just get it done, grab the "union card", move on.



              3. Maybe you will never be the end all be all of next gen computational mechanics. But that doesn't mean you aren't a smart guy/girl/thing in certain domains. Consider applying your skills in applied mat sci (yes, even experimental work...you don't have to be Hermione Granger in Potions class...deciding what experiments to do is way more important than technique).



                There are also huge opportunities, cool problems, and a willingness to try things in the US shale oil/gas industry. Get a gig with Halliburton. Yes, it's boom bust, but live for the moment, have fun for a few years and keep your resume updated.








              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered 4 hours ago









              guestguest

              492




              492




              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.












              • Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

                – llama
                3 mins ago

















              • Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

                – llama
                3 mins ago
















              Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

              – llama
              3 mins ago





              Or, for my two cents, don't work in a field which contributes directly to climate change making the planet uninhabitable for our descendants, even if it's the most profitable one.

              – llama
              3 mins ago











              1














              The decision of your advisor/professor on which PhD student to keep and finance further not only depends on (# of papers) x (impact factor). Towards the end of my PhD I wrote 4 funding proposals for internal university funding and national foundation funding, although my advisor pushed me to bring further mediocre results to paper format after one top-tier publication. 2 have been granted luckily. Even if not funded finally, my advisor was impressed I made contacts to postdocs in other groups, developed ideas and managed common funding projects. This impressed my advisor more than writing another low/medium-impact research paper which is the current "sport competition" among PhD students in the light of publish or perish, who gets the higher # x IF product on researchgate.



              And while there are always smarter people in academia as Wolfgang wrote, academia also needs managers, organizers and idea-givers with broad interdisciplinary knowledge apart from savants and specialists. A scientific community only consisting of Einstein alikes would be a very inefficient one. So don't make yourself smaller than you are and don't think your scientific career is already over. But also be aware it is a poker game and you have to play your cards as long as they are uncovered, it even was for Einstein, also with a smaller luck factor because the truth always wins in science in the end :-)






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                The decision of your advisor/professor on which PhD student to keep and finance further not only depends on (# of papers) x (impact factor). Towards the end of my PhD I wrote 4 funding proposals for internal university funding and national foundation funding, although my advisor pushed me to bring further mediocre results to paper format after one top-tier publication. 2 have been granted luckily. Even if not funded finally, my advisor was impressed I made contacts to postdocs in other groups, developed ideas and managed common funding projects. This impressed my advisor more than writing another low/medium-impact research paper which is the current "sport competition" among PhD students in the light of publish or perish, who gets the higher # x IF product on researchgate.



                And while there are always smarter people in academia as Wolfgang wrote, academia also needs managers, organizers and idea-givers with broad interdisciplinary knowledge apart from savants and specialists. A scientific community only consisting of Einstein alikes would be a very inefficient one. So don't make yourself smaller than you are and don't think your scientific career is already over. But also be aware it is a poker game and you have to play your cards as long as they are uncovered, it even was for Einstein, also with a smaller luck factor because the truth always wins in science in the end :-)






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  The decision of your advisor/professor on which PhD student to keep and finance further not only depends on (# of papers) x (impact factor). Towards the end of my PhD I wrote 4 funding proposals for internal university funding and national foundation funding, although my advisor pushed me to bring further mediocre results to paper format after one top-tier publication. 2 have been granted luckily. Even if not funded finally, my advisor was impressed I made contacts to postdocs in other groups, developed ideas and managed common funding projects. This impressed my advisor more than writing another low/medium-impact research paper which is the current "sport competition" among PhD students in the light of publish or perish, who gets the higher # x IF product on researchgate.



                  And while there are always smarter people in academia as Wolfgang wrote, academia also needs managers, organizers and idea-givers with broad interdisciplinary knowledge apart from savants and specialists. A scientific community only consisting of Einstein alikes would be a very inefficient one. So don't make yourself smaller than you are and don't think your scientific career is already over. But also be aware it is a poker game and you have to play your cards as long as they are uncovered, it even was for Einstein, also with a smaller luck factor because the truth always wins in science in the end :-)






                  share|improve this answer













                  The decision of your advisor/professor on which PhD student to keep and finance further not only depends on (# of papers) x (impact factor). Towards the end of my PhD I wrote 4 funding proposals for internal university funding and national foundation funding, although my advisor pushed me to bring further mediocre results to paper format after one top-tier publication. 2 have been granted luckily. Even if not funded finally, my advisor was impressed I made contacts to postdocs in other groups, developed ideas and managed common funding projects. This impressed my advisor more than writing another low/medium-impact research paper which is the current "sport competition" among PhD students in the light of publish or perish, who gets the higher # x IF product on researchgate.



                  And while there are always smarter people in academia as Wolfgang wrote, academia also needs managers, organizers and idea-givers with broad interdisciplinary knowledge apart from savants and specialists. A scientific community only consisting of Einstein alikes would be a very inefficient one. So don't make yourself smaller than you are and don't think your scientific career is already over. But also be aware it is a poker game and you have to play your cards as long as they are uncovered, it even was for Einstein, also with a smaller luck factor because the truth always wins in science in the end :-)







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 3 hours ago









                  Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt

                  492211




                  492211




















                      appart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      appart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      appart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      appart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126854%2fdoes-an-advisor-owe-his-her-student-anything-will-an-advisor-keep-a-phd-student%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

                      Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

                      inputenc: Unicode character … not set up for use with LaTeX The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEntering Unicode characters in LaTeXHow to solve the `Package inputenc Error: Unicode char not set up for use with LaTeX` problem?solve “Unicode char is not set up for use with LaTeX” without special handling of every new interesting UTF-8 characterPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character ² (U+B2)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. acroI2C[I²C]package inputenc error unicode char (u + 190) not set up for use with latexPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char u8:′ not set up for use with LaTeX. 3′inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeX with G-BriefPackage Inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ́ (U+301)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. includePackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ̂ (U+302)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. … $widehatleft (OA,AA' right )$Package inputenc Error: Unicode char â„¡ (U+2121)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]Package inputenc Error: Unicode char − (U+2212)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character α (U+3B1) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode characterError: ! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char ⊘ (U+2298)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX