Well said on all counts (note I am a couple of posts behind already! - this is in response to Tom's original post).
The advisor-advisee relationship is like most others, it is about "fit." One size does not fit all, which is why it is difficult for Universities to "screen" advisors a priori, as has been suggested. What works for one student does not necessarily work for another, so one person's lousy advisor may provide just what another needs. Students needs vary, as do professors capacities. There are undoubtedly professors out there that should not take on students, but there has been good advice on how to prescreen for that, and, yes, Universities can be lax in recognizing such situations. But, it is equally important to keep in mind the overall environment of the "lab" and the program. While the choice of advisor may be the most critical decision, often this larger environment provides as much support as the advisor and students often learn as much (or more) from the larger environment created within a "lab", or among a set of interacting "labs," as they do directly from their advisor or from structured learning. Look for an environment where students are genuinely excited about what they are doing, and can tell you about their own work with clarity and enthusiasm. What made a great graduate student experience for me was being surrounded by bright, energetic people who were interested in the same things (writ large) as I was. Tom's second point was right on the mark as well. No degree, undergraduate or graduate, is a guarantee of a job in that field. It comes down to performance. It is extremely competitive out there, especially for academic jobs. One reason for care in picking an advisor/program is to have a good graduate student experience, the other (and more critical) is to allow you to get the best out of yourself and make yourself competitive for the kind of job you envision as your life's work. It is the same whether you are a sculptor, architect, musician, or scientist - you have to strive to be the best at what you do. Then, even if you fall short of you loftiest goals, you still have created many more options for yourself. And on the general subject of academia. As Malcolm pointed out, most grad students don't have a clue as to all that is involved in being an academic (or they might not consider it at all!). And to quote my own advisor "not all graduate students are larval professors." Nor should they be; there are lots of options out there. But despite the thousand daily frustrations of academia and all the things that get between you and what you really got into this for, that is to do science and convey that excitement to students, I, for one, can't imagine doing anything else. William J. Resetarits, Jr Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300 Fax (806) 742-2963 On 10/18/12 9:03 PM, "Thomas J. Givnish" <givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote: > I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad >school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate >students. But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in >advisors, or in advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes > most often for the advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well. > > I did, however, want to comment on the statement that > >"When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone >else (with) a degree." > > > If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be >further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted >Ph.D.'s or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the >same, relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed >across the country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) >are perceived to have significant, novel implications and be scalable >to future endeavors, and fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations > are much more likely to be interviewed and offered jobs. That is what >search committees look for. Not that search committees never make >mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D. gets you in the door to >submit an application, but you need excellent research, combined with >strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your >feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have >a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier >universities. > > >Thomas J. Givnish >Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany >University of Wisconsin > >givn...@wisc.edu >http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html > > > > >On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote: >> As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. >>consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite >>informative and wanted to respond to: >> >> "When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as >>everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without >>Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed." >> >> I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates >>this very point as well as other ideas: >> >> >>http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-expo >>sed.html >> >> -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to >>be and "exposes the facts and truth about America's college education >>system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of >>expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who >>contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes >>the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young >>Americans into debt slaves for life." >> >> >> Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. >> >> Brandi >> M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences >> University of California, Davis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 >> > From: jane....@gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" >> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey <bugoc...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> > > When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as >>everyone else >> > > - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s >>but many >> > > more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. >> > >> > Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. >> > >> > > Also, to emphasize how little we get out of >> > > a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work >>or >> > > publications because the professor always gets credit for >>everything we do >> > > while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am >>fighting >> > > on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property >>theft). >> > >> > Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? >> > A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the >> > student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. >> > Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? >> > >> > BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of >> > needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would >> > point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep >> > the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs >> > to their employer ("work done for hire"). Isn't it better to say that >> > grad students are not employees? >> > >> > -- >> > ------------- >> > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. >> > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA >> > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org >> > >> > ³Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those who >> > are doing it.² --attributed to Robert Heinlein, George Bernard Shaw >> > and others > >--
