I see PhD by Wang Yu

I see PhD.

By Wang Yin

A while ago, I looked at these negative information about PhD:

1. A BLOG specifically against Reading PhD is called "Reasons not to Go to graduate School" (hereinafter referred to as "100 reasons")

1. Harvard University Professor William James's "The PhD Octopus" (written in 1903)

1. Dr. Philip Guo, Computer department at Stanford University, wrote the book "The Ph.D Grind" (describing his PhD career)

1. A series of comic "PhD Comics" who specialize in the life of PhD (PhD movie is very bad, don't look!) ）

They all ask us the question: is PhD really worth reading? As a PhD who had been reading for more than 10 years, turnover of three universities (Tsinghua, Cornell, Indiana) and still no graduate, I would like to present some of my exclusive views and make some comments on some of them, hoping to inspire Yimeimei.

Does PhD still have value

It is a very difficult question whether the PhD is still worth reading. I do not think that the negative evaluation of PhD, which is listed at the beginning of this article, is completely objective and impartial. Although some of their views are correct, they also contain some partial, shortsighted things.

In short, my answer to this is that the process of reading PhD may still be valuable, but the PhD's title is of little value. Let me explain in detail why this is.

First, why is the process of reading PhD still likely to be valuable? That's because you can use it to learn the essence of knowledge. Note that what I'm saying is "possible", not "affirmative", because there are many factors that determine the value of PhD's learning. One obvious fact is that undergraduate education does not teach you in-depth knowledge, as almost all universities (including so-called "world-class universities") are cramming for undergraduate education. Undergraduates in the mind, just pass the exam, improve GPA, so they generally can only learn fur. Master, but only a little extension of the undergraduate. People who read a master's degree tend to get a quick buck, just to find a slightly better job. Only PhD students who have a special tutor and need several years to graduate, so objectively they may be quiet to learn the real thing.

But a valuable PhD stage, but it is hard-won. There are a number of factors that determine whether you are learning something true:

2. A mentor who has genuine knowledge and is willing to share knowledge. In fact, unless you are a prodigy, you can only learn knowledge directly from people, not from books or papers. The most profound knowledge is often not disseminated through books or papers, but by direct dictation by people. This phenomenon is caused by human selfishness. The students in the field often overestimate the knowledge and virtues of the "top experts" in this area, believing that the "classics" written by the Bulls can get the best of them. But in fact, everyone is selfish. They tend not to put their core instincts and ideas into books and essays, but simply write a bunch of complex symbols, formulas, theorems, and proofs that you know they don't know why. This phenomenon is particularly common in mathematics, logic, and computer science. For example, it's like writing a program that doesn't give you the source code, but just the compiled binary. Those who get this "binary knowledge" will never see through these complex symbols with very simple ideas behind them. Math and logic books are hard to read, that's why. People who have genuine knowledge are not necessarily in the cattle school, so you need to broaden your horizons. I was depressed when I was Cornell, because professors often wrote a blackboard formula without revealing a bit of intuition and ideas. One day when a professor had written a certificate full of two blackboards, I asked him, "You have proved the correctness of this theorem, but I want to know how the theorem itself is thought out." He said, "Do you have any point in asking this question?" I tell you it's right, that's enough. Only a very intelligent person can take a lot of energy to think of such a theorem. Then, when he arrived at IU, he found a professor who had an easy way out of this theorem in class. Then I found out that the Cornell professor was actually just scripted, but also wound up people.

4. Their own efforts. So what kind of person will share all the best ideas with you? No one. Since ancient times, all martial arts masters will be final touches to their disciples. And the advanced scholar and martial arts master's style is actually strikingly similar, even my most respected Dan Friedman professor is no exception. He knows a lot more than he does, but he doesn't say anything. That's why the people who have been in his class have a different opinion of him. I have a very high opinion of him, because I think his inspiration plus my own efforts, let me learn a lot of things. But some people said to him, "I didn't learn anything, because he never taught us!" "IU's other great man R. Kent Dybvig, his Chez Scheme compiler has a lot of unpublished secrets. It is not polite to say that this person is much higher than the author of "Dragon Book", "Tiger book" or LLVM. But he is so "detached" that he simply does not want to let people know what he thinks. He just tells you in a cool way: "You're defeated." "It's only when you try desperately to think about it and try to get close to the answer that he gives you a little clue:" You're in the right direction. "Just that!" Therefore, their own initiative and efforts are very important. As the saying goes, "opportunity will only favor the people who are prepared", "the teacher leads the door, practice in the individual", this is the truth.

Find the right tutor and try your best. If you do not reach these two points, then do not blindly into the PhD. Otherwise, there could be 90 of those "100 reasons"! In these two points, the 1th is particularly difficult. Because in this world of rumors, coupled with the lack of experience of undergraduate graduates, it is difficult to know who has the knowledge of the person. The average person's approach is to look at fame, but this is often wrong. So unless you have an in-depth understanding of your mentor at the undergraduate level, it's probably best to go to work for a few years before settling into your own life and then slowly studying the PhD. There is another benefit: because you have the financial security, you will be in the psychological relationship between teachers and students to occupy some initiative. Because you can leave at any time, professors don't think you can be "trampled". Another experience is that, after entering the doctoral study, we should examine many aspects, not hanging in a tree. It is not good to withdraw, find the direction of progress, save energy and time.

So why isn't PhD's title really worth it? Because PhD no longer exists in the fog of glory. The society is progressing, and it knows how many PhD graduates each year, and it knows how most of the PhD is getting it. This year, a fool can get a PhD from a prestigious school, as long as you are "mixed". PhD is just a game, it's a very real fact. "What did your PhD do?" "Now almost every employer will ask this question. They tend to actually look at what you're doing that has no value for them, not just your title. So people who do not have the value for them, even if they get a PhD, will not be taken seriously.

The status quo of American universities

"100 reasons" has pointed out a lot of what I want to say. I'll focus on my own opinion.

2. Undergraduate exam-oriented education. People who have been on the "New Orient" have been blinded. The so-called Western critical Thought (critical thinking), in fact, is very scarce in the United States. The United States is actually a very "river crab" society. You seldom see assertiveness people in American universities. The United States has no BBS, no anger, every student is a silent lamb. Students afraid of teachers, fear of scores, is a common phenomenon. Everyone cares only about GPA, not about getting the truth. I used to be very enthusiastic about education, trying to teach them some real things, but in the end I felt a waste of expression. Because they will only come to you on the day the homework is about to be submitted, and just want to set out the answer to the question. Whether it is Cornell or IU, or any other world famous school, is a kind.

4. No further discussion. "100 reasons" mentioned that people in the same field are competitors, this is not false. Everyone who has a bit of an idea is afraid of being "stolen" by others. Every person who has no idea, wants to steal a little from others. So the result is that a strong person will never reveal a real idea to someone before publishing a paper. Because what they care about is making the idea known as its own name. Whether it's your colleagues, or the top academics in the field, it's all the same. If you tell someone your idea frankly, this person may blow your confidence and say that the idea has already been done. When you lose interest in your thoughts, he quietly puts your ideas in his own name. This kind of infighting phenomenon, I have experienced or heard several times, so I now do not tell people the real idea. The core of the idea of their own to stay, derived from the "second-level goods" and even "third-level goods" before the public. Of course this is not conducive to academic development, but I also have no way.

6. Unequal information. American University graduate students seldom speak bluntly about the knowledge and character of a professor, fearing that these words would be detrimental to the professor's ears, and that they do not want you to rob their professors. So when you choose a mentor, you can't trust anyone's opinion, because they usually just say to you, "he's Daniel." That's awesome! "I once had the intuition that a professor's research was nonsense, but because I was told that he was very good, I began to doubt my judgment. After a period of study with him, he was completely convinced that he was really talking nonsense. This kind of student's information does not pass, has caused many doctoral students to confuse the research. Ironically, however, the information channel between professors is very smooth. Every once in a while, the department will hold a plenary meeting to discuss the progress of each student. Of course, a professor who has a problem with you, will certainly say it mercilessly. So you see, this inequality in the flow of information creates a strategic passivity among students. The student community is in fact a very non-united, filled with infighting of the oppressed class.

8. Inbreeding. If you want to find the truth, then go to the people who have knowledge, but the truth is not equal to "career". If you want to find a position at an American university, you have to go into the bull school desperately, because it's the only way to get into this "academic network." The students of the same tutor are often able to make a group, and the students who are the mentors ' enemies will have a good idea. IU Such a Nobody, the professors are not Harvard is Princeton or MIT graduate, so you can see the PhD has been more to what extent. Into the cattle school, no matter what kind of tutor you finally fell into the hand, as long as you are willing to do hard work, the hard-won graduation, in the future can generally be mixed in academia, so forever mixed. If the ignorant colleague, against the praise, superficial papers, boring meetings, quick-buck students, super long working hours, can bring you happy words, why not?

10. Publish, publish, publish. "100 reasons" refers to the humanities conferences and the proliferation of papers, in fact, in the scientific community, especially the computer science community, is the same. The world is the same. I attended one of the top conferences in the field in January: POPL (Principles of programming Languages). I have to say that more than half of the papers in it are of little value, but many are scaring people with the banner of "logic." In fact, the basic purpose of the meeting is to facilitate people to play advertising, Latin America relations, looking for work. For example, at this meeting I met several doctors who had already graduated and were looking for a job. Still in school doctoral students are also nervous busy to show their predecessors. The exchange of ideas? actually very little. So I have lost interest in the meeting in this field. This is true of the top theoretical fields in the computer world, and other areas are certainly more ridiculous. Many of the papers I'm reading now come from Masters 100 years ago. Perhaps only they, will be selfless to reveal the real idea. Because the scholars of that era are very poor, not to be valued, so there is no motive for the release of nonsense.

12. Political struggles. A field of research to a certain stage, all the fundamental theories have been found, and do not want to be dissolved. How do you live the rest of the day? There was no way to put the old ideas on a new label and sell them. Or to suggest some "equivalent", but not necessarily the concept of existence. As long as someone holds you up, you can create new "fields", hold new meetings, become prominent figures in this field, and even get the highest honors in the field (the Spirit prize). So the most important thing is how to sell your "new ideas" and how to subtly echo others ' ideas. Sometimes even if your ideas are worthless, someone will support you. Because these people know this truth, put you red, and then they also convenient dipping. That is why I often discover after a few days that the results of 20 years in some areas have been almost completely worthless or have been completely surpassed by another, and it has continued to organize specialized meetings.

So what's wrong with the 100 reasons? I may not be able to think of all of them, and here are just a few things to ask:

1. The status of doctoral students in the school. On this point, there is a lot of misleading about the 100 reasons. In fact, the status of doctoral students in the school than undergraduates and masters, can be said to be quite high. Some undergraduates like to make a "big picture" or "customer phase", but as long as you are tough enough, they will obey orders. You control their grades, so they are actually afraid of you. As for the evaluation that the undergraduates gave me, I have never seen them. As long as you study your own things, the school does not take undergraduates to your evaluation, because you are more useful to the school. Of course, most undergraduates are still friendly.

2. Few friends. Reading a doctor to a certain state, you naturally will not expect a lot of friends. A gentleman's turn is as weak as water. Your realm will make you have a choice, no longer with the people who like the vulgar taste of friends. So in fact this is a merit, "100 reasons" to read this as the shortcomings of Bo, can be said to be black and white upside down.

3. Marriage, family. The author of "100 Reasons" is probably a very traditional person. He often mentions these things and says, "Your college classmates are already over you in these areas." "What he doesn't see is that these students who don't have PhD, their" adult life "are probably not that happy. Married, gave birth to a child, bought a house, what can you do? People in modern developed countries, the more educated, the richer, the more lazy to marry and have children. Simple truth, because they seldom bring happiness. On the contrary, they are almost always causing annoyance.

4. Lonely. "100 reasons" point out that reading PhD will be very lonely, but he did not understand the "high place Cold" truth. Every intelligent person will not be understood, will be lonely, it is inevitable, whether reading PhD is the same. And a person does something alone, and does not feel lonely. Loneliness comes from the expectation of "communication". If there is no such expectation, then there will be no loneliness. For example, when I was a child, I always had a good time and had a big wooden box filled with the "baby" I picked up from everywhere. At that time I never felt lonely, because I did not expect someone to communicate with me. In fact, when you read the PhD, if you actively participate in activities, there will be friends. All the clubs in the school are equal to everyone.

This article is posted at Yinwang ' s Sina blog,
On 2012-07-22.
Though it ' s not available on the blog now.

(turn) I see PhD by Wang Yu