The Beginning of a Scientific Career (Part 4)
Probably, after this part we will take a small step back and talk about what a good “Bologna” magistracy looks like, but for now I’ll continue talking about graduate school.
I must say that in graduate school the differences between countries and universities are beginning to fade. If you do not pay attention to important, but in general, secondary things, then we can say that Russian postgraduate studies are not very different from foreign ones. Perhaps the most noticeable external difference is that the western graduate student has to study much more (in the usual, “student” sense), that is, to attend courses and take exams.
A graduate student (as well as a master) always has a "major" and "additional" specialty (major subject / minor subject). The main specialty sets the general direction of activity - physics, mathematics, computer science, biology. Additional specialty can be almost any one and indicates which courses a person takes for his general development. A geek may well take linguistics, history, biology as a minor subject. You can not deviate from the main topic and take physics or economics.
')
So, within the framework of postgraduate studies, you will have to complete an average of seven semester courses in each specialty (that is, a total of about 14 courses; disclaimer: this was where I studied). For comparison: in Russia, there are perhaps weekly seminars on philosophy and on the English language. Another specialty is passed (but for it there is usually no separate course provided for) and some incomprehensible exams like “TeX fundamentals” or “history of science”. But the total volume of the load, of course, does not compare.
What does graduate study look like in general? It is assumed that a PhD degree can be obtained in about four years (but five or six years is not a problem either; the problem is not always in duration as such, but in the ability to knock out a scholarship for an expanding period of study). It was morally easier for me personally to start with passing courses. That is, the first year I practically did not do anything except listen to lectures. Scored all the courses that only could, and tried to earn the missing loans.
By the way, an unexpected difficulty may arise here: if you studied at the master's program at a small university, it will not be so easy to find a sufficient number of new courses for obtaining “credits”. I had such a problem: almost all the “high” level courses I already listened when I studied for a master's degree. I had to go to summer schools, look for courses in other places. But in the end, all this turned out to be easy, I don’t want to scare anyone;) In addition, if you already have one higher education (preferably in an adjacent, but different specialty), you can try to fake it and issue it as a minor subject. With a certain amount of luck, this may work (in my case, Russian postgraduate studies “shot”).
Further "research activity" begins. Its peripeteia is a topic for a separate and long conversation, but I will try to restrict myself to the main points.
As already mentioned by commentators in the previous topic, graduate students are the “workhorses” of science. It should be understood that the professor takes a graduate student to help, and formally has quite a lot of power over him. The life of two different graduate students may differ radically from each other depending on the “goodness” of the leader. In principle, a supervisor can keep a graduate student “in a black body”, load him with a full-time job and demand results.
I'm not saying that this is bad, but there is a fine line between “use” and “abuse” :) Some managers tend to cross the line of reason. Therefore, I repeat, the choice of a manager is very important, and here it would be nice to make inquiries among senior comrades (one more argument in favor of the “first magistracy”: while studying, there is time to assess the situation).
On the other hand, it may be lucky. For example, my supervisor saw his mission primarily in the organization of the process. Unfortunately, he did not really help me in the main work (but for help you can find other colleagues), but he didn’t interfere. His goal was quite pragmatic: a graduate student must defend himself, it improves performance. Indeed, as practice shows, his graduate students are protected and feel comfortable. Therefore, his laboratory is one of the most successful at the university (not only in terms of protection, but also in the quantity / quality of publications), although at first glance it may seem that employees are far from being overloaded.
Also mentioned above is the "difficulty of reorientation." Somewhere in the graduate school area (maybe a little later) there is a line beyond which it becomes difficult to apply yourself in a new capacity. I confess that this is also my personal problem, which I am trying to solve - with more or less success. Suppose you were engaged in the topic X in Russia. Overseas, you agree to take a postgraduate course on the related topic Y. The local manager understands that you are qualified for Y, because the topic is adjacent, and the topic X simply does not interest him, and he does not want to study X. The probability of finding a graduate school that ideally corresponds to X is rather difficult, just accept it as a fact.
So, agreeing to Y, after some time you automatically become a specialist in Y, and you are already perceived in this capacity. Going back to X will be quite difficult. We can recommend not to break away from X completely, and somehow touch X in his postgraduate work (if the topics are related, it is usually possible).
The research activity in graduate school itself is ambiguous. On the one hand, you start a scientific career, as it were, and it’s good if the start is worthy. On the other hand, everyone understands that the aim of the PhD dissertation is to prove the ability to conduct research, and not the work of the Nobel level. Attitude to the dissertation as a whole is pragmatic, they even write books about the “passing” quest algorithm of the graduate student.
The research project of a graduate student is designed to confirm the ability to perform "competent" research according to all the rules. A certain (not very difficult task) is taken, analyzed by scientific methods, a solution is proposed, the problem is solved, the results obtained are evaluated, conclusions are made. Therefore, the main criterion for selecting a problem is its “scientific character”, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an obvious solvability within two to three years.
I must say that this attitude is preserved even in some serious people. For example, I have one colleague, an algorithmist who (by his own admission) is engaged in the following activity in science. He reads fresh articles offering algorithms on his topic, finds flaws in these algorithms (usually in the form of suboptimal asymptotic complexity), offers methods for eliminating these flaws and publishes solutions in the form of articles.
On the one hand, it is not very similar to rocket science, but on the other hand, well-founded scientific problems are being solved, they are being solved well, and a colleague rightly takes his place at the university.
In the process of research periodically published interim results, and these publications form the basis of the thesis. Journal publications are considered to be more solid, conference publications are less solid. We thought that a set of three points for publications is sufficient for reaching the defense (1 point is a journal article, 0.5 is a conference one). In this case, the presence of at least one journal publication is extremely welcome.
In some countries (in Finland, in particular), it is allowed not to write a dissertation at all. It is enough to put together the articles in a single book and write a lengthy introduction (in the region of 50-60 pages - this is, although a lot, but obviously less than a full-fledged dissertation). Such a “filing” is generally not as highly valued, but the degree is awarded the same :)
And finally, a few words about protection. Formally, the process of protection is more thorough than ours. For example, the defense itself can last 3-4 hours, during which the opponent chases the defender on all the issues that have arisen to the text. But in general, a simple rule works: if you are admitted to the defense, most likely, everything will be successful.
As one smart person told me when it comes to accounting, the differences between countries are erased. The failed candidate for a dissertation is a blow to the faculty. If the dissertation is weak, the politically competent supervisor will look for reviewers and opponents who are not overwhelmed. If it is strong, it will invite serious people to raise the prestige of the faculty. If you overwhelm others' disciples, in the end they start to overwhelm yours, the world is cramped ...
I realize that this whole policy looks, to put it mildly, not very scientifically, but such is the world, and you can’t do anything with it. There is a wonderful article describing in detail the process of promoting a journal publication. Probably, 80% of all the advice that the author gives, one way or another connected with politics, the "kitchen", but not with scientific factors. In short, if you want to write articles or a thesis, provide. A well-done job is another thing, here you have to answer to your conscience, and not to the academic council :)
I must say that in graduate school the differences between countries and universities are beginning to fade. If you do not pay attention to important, but in general, secondary things, then we can say that Russian postgraduate studies are not very different from foreign ones. Perhaps the most noticeable external difference is that the western graduate student has to study much more (in the usual, “student” sense), that is, to attend courses and take exams.
A graduate student (as well as a master) always has a "major" and "additional" specialty (major subject / minor subject). The main specialty sets the general direction of activity - physics, mathematics, computer science, biology. Additional specialty can be almost any one and indicates which courses a person takes for his general development. A geek may well take linguistics, history, biology as a minor subject. You can not deviate from the main topic and take physics or economics.
')
So, within the framework of postgraduate studies, you will have to complete an average of seven semester courses in each specialty (that is, a total of about 14 courses; disclaimer: this was where I studied). For comparison: in Russia, there are perhaps weekly seminars on philosophy and on the English language. Another specialty is passed (but for it there is usually no separate course provided for) and some incomprehensible exams like “TeX fundamentals” or “history of science”. But the total volume of the load, of course, does not compare.
What does graduate study look like in general? It is assumed that a PhD degree can be obtained in about four years (but five or six years is not a problem either; the problem is not always in duration as such, but in the ability to knock out a scholarship for an expanding period of study). It was morally easier for me personally to start with passing courses. That is, the first year I practically did not do anything except listen to lectures. Scored all the courses that only could, and tried to earn the missing loans.
By the way, an unexpected difficulty may arise here: if you studied at the master's program at a small university, it will not be so easy to find a sufficient number of new courses for obtaining “credits”. I had such a problem: almost all the “high” level courses I already listened when I studied for a master's degree. I had to go to summer schools, look for courses in other places. But in the end, all this turned out to be easy, I don’t want to scare anyone;) In addition, if you already have one higher education (preferably in an adjacent, but different specialty), you can try to fake it and issue it as a minor subject. With a certain amount of luck, this may work (in my case, Russian postgraduate studies “shot”).
Further "research activity" begins. Its peripeteia is a topic for a separate and long conversation, but I will try to restrict myself to the main points.
As already mentioned by commentators in the previous topic, graduate students are the “workhorses” of science. It should be understood that the professor takes a graduate student to help, and formally has quite a lot of power over him. The life of two different graduate students may differ radically from each other depending on the “goodness” of the leader. In principle, a supervisor can keep a graduate student “in a black body”, load him with a full-time job and demand results.
I'm not saying that this is bad, but there is a fine line between “use” and “abuse” :) Some managers tend to cross the line of reason. Therefore, I repeat, the choice of a manager is very important, and here it would be nice to make inquiries among senior comrades (one more argument in favor of the “first magistracy”: while studying, there is time to assess the situation).
On the other hand, it may be lucky. For example, my supervisor saw his mission primarily in the organization of the process. Unfortunately, he did not really help me in the main work (but for help you can find other colleagues), but he didn’t interfere. His goal was quite pragmatic: a graduate student must defend himself, it improves performance. Indeed, as practice shows, his graduate students are protected and feel comfortable. Therefore, his laboratory is one of the most successful at the university (not only in terms of protection, but also in the quantity / quality of publications), although at first glance it may seem that employees are far from being overloaded.
Also mentioned above is the "difficulty of reorientation." Somewhere in the graduate school area (maybe a little later) there is a line beyond which it becomes difficult to apply yourself in a new capacity. I confess that this is also my personal problem, which I am trying to solve - with more or less success. Suppose you were engaged in the topic X in Russia. Overseas, you agree to take a postgraduate course on the related topic Y. The local manager understands that you are qualified for Y, because the topic is adjacent, and the topic X simply does not interest him, and he does not want to study X. The probability of finding a graduate school that ideally corresponds to X is rather difficult, just accept it as a fact.
So, agreeing to Y, after some time you automatically become a specialist in Y, and you are already perceived in this capacity. Going back to X will be quite difficult. We can recommend not to break away from X completely, and somehow touch X in his postgraduate work (if the topics are related, it is usually possible).
The research activity in graduate school itself is ambiguous. On the one hand, you start a scientific career, as it were, and it’s good if the start is worthy. On the other hand, everyone understands that the aim of the PhD dissertation is to prove the ability to conduct research, and not the work of the Nobel level. Attitude to the dissertation as a whole is pragmatic, they even write books about the “passing” quest algorithm of the graduate student.
The research project of a graduate student is designed to confirm the ability to perform "competent" research according to all the rules. A certain (not very difficult task) is taken, analyzed by scientific methods, a solution is proposed, the problem is solved, the results obtained are evaluated, conclusions are made. Therefore, the main criterion for selecting a problem is its “scientific character”, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an obvious solvability within two to three years.
I must say that this attitude is preserved even in some serious people. For example, I have one colleague, an algorithmist who (by his own admission) is engaged in the following activity in science. He reads fresh articles offering algorithms on his topic, finds flaws in these algorithms (usually in the form of suboptimal asymptotic complexity), offers methods for eliminating these flaws and publishes solutions in the form of articles.
On the one hand, it is not very similar to rocket science, but on the other hand, well-founded scientific problems are being solved, they are being solved well, and a colleague rightly takes his place at the university.
In the process of research periodically published interim results, and these publications form the basis of the thesis. Journal publications are considered to be more solid, conference publications are less solid. We thought that a set of three points for publications is sufficient for reaching the defense (1 point is a journal article, 0.5 is a conference one). In this case, the presence of at least one journal publication is extremely welcome.
In some countries (in Finland, in particular), it is allowed not to write a dissertation at all. It is enough to put together the articles in a single book and write a lengthy introduction (in the region of 50-60 pages - this is, although a lot, but obviously less than a full-fledged dissertation). Such a “filing” is generally not as highly valued, but the degree is awarded the same :)
And finally, a few words about protection. Formally, the process of protection is more thorough than ours. For example, the defense itself can last 3-4 hours, during which the opponent chases the defender on all the issues that have arisen to the text. But in general, a simple rule works: if you are admitted to the defense, most likely, everything will be successful.
As one smart person told me when it comes to accounting, the differences between countries are erased. The failed candidate for a dissertation is a blow to the faculty. If the dissertation is weak, the politically competent supervisor will look for reviewers and opponents who are not overwhelmed. If it is strong, it will invite serious people to raise the prestige of the faculty. If you overwhelm others' disciples, in the end they start to overwhelm yours, the world is cramped ...
I realize that this whole policy looks, to put it mildly, not very scientifically, but such is the world, and you can’t do anything with it. There is a wonderful article describing in detail the process of promoting a journal publication. Probably, 80% of all the advice that the author gives, one way or another connected with politics, the "kitchen", but not with scientific factors. In short, if you want to write articles or a thesis, provide. A well-done job is another thing, here you have to answer to your conscience, and not to the academic council :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/50855/
All Articles