How much fun is MIT as a graduate student?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>Hm, perhaps grad students will do violent things to me, but I have this tough time believing grad school will be less fun [may eat my words once I get there].</p>

<p>"After the bachlor's, fun is over. My concern about top-ranked universities for undergraduate education is that many undergraduate classes are taught by the most overworked , oppressed, and exploited people in the academic system; graduate students.</p>

<p>A Master's degree, whether in English, P.E.,ChE, History or another field requires "mastery" of the subject at a level compatible with the institutions' standards."</p>

<p>I mean, depending on how seriously one takes undergraduate study, I somehow see it being as rigorous as master's programs [after all, often an ambitious undergrad will go onto doing a Ph.D. after the undergrad years]. The Ph.D. student seems to have that additional stress of hiding behind doors to escape meeting his/her adviser, and spending 20 hours composing a 2-paragraph email to the adviser. I never understood, though, how people found undergrad so much more fun. Is it flat out just that getting into graduate school isn't as hard as getting positions after graduate school [just as getting into grad school is often harder than getting into undergraduate schools]?</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I have this tough time believing grad school will be less fun

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps it wont be for you, to be honest, since you're going to be spending your undergrad years stressing out about grad school. But for most kids, undergrad is a time to explore your options. And taking classes is certainly less stressful than having to produce.</p>

23

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>I was referring to graduate programs in the arts and sciences, as all my examples attest.</p>

<p>Also note that if a graduate student attends a program considerably below his/her intellectual level, then life is a lot easier. This is at the expense of long term career prospects. Most arts and sciences graduate students, whether Physical Education or Physics majors, seek out the best program for which they can gain admission and get money.</p>

<p>MBA's, even at Harvard, do seem to party a lot. These are the same guys who have destroyed American business over the last 30 years. Our current economic crisis is simply a failure of business leadership to seek long term enterprise viability. They have collected a *****l0ad of personal wealth by looting and plundering their stockholders.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Do you know anyone who has lived in one of the 'singles' dorms?

[/quote]

Most of the MIT grad students I know live in apartments (but, of course, most of the MIT grad students I know were MIT undergrads, so they're familiar with the area and less likely to live in grad housing, I think). I did know a couple of guys who lived in Sidney-Pacific in a triple together, but they knew each other prior to rooming together -- they didn't room together their first year.</p>

<p>Living in MIT housing is nice because, although the rents aren't much below market, they do include heat, water, electricity, and internet. But there are definitely grad-student-affordable apartments in the MIT vicinity where many students prefer to live.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mean, depending on how seriously one takes undergraduate study, I somehow see it being as rigorous as master's programs [after all, often an ambitious undergrad will go onto doing a Ph.D. after the undergrad years].

[/quote]

It's not the rigor, it's the mode of work. I worked very hard as an undergrad -- I was a double-major, so I often took six or so classes where the norm is four and worked in the lab about 15-20 hours a week in addition to my extracurriculars. I probably spent more time on school as an undergrad than I do as a grad student, because some semesters as an undergrad, I was working 80-90 hours a week on school/lab. My heaviest hours as a grad student tend to be in the 70ish hours a week range, and a typical week for me is 55 hours.</p>

<p>But the work itself is not only more difficult, it's less certain. As an undergrad, you're working on problem sets and studying for tests that have actual answers. As a grad student, I'm trying to solve experimental problems that don't have solutions, and I'm trying to do it myself. I get advice from my advisor, but most of my work is self-generated, and I'm the one who troubleshoots experimental protocols as well as the general direction in which I'm going with my project. Everything I do is on a much broader scale than it was during undergrad -- I'm not thinking about studying for a test so I can go on spring break, I'm thinking about how to best set up experiments so I can finish them in a year or two. There are no clear endpoints, not to mention very few breaks from the work.</p>

<p>Undergrad was more fun because the work could be over and I could have fun with my friends. In grad school, the work continues even when I stop for the day, I think about work problems even when I'm not at work, and there are no vacations.</p>

25

<ol>
<li><p>As everyone knows, most of the top undergraduate institutions for producing future PhDs are liberal arts colleges. I have always thought that one of the big reasons for that is that students at LACs don't have nearly as much contact with real live grad students as undergraduates at research universities, and so tend to have a more idealized view of what being a graduate student entails.</p></li>
<li><p>My daughter, a senior English major, has been hanging out with a lot of English grad students recently. She says, "They're sad. And lonely. And sad." (On the other hand, at least some of them have been hanging out with her and her housemate, and I believe that is evidence of a certain modicum of fun. She and her housemate are fun, especially if you can get jokes about Modernist authors, which presumably many grad students in English can.)</p></li>
<li><p>She also reports, a propos of graduate classes she's taken, that the graduate students seem not to pay attention to one another in the same way undergraduates do. Each of them is very focused on the work he or she is doing, on refining it and presenting it well, but not so much on the work anyone else is doing. She has found that very depressing. Needless to say, no straight-to-grad-school for her, even though there's a pretty high probability that she'll end up there, somewhere.</p></li>
<li><p>Living / meeting friends as a grad student. When I was in law school, you couldn't have gotten me into the law school dorm with a shotgun. I don't think I even set foot in it more than once or twice, visiting people. I lived mainly in group houses, though, that included different types of grad students. It was fun -- yes, fun -- for everyone to do some cross-departmental socializing. My geology grad student housemate really appreciated a dating pool that extended beyond the 20 guys in her department, and law school friends (male and female) loved meeting a hot scientist. And the engineering grad students -- they had REAL parties.</p></li>
</ol>

26

<p>hmm ... my original thoughts on this topic approached the issue from a different angle.</p>

<p>Personally as an undergrad I loved being in a college town on a school with a strong campus life ... which is NOT what I would call a description of being at MIT as an undergrad. Similar to a lot of the earlier replies for me life as a grad student was much more of an individual pursuit while living much more in the the real world. Living as a grad student in Cambridge near Kendall and Central Square sounds like a GREAT place to be a grad student. The days/nights are long .. it's great to be able to walk out your door and find a ton of affortable ethnic places to east as well as local culture (music etc). Personally goint to grad school in a funky urban environment is the place to go.</p>

<p>Most replies have focussed on life a grad student itself and I have to agree with most of the replies. Even at tough schools being an undergrad is delayed adulthood with a big peer group of folks to avoid adulthood with for 4 years. Grad school is much closer to real work ... much more individual focused, topic focused, results focused. That siad both times I went to grad school I LOVED the topic I was studying so the long hours on school were not problematic for me ... I loved the intellectual challenge. Socially it was a totally different life than as an undergrad.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
I was referring to graduate programs in the arts and sciences, as all my examples attest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't see any reason to restrict oneself to that category. After all, the OP asked about graduate students of any kind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
MBA's, even at Harvard, do seem to party a lot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even the Harvard MBA's? I would say especially the Harvard MBA's. It is widely understood that they throw the wildest, most debaucherous parties by far in the entire Boston area. Think back to the most decadent party you ever had in undergrad. Now combine that with money. That's a Harvard MBA party. </p>

<p>
[quote]

These are the same guys who have destroyed American business over the last 30 years. Our current economic crisis is simply a failure of business leadership to seek long term enterprise viability. They have collected a *****l0ad of personal wealth by looting and plundering their stockholders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but so what? Why do they care? After all - you said it yourself - they're making money. Yeah, maybe they put the entire world's economy in jeopardy. But why does that matter to them? That's not their problem. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that the MBA's are going to make far more money than almost any other grad student. As I have shown, the MBA's from MIT make more money, on average, than almost any other MIT grad student will, and, frankly, they work a lot less (unless you consider 'networking' - which is really just a euphemism for drinking - to be hard work). It's a beautiful system. Why work hard and make little money when you don't have to work so hard and can make a lot of money? </p>

<p>Whether we like it or not, the MBA's have figured out how to ride the gravy train. It may well be true, as you said, that they've endangered the entire world's economy for their own personal enrichment. But all that tells me is that you should then want to be one of the MBA's so that you can reap the riches yourself as opposed to having to pick up the pieces later. If you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Even in this economy (or perhaps especially in this economy), the MBA's are going to make more money than almost any other grad student will. </p>

<p>If the world is not fair, then you want that unfairness to be working in your favor, not against you. Like I said before, I think the real problem is that the grad programs in other fields refuse to teach marketable skills, something that the MBA programs - for all their problems - certainly do not neglect. Let's face it. Networking is a crucial job skill, and so are public speaking, interviewing, and leading teams. But those arts & science programs that you were referencing don't teach you those skills. Instead, they force you to learn things that, frankly, you don't really need to know. Five years after you graduate, you won't remember what the Navier-Stokes equations say, nor will you remember Newton's Law of Cooling. But you will remember how to network. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, BigG. I'm sympathetic to your position. I think that arts & science expertise should be paid better. In fact, I believe that everybody who completes a PhD in an arts & science from a top school should be making 6 figures for the rest of their life, just like how the Mandarin scholars of dynastic China who passed the Imperial Civil Service Exam were provided lucrative guaranteed jobs in the government bureaucracy for life. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world that, sadly, does not reward deep scholastic expertise. Instead, we live in a world that rewards MBA-type skills. </p>

<p>I think that the MIT ChemE PhD program has the right idea - if you know that your program will never able to really provide your students with marketable skills, then the next best thing to do is then admit that truth to yourself and provide your students with another mechanism with which they can obtain those skills, which in their case, means the optional integration of the PhD with a Sloan MBA. I think all of MIT's PhD programs should do the same. Keep in mind, it would be purely an option; nobody would have to use it. If you just want to get the PhD without ever invoking Sloan at all, you can do so. But it should be available if you want it. That would serve to reduce the problem of newly minted PhD's ended up driving taxis - or, more poignantly, taking one of those notorious adjunct 'gypsy' lecturer positions for $25k a year that has no hope of ever turning into a fully tenured position - because they don't have marketable skills.</p>

<p>THESISVILLE!:</a> Gypsy scholar</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
My daughter, a senior English major, has been hanging out with a lot of English grad students recently. She says, "They're sad. And lonely. And sad."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've seen this also, and I've always wondered why. If they don't like what they're doing, then why do it? Life is too short to be pursuing a PhD you don't really like. I can understand, say, investment bankers not doing what they really like when you consider the lucrative pay packages they make. I can even somewhat understand engineering students not doing what they really like, for although the payoff certainly isn't lucrative, it's still pretty decent. But, come on, English grad students certainly aren't getting paid well, and neither will they be paid well when they graduate. Personal satisfaction is the only reason to pursue such a degree, and if even that's not forthcoming, then why do it at all? Why not just quit and find something else to do?</p>

29

<p>"I've seen this also, and I've always wondered why. If they don't like what they're doing, then why do it? Life is too short to be pursuing a PhD you don't really like. I can understand, say, investment bankers not doing what they really like when you consider the lucrative pay packages they make"</p>

<p>Yeah in all seriousness! It really makes no sense to me, but there must be a reason I guess. </p>

<p>Oh and Mollie and Pebbles -- I fully imagine the change in the mode of work is what causes the stress. My comment was mainly on the master's students...who may opt to do no producing at all, no? Hence my sympathies to Ph.D. students hiding from the faculty! </p>

<p>The thing is that I'm not exploring very much as an undergrad, and am generally asking around and figuring out what technical machinery must be read for the future. I imagine I could do without this attitude, but I really want to have the least to worry about in grad school, aside from actually beginning research and producing. A source of stress is to figure out what to learn...plus I really worry about finding my niche in the math world. For one thing, the learning curve in some pure math subjects is very high, and it seems I'm interested in those mainly. </p>

<p>Just giving my feeble explanations for why grad school might not be SO much less enjoyable -- as pebbles says, I kind of already feel the pressure coming, even if it hasn't yet arrived.</p>

30

<p>"Undergrad was more fun because the work could be over and I could have fun with my friends."</p>

<p>For a few reasons, including my style as a student, I think the aspect of closure to work is definitely something I haven't given myself the chance to experience. Nevertheless, the aspect of actually producing something original is not something I can hope to try until I gain the requisite machinery + maturity.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Yeah in all seriousness! It really makes no sense to me, but there must be a reason I guess.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think much of it is simply self-generated anxiety. These are people who have always been considered to be extraordinarily adroit at their discipline relative to their peers, and now they've finally been thrust into a situation in which they are no longer very good. It's like a superstar basketball player who makes it all the way to the NBA, only to end up being a mediocre role player who can't even crack the starting lineup. </p>

<p>But to that, I have to say, get over it. After all, simply by definition, half of all PhD students are going to be in the lower half of their class, and obviously only 10% are going to be in the top 10% that will get the best faculty appointments upon graduation. Hence, the odds are that, no matter how good you were as an undergrad, you're probably going to end up as an unexceptional graduate student, and you need to develop the psychological resilience to accept that likely outcome. You also should develop other interests. There is much more to life than just your field of academic interest. I know a guy who is earning a PhD in business, is also an amateur weightlifter, bodybuilder, and mixed martial artist (i.e. ultimate fighting). Another is a travel junkie. Others are highly active within their Church. You need that kind of balance in your life to keep yourself sane. </p>

<p>There's a whole world of possibilities out there waiting for you to explore. Yes, it's good to work hard and strive to do the best possible research that you can. But not if the process makes you perpetually unhappy. Trust me, it's not worth it. Life is too short. If the process is truly making you unhappy, then it's time to find something else to do.</p>

32

<p>I had better get working on developing psychological resilience, as you call it! It is definitely imaginable why it's jarring, though. I think like 10-12 math grad students exist at Harvard each year, and do insanely insane things to get in, surely similar remarks for other top programs. It has to be disheartening to STILL have a hard road ahead. No matter how much one enjoys one's work.</p>

<p>But yes, your advice is healthy, and I should repeat it to myself more often...even as an undergrad. I have no illusions that doing well as an undergrad student implies that I'll do OK in the future, perhaps far too much the opposite.</p>

33

<p>I think it's fair to separate two sources of grad school-related anxiety: unhappiness because you're not really prepared to be a grad student (didn't go into it knowing all of the realities, aren't ready not to be outstanding, etc.), and unhappiness because of the inherent stress and uncertainty of academic life. </p>

<p>I would characterize myself as perfectly fine on the first scale -- I knew what I was getting into by going to grad school, and after four years at MIT I know exactly what it's like to be average. On the second scale, though, I get stressed because I do love what I do and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. When I have an experimental problem, I mull it over on the subway and while eating dinner. I recently solved a problem that had really been bothering me while I was in the shower, and I burst out of the bathroom dripping wet to write it down before I forgot. I worry about my work a lot, because I love it, and because I'm invested in solving my experimental questions to an exceedingly high standard -- not just for the Nature/Science pub per se, but for my own peace of mind.</p>

<p>I strongly agree with sakky, though, that it's imperative for hard-thinking grad students to have outside interests. I was a lot more single-minded my first year, and I was a lot less happy than I am now. That's true for undergrads too, though -- jessiehl had a great post a month or so ago about coming to MIT as an undergrad and finding something other than school that defines you. It's important to let yourself hit the "off" switch on your brain once in a while, although it's something I personally don't do well yet.</p>

34

<p>This is definitely a healthy thread to take a look at. All of you sound like amazing people, and it'd be a treat to meet any of you, I'm sure. </p>

<p>"I knew what I was getting into by going to grad school, and after four years at MIT I know exactly what it's like to be average. On the second scale, though, I get stressed because I do love what I do and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else."</p>

<p>I sometimes wonder who DOES call himself/herself above average. Anyone who went to MIT as an undergrad probably doesn't fit that definition to the common person. Anyone who wound up at Harvard grad school probably doesn't fit it to the typical strong undergrad...and then we have my professor, who's a star algebraic geometer, essentially tenured in early 30's at Berkeley, who gives this business about feeling like he's "just a normal guy" amidst all the crazy mathematicians he talks to at conferences. "Oh, I went to Harvard as an undergrad, was too normal to take Math 55...BUT I SOMEHOW WOUND UP A STAR ALGEBRAIC GEOMETER!"</p>

<p>I have a hard time believing you're average Mollie ;) but everyone seems to throw that term out because the least average people take on the least average challenges quite often, and feel average in the face of really difficult things. </p>

<p>Well, one thing I've developed over time is the ability to set a problem aside if I genuinely think it's not working out. When I have zero exams, and a weekly problem set of 3 problems, and I've spent hours on one...I kind of fiddle around with something else, so I don't work while my head is "fried." Maybe something to refine further, from the advice I'm hearing above:</p>

<p>"hit the "off" switch on your brain once in a while, although it's something I personally don't do well yet."</p>

35

<p>I think what is important to keep in mind is your life is your own. You're the one that has to live it and therefore each of us has to define success on our own terms. Nobody else can do that for us. Hence, you shouldn't be pursuing projects just because your advisor wants you to do it, or because the journal editors or referees want you to do it, but because you want to do it. </p>

<p>Now, granted, obviously sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do. Such is life. But if you're always feeling like you're doing things you don't want to do and so you're perpetually unhappy, then it probably is time to do something else. Your long-term psychological well-being should never be sacrificed.</p>

36

<p>Yeah imaginable -- I suppose this is why I would hardly feel bad for those who go through grad school without liking it, or those who quit grad school [or the academic road in general] consciously for more lucrative things. It's those who really love what they do in academia, but don't get to stick around, whom I really feel bad for. Though, I've read one of your [Sakky's] threads about this before, where you liken it to a college basketball player not making the NBA. While I will gracefully accept that this analogy must be accurate, it is without a question somewhat saddening to completely change one's career path. </p>

<p>Which is why, when my prof. calls himself "normal" I both smile out of happiness for him, given he's an extremely nice person [and doesn't have to be, goodness knows brilliant people don't have to be] and grimace...because he obviously <em>made it</em> in a nontrivial sense.</p>

37

<p>Here's where different disciplines matter. I have a friend who got his math PhD a few years ago. While he basically enjoyed grad school, at least until the end (and probably a bit too much for his own good at the beginning), he discovered over the course of time that he really didn't want to be an academic. So, having effectively washed out of the profession, he took Plan B: making ungodly sums of money working for a financial firm. In math, and in areas like biology, chemistry, economics, computer science, etc., Plan B ain't so bad. While that doesn't cure grad school anxiety, it sure limits it.</p>

<p>In the Humanities, the analogy to NCAA basketball and the NBA is more apt. You can't play in the English Lit NBA without playing grad-school ball at a good program, but only a fraction of the students at good programs are even going to have a shot at a roster spot in the NBA. Or even a European league. And, while a few English grad students find great success elsewhere fairly quickly (e.g., David Duchovny, Adam Duritz), for most of them Plan B may involve McDonald's or The Gap for a time. So the anxiety is much greater, and pretty unavoidable.</p>

38

<p>"So, having effectively washed out of the profession, he took Plan B: making ungodly sums of money working for a financial firm."</p>

<p>I wonder, though, how easy is it really to just cash in, and head out and make tons of money after a math Ph.D.? While I can take an educated guess that I'd like the research side of things, if the politics + elitism + all the non-academic factors of academic life just don't appeal to me [I think it'd be presuming too much to say this isn't a possibility], a safety net is nice. Heck, it may even lead to better peace of mind and lead me to perform better in future. But I mean, if I've devoted every bit of my college years to pure mathematics, done nothing else really, how feasible is it to change gears entirely later? I imagine one has to have some kind of smarts to make it like the friend above did...and I can imagine quite a few abstract mathematicians, while great at analyzing abstract questions, not necessarily being very adaptable to other professions?</p>

<p>Maybe my questions apply to biology and chemistry a little...though certainly, it would seem, not to economics or computer science. While I keep hearing that math Ph.D.'s can do a bunch of different things [valued for their logical skills, etc], I sort of wonder.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
In the Humanities, the analogy to NCAA basketball and the NBA is more apt. You can't play in the English Lit NBA without playing grad-school ball at a good program, but only a fraction of the students at good programs are even going to have a shot at a roster spot in the NBA. Or even a European league. And, while a few English grad students find great success elsewhere fairly quickly (e.g., David Duchovny, Adam Duritz), for most of them Plan B may involve McDonald's or The Gap for a time. So the anxiety is much greater, and pretty unavoidable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me start my response with an anecdote. I know a girl who graduated with her bachelor's in English from Dartmouth - a fairly 'useless' degree even by her own admission. Yet in her senior year of Dartmouth, during which she had ample free time because she had little remaining coursework to complete, she learned Web and Internet programming. I believe it started during the summer between her junior and senior year when a school club of which she was an officer decided that they needed somebody to build and maintain a simple website that published the club's activities. From that starting point, and bootstrapping her way using introductory books such as 'Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days' for maybe 10 hours a week, she built ever-more-intricate software skills, and when she graduated, she was able to get a decent (albeit still low-level) programming job. Continued hard work and constant learning made her one of the best developers in the company, winning her several 'Best Employee' awards and promotions and eventually earning admission to grad school at none other than MIT, where she earned her master's. Now she's the Director of Engineering at a mid-size software firm. Frankly speaking, her career in the software industry has been more successful than most other people I know who actually majored in CS as undergrads. All this from a girl who admitted that there was a time in college when she was actually afraid of computers.</p>

<p>People need to be more entrepreneurial. You can't just always wait for opportunities to come to you; sometimes you need to actively seek them out. This is particularly true if you're a grad student in the humanities (or also in math), and so you should never have to end up working at McDonald's or the Gap if you plan properly.</p>

<p>Seriously guys, it's not that hard to pick up marketable skills, relative to what you've already capable of doing and probably have already done. Think about what we're talking about here. Take any respectable grad program in the humanities. The vast majority of them will require that as part of the program you develop at least reading-level knowledge of a foreign language - often times, multiple languages. You can do that, but you can't learn a few computer programming languages? Really? I'm not asking you to write the next great search algorithm or data-mining spider. I'm just asking you to learn enough about programming that you can get a decent entry-level developer job, for which you don't really need to know that much. Like I said, if you can learn how to read a foreign language, then surely you can go to the bookstore, get 4 or 5 of the computer language books (starting with an intro one), and then practice and learn. Similarly, it's not that hard to learn basic IT skills, i.e. how to configure a Cisco router, an Oracle database, a Linux server, etc. - skills for which numerous intro books exist, and after which you can then learn and practice more advanced skills. Build a home lab with a few used low-end Cisco routers (available for $50-100 each on Ebay), get the intro books, download the manuals, and then just start practicing and learning. Get a few old PC's (dirt cheap these days), get some of the books, download and install Linux for free, and learn. It's not that hard. Granted, you're not going to be getting the 6-figure techie jobs available to the gurus (at least not straight away), but surely you'll develop enough tech skills that you can find something far better than McDonald's.</p>

<p>Techie skills are just one option. Learn public speaking skills and self-confidence by joining Toastmasters (which is free). Hang around your university's business school (if it exists) and try to take classes on communication, speech-making and 'schmoozing'. If your university doesn't have a business school, then try to find a local community college that will teach you those skills. If you can become a very strong communicator, then you can probably get a very lucrative job as a salesman. Even if that's not possible, then good communication skills - especially interviewing skills - will vastly increase your chances of talking your way into a decent job. Plenty of people with eminently stellar qualifications nevertheless will lose out on job offers to people with mediocre qualifications - or sometimes no qualifications at all - but who are cracker jack interviewers. Get a low-level part-time job - even perhaps as a volunteer - if you see opportunities to develop marketable skills. {For example, I know a few guys who are now highly paid IT managers who got their start by volunteering to set up and maintain computer systems and websites for the church to which they belonged. So they helped their own religious community while also building marketable skills.)</p>

<p>On occasion, you can even build highly marketable skills within an academic program. Harvard has a Statistics course (Stat 135) which is basically an intensive SAS programming course and for which the instructor even says that, if you do well, you can probably get a job as an entry-level SAS developer, which is a pretty decent job. Nor do you even need to know programming beforehand: the prereq is just a basic knowledge of statistics and presumes no prior programming knowledge (although it would obviously be helpful). SAS is extremely useful for many students' research as it is a highly powerful and flexible statistical data mining and analysis tool, but also has the wonderful side-benefit of being a highly marketable skill. Similarly, MIT has a CS course (6.171) in which the explicit goal is to provide students with intensive practice in developing large-scale Web applications such that, in the words of the instructor:</p>

<p>The bottom line: we want one someone who has finished this course to be able to build amazon.com, eBay, or photo.net by him or herself</p>

<p>Software</a> Engineering for Internet Applications (6.171)</p>

<p>The bottom line is, you have to be willing to actively develop marketable skills. Nobody - and certainly not your school - is going to do that for you. You can't just passively sit back and hope for the best. Sometimes you have to actively create your own opportunities. </p>

<p>Nor do I think this to be an unreasonable drain on your time. if somebody doesn't get an academic job after finishing his PhD, it's usually not a surprise to that person. In most cases, you know where you stand. You know you're not one of the stars. Or at least, you should have known. In fact, you probably know at least a year before you graduate - i.e. in the frank conversations that you should be having with your committee chair - about exactly where you stand in the academic pecking order. Heck, most PhD students realize years before they finish that the academic lifestyle is not for them. Grad students are smart people, or they should be, and so I think very few of them will enter the academic job market only to be surprised to get no offers at all. {Strong candidates may not get the quality of offers they wanted, but they should still get some academic offers.} Those who won't get any offers at all will generally know well in advance that they probably won't. </p>

<p>But what that means is that you should have ample time to develop marketable skills. Again, that girl from Dartmouth had about a year to transform herself from a person who was actually afraid of computers into a respectable Web developer. She knew full well that she wasn't going to be highly marketable with just an English degree (even if an Ivy), and so she did something to remedy it. </p>

<p>Some of the blame - I agree - must also be assigned to the schools themselves. Not all newly minted PhDs are going to be able to get academic/research jobs, nor do they all want to, yet most PhD programs provide little if any support for those students. Many programs are happy to connect their students to former alumni who have taken jobs in academia, but will barely even acknowledge the existence of alumni who chose other careers, much less put them in contact with current students. They also refuse to create eminently practical courses yet academically useful courses such as Harvard's Stat 135 or MIT's 6.171. Why is that?</p>

40

<p>mathboy: My friend the (now) options strategist was as clueless as they come about the financial world until around his 5th year of graduate school. He was an undergraduate physics major, and spent a lot of time while in grad school working on his rock climbing and gaming, with occasional road trips to see punk bands. He's a great guy, quite funny, but not extroverted at all -- really just a classic geek. What it took to get paid after grad school was shifting his thesis topic into a more marketable area than the one he had gotten stalled on, and actually looking for a job.</p>

<p>sakky: I think you are underestimating the effort that being a graduate student (as opposed to an undergraduate) in English requires. I did the same sort of thing as your protagonist when I was an undergraduate: despite being a near-complete literary theory jock, I got myself enough finance and accounting to qualify me for Wall St. jobs (and then law school). Graduate school, however, is a much more comprehensive commitment, at least unless you fall into thesis limbo, and people who aren't doing it close to 24-7 probably have to be leaving rather than doing academic moonlighting. </p>

<p>I was being facetious about McDonald's, though. You are right that people generally know where they stand, and have time to prepare. But in a field like English, the issue doesn't go away even for the "winners". I still remember my cousin -- then a 6th-year Assistant Professor at a "high Ivy" -- taking community college computing courses to try to learn how to support his family because he hadn't gotten a single job offer in two years since he had been told that no one in his subfield would be considered for tenure. He ultimately did get an academic job, but it was one that required complete uprooting of his family, and essentially abandoning the work he had been doing for more than a decade to learn a new (and barely related) field from scratch. Watching him go through that sure as heck contributed to my decision not to get a PhD.</p>