<p>hi folks</p>
<p>for those who haven't been through the PhD process yet, what should we look for?</p>
<p>is it important that the person be a prolific publisher? or be a recognized authority? is there any downsides to having a less established young researcher as a supervisor? </p>
<p>what are the dos and donts?</p>
<p>Oh lord, now there's a can of worms.</p>
<p>There are upsides and downsides to having every kind of supervisor. The famous ones can be jerks. The not-famous ones can be not-great for your career. The ones with big labs might never talk with you. The ones with small labs might hover over your shoulder. The older ones might not want to take enough risks; the younger ones might want to take too many.</p>
<p>It's sort of like a marriage -- there's no "right one" for everybody, and everybody has different preferences for the advisor-advisee relationship.</p>
<p>Ultimately, you're going to want to meet potential supervisors and discuss their philosophies on graduate students. If you're in the sciences, often you'll want to talk with people in their labs. Science people also usually get to try out different labs for a few weeks to a few months to see if the advisor's style is really what he/she says it is.</p>
<p>I have never studied in the USA and have a question about advisers. At what stage of a PhD does one pick an adviser? While applying to a program or after you have gotten your courses out of the way?</p>
<p>In my field, you pick a PhD supervisor only after about a year of trying labs out through rotations.</p>
<p>I am sure it varies by field -- from what huskem55 says, I am under the impression that clinical psych PhD applicants may pick their PhD advisors before entering the program. (Am I right, huskem?)</p>
<p>molliebatmit, what do you mean that science people usually get to try out the labs for a few months? I'm applying to PhD programs in two years, and I'm just starting to visit potential schools. Do I ask to visit their labs? Just of my top schools? And I'm still working and taking classes back at home. How does that work out in terms of scheduling? </p>
<p>Thanks so much.</p>
<p>And when you say you pick an advisor after choosing labs through rotations, what do you mean by that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure it varies by field --
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It definitely varies by field. I know that in some engineering programs, matching is done through your score on the qualification exams. Get the top score, and you can have any choice of advisor you want. If you barely pass, you end up getting whoever is left. </p>
<p>For doctorates in business/management, funding is generally attached to the individual student as opposed to the profs, hence, students are free to mix and match advisors basically whenever they want without fear that their funding will be cut off. Hence, if you attach yourself to one advisor and find out that it's not working, then you simply find somebody else. Of course, you can't do this forever, as eventually your funding will run out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
is it important that the person be a prolific publisher? or be a recognized authority? is there any downsides to having a less established young researcher as a supervisor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, it is nice if the person is a prolific publisher. Yes, it is also nice if the person is a recognized authority.</p>
<p>But ultimately, what really counts is whether the person is going to help YOU succeed. A person can be an extremely prolific publisher and a superstar in the field, but might also not help you through the process, either because he/she is a jerk, or simply because he/she just doesn't care about students. The worst ones may actually steal your research and claim it as their own. </p>
<p>And then of course there are the cases of advisors and students with such poor relations that things end tragically. </p>
<p>
[quote]
is there any downsides to having a less established young researcher as a supervisor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously one downside is that he is less recognized in his field, and so won't be able to offer you a superstar rec letter that will enhance your chances of obtaining an academic position. And of course, if he doesn't even have tenure yet, then he might get 'fired' (by not being granted tenure) while you are studying under him, which will probably force you to find another advisor. Either that, or transfer to whatever school that prof ends up going to next, presuming that the prof stays in academia (which he might not). </p>
<p>For example, I know one doctoral student at Harvard who really gets along super-well with one particular advisor and wants to work for him for his entire time there. The problem is that this guy is coming up for tenure next year, and historically, at this particular department, only about 50% of people who undergo tenure review actually get tenure. Furthermore, the prof has already said that if he doesn't get tenure, he is basically going to retire. After all, his wife is having an extremely successful career at a local private equity firm, so he doesn't really need to work, as he clearly doesn't need the money. So basically, if he doesn't get tenure, while he might still work as an adjunct lecturer at Harvard or MIT, he's not going to be a researcher anymore, which means that he won't be very useful to this student as an advisor. So that effectively means that the student has to find somebody else. That's the risk you take in hooking yourself onto a young, unestablished prof.</p>
<p>Now of course a major advantage of hooking yourself to such a prof is that these profs tend to be extremely aggressive in terms of their research because they are fighting for tenure. So they tend to be the ones that are publishing a lot and therefore have a lot of opportunities for students. Contrast that with some well-established, tenured profs who, frankly, aren't doing much of anything anymore. Even at Harvard and MIT, there are full professors who haven't really published anything in over a decade. And, no, these aren't emeritus profs, these are actual full profs I'm talkingabout here. The thing about tenure is that you really can choose to do absolutely nothing once you get it, and some profs choose to do that.</p>
<p>
molliebatmit, what do you mean that science people usually get to try out the labs for a few months? I'm applying to PhD programs in two years, and I'm just starting to visit potential schools. Do I ask to visit their labs? Just of my top schools? And I'm still working and taking classes back at home. How does that work out in terms of scheduling?
I wouldn't even visit potential schools prior to applying, to be honest -- generally schools will invite you to interview, all expenses paid, if they like your application.</p>
<p>In my particular program, our entire first year is spent taking classes and "rotating" in different labs. I've been in one lab for almost two months now, and will start in another one around the first of the year. Different schools have different rotation lengths, but most that I've seen are between six weeks and three months.</p>
<p>many thanks for your thoughts and the long reply sakky.</p>
<p>this issue is going to become very relevant to me since i'll be visiting a school next week (likely, the one i'll be attending) to meet with profs and discuss interest matches. it's quite interesting. the department has the gamut of profs from new and busy all the way to established and virtually-retired. </p>
<p>Quote: The worst ones may actually steal your research and claim it as their own.</p>
<p>yes. apparently some researchers have gone on to win the Nobel prize in this fashion. </p>
<p>as for tenure - is it a one-time thing? like, if u apply, and fail, thats it, u get the boot? u can't just remain at "associate" prof and apply again next year?</p>
<p>
[quote]
as for tenure - is it a one-time thing? like, if u apply, and fail, thats it, u get the boot? u can't just remain at "associate" prof and apply again next year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't try again * at that particular school *. You are free to try at another school. However, that will usually almost always turn out to be a 'lesser' school. Academia is a tight-knit community and if you fail to get tenure at a tier-1 school, other tier-1 schools will almost certainly know about it and so may not give you a chance, figuring that if you weren't good enough for School X, then you probably aren't good enough for them either. However, a lesser-tier school might let you try, and if you do well there, might grant you tenure. For example, I know a prof who recently failed to get tenure at MIT, but is now trying at UCSD. </p>
<p>But anyway, as you can see, tenure review is a very big deal - as it is the difference between effectively permanent employment (because tenured profs can't be fired except for cases of misconduct), and having to fight for tenure against at another (probably lesser) school or getting out of academia completely. I think it's plain to see why the process is so stressful, because the stakes are extremely high. It's an up-or-out system. You either get tenure, or you have to find another job. You can't just hang around for years on end.</p>
<p>please correct my perceptions if i'm wrong:</p>
<p>i get a faculty appointment. i need to stay there X number of years before i qualify for tenure (x being roughly 10 years or so?). i'm forced to apply for tenure at some point otherwise i will be turfed.</p>
<p>i apply for tenure. if i succeed - sweet. if i don't, i get booted but can apply elsewhere. is there the same "waiting period" at another university? or can i just directly apply for tenure off the bat?</p>
<p>what about those academics who stay at one institution for a long time, become a superstar, then get culled off to a tier-one institution (e.g. like what harvard does when it picks out the cream of other faculties). are these people pre or post tenure? and by doing the particular heist, does harvard therefore offer them tenure?</p>
<p>
[quote]
i get a faculty appointment. i need to stay there X number of years before i qualify for tenure (x being roughly 10 years or so?).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>X varies by field but is generally from 5-9 years. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm forced to apply for tenure at some point otherwise i will be turfed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's not really that YOU are forced to apply. It's rather that the DEPARTMENT forces you to apply. Basically, the moment that you begin work as a tenure-track assistant prof, the clock is ticking for your tenure review, whether you like it or not. So you don't have any choice in the matter. You can't just say "I'm not ready, so I am just not going to apply for tenure review right now". The review is coming, whether you like it or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
i apply for tenure. if i succeed - sweet. if i don't, i get booted but can apply elsewhere. is there the same "waiting period" at another university? or can i just directly apply for tenure off the bat?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This depends from school to school and from field to field but usually you have to wait for a (shortened) period of time for tenure review at that second school. </p>
<p>Of course, if you fail 2 tenure reviews, it is quite likely that you won't get tenure anywhere, so it's time to consider another career. </p>
<p>
[quote]
what about those academics who stay at one institution for a long time, become a superstar, then get culled off to a tier-one institution (e.g. like what harvard does when it picks out the cream of other faculties). are these people pre or post tenure? and by doing the particular heist, does harvard therefore offer them tenure?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no general rule, but usually, these people are post-tenure. Almost all universities recognize tenure reciprocity, where if you get tenure at one school, then another school who wants you also has to give you tenure. Otherwise, frankly, few people would move, because nobody wants to lose tenure once they've gotten it. </p>
<p>However, Harvard also plucks some highly promising assistant profs from other schools too, and puts them on their tenure track. Since the guy hasn't received tenure from their prior school, they lose little by getting ont the tenure track at Harvard. They will generally get credited for the years they spent at that other school as 'time served', maybe not on a one-to-one basis, but for something. </p>
<p>But the salient point is that Harvard obviously can't "force" anybody to come. If they don't give you a good offer, then you just don't take it and so you stay at your current school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't try again at that particular school . You are free to try at another school. However, that will usually almost always turn out to be a 'lesser' school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think there is way around that particular hurdle. If you fail to get tenure at school X, you would try school Y; which would be a peer school rather than (always) a lesser school. Of course if it is a lesser school, that would work out too. Now at school Y you get tenure after time period t. Once you get a tenure at Y after time t, you DO have another chance at school X for tenure and your application might be reviewed.
So I seriously don't think that tenure at a particular school is necessarily a one time thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, I know a prof who recently failed to get tenure at MIT, but is now trying at UCSD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think I know that guy too and I might also have at least some idea as to why he had to go to UCSD. Out research interests were quite similar at some time. The guy was really brilliant. He IS a loss for MIT.
But in his particular case, IMHO, he still has a good chance at Stanford and Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i get a faculty appointment. i need to stay there X number of years before i qualify for tenure (x being roughly 10 years or so?).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>x tends to be generally less in math and physical sciences; and more in Medical and life sciences. In business and law, x could show really great variance. In engineering and technology x generally is quite stable.</p>
<p>what does it take to get tenure? obviously publications, but does the quantity/quality differ (significantly?) from top-tier schools vs. lower-tier schools? any other factors or are pubs the main thing?</p>
<p>what about this assist. prof thing? PhDs now start there? so u have to go to review twice?</p>
<p>what about those that start with master's degrees - they start as lecturers - i guess the same thing? but do they get more time to get to tenure?</p>
<p>cause imagine Person A has a PhD. they get 9 years. they fail, they're turfed.</p>
<p>Person B starts as lecturer - so they take longer - which implies they are probably given longer time to get to professorship... this doesn't really seem fair since they come in less qualified.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I think there is way around that particular hurdle. If you fail to get tenure at school X, you would try school Y; which would be a peer school rather than (always) a lesser school. Of course if it is a lesser school, that would work out too. Now at school Y you get tenure after time period t. Once you get a tenure at Y after time t, you DO have another chance at school X for tenure and your application might be reviewed.
So I seriously don't think that tenure at a particular school is necessarily a one time thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Either that or you could work in industry and from there, develop a publication record that is so impressive that your old school invites you back.</p>
<p>But definitely, the TENURE review process is pretty much a one-time thing. If you failed tenure once, you're almost certianly not going to be allowed to come up again. You might get TENURE through some other means - i.e. getting tenure at some other school and then getting rehired, or doing so well in industry that you get hired back. But it's pretty unlikely. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think I know that guy too and I might also have at least some idea as to why he had to go to UCSD. Out research interests were quite similar at some time. The guy was really brilliant. He IS a loss for MIT.
But in his particular case, IMHO, he still has a good chance at Stanford and Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. I don't think we are talking about the same guy. Without revealing too much, this guy is a business professor. And no, frankly, he didn't have a notably brilliant career for an MIT assistant prof, which is why he didn't get tenure. At the time of his review, he only had 3 peer-reviewed articles of which he was the lead author, only 2 of which appeared in top journals, and none of which is highly cited. That's not a * bad * career, but it's not quite enough to get tenure at the MIT Sloan School, or any other top-line B-school for that matter. That is why I consider it to be highly likely for him to have a 'good chance' at Stanford or Berkeley, which are also top-line B-schools. That is, unless, he has a brilliant publication record while at UCSD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what does it take to get tenure? obviously publications, but does the quantity/quality differ (significantly?) from top-tier schools vs. lower-tier schools? any other factors or are pubs the main thing?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The weighting varies from school to school, but for the famous research universities, publications are weighted the most. Not just a lot of publications, but a lot of highly cited publications in the top-line journals of which you are the lead author. </p>
<p>Other things may factor in. Teaching evaluations play a role, but, except at the LAC's, usually only a minor one. Proven ability to snag research funding for the school is a MAJOR plus. Performance in the school's administrative duties can also help - i.e. serving as Assistant Dean or other such roles. </p>
<p>
[quote]
what about this assist. prof thing? PhDs now start there? so u have to go to review twice?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, what do you mean by 'start there now'? They have ALWAYS started there. </p>
<p>I also don't know what you mean by 'review twice'. If you mean that you have to be hired as an assitant prof, and then later survive the tenure review process, then yeah, I guess you could call that 'twice'. Is that what you mean? But that hiring process is not really the same thing as a tenure review. Being hired is based mostly on research potential, as evidenced by the quality of your PhD thesis, as well as the recommendations from your advisor. So if your advisor is world-famous, he can provide you with a huge endorsement that will help you to land a good academic job as an assistant prof. But once you're an assistant prof, you have to prove your research potential by publishing. Your old advisor can't really help you anymore. </p>
<p>It is true that you have to first get placed into a tenure-track position, and plenty of new PhD's don't even get a single academic offer. This seems to be particularly true of PhD's in the humanities and social sciences where there are far more newly minted PhD's than there are available assistant prof openings. Many new PhD's serve a post-doc in order to strengthen their publication record so that they become more competitive for an assistant prof position. </p>
<p>
[quote]
what about those that start with master's degrees - they start as lecturers - i guess the same thing? but do they get more time to get to tenure?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the same thing. It is extremely rare for a lecturer to get tenure. Most tenure is available only to actual profs (and lecturers are not profs). In rare cases, there are some schools that do offer tenure to lecturers. But their tenure process is quite different in that it does not emphasize research that much, but usually emphasizes teaching. </p>
<p>But you should keep in mind that lecturers are not professors. Yes, I know that colloquially speaking, we might think of them as all being professors, but when we're talking about career tracks, we have to be careful to distinguish between lecturers and professors. Professors are valued for their research and are either on the tenure track or have already gotten tenure. Lecturers are there mostly to teach, and research is an afterthought for them. The vast majority of lecturers have no chance for any kind of tenure, and hence can be fired at any time. And even those rare lecturers that get tenure are rarely if ever called "professors", but end up with titles like "senior lecturer with tenure". </p>
<p>So if you're planning to go down the lecturer route, hoping to get tenure, you are restricting themselves to the small number of schools that actually offer a tenure track for lecturers. Most universities do not offer this. Hence, by getting the PhD and going down the professor route, you have more opportunities to find one university that will give you tenure.</p>
<p>alright. my understanding as follows will clear up why i asked the questions i did.</p>
<p>i was of the opinion that</p>
<p>Lecturer --> Assist. Prof --> Assoc Prof --> Prof.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>so when i said how a PhD has to go through tenure "twice", i'm saying he has to rise to Assoc. Prof, AND rise to Prof. this would require "tenuring" twice. or not?</p></li>
<li><p>my understanding of the above path is:
MS - start at Lecturer
PhD - start at Assis. Prof
As such, other than the actual starting position, everything else is the same. i.e. an MS can rise to Assis->Assoc->Prof the way a PhD can, it just takes "one more step". i know i've seen MS have Associate Prof and Prof designations before, at a major canadian university. so i just figured that this was how it was. although yes, i do agree that some universities simply will not allow an MS to rise above Lecturer/Senior Lectuer etc.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I was restricting myself to talking about US schools, as that is what I know best. It is true that other countries have different systems, and I know less about that. </p>
<p>So I should say that in US schools, it is extremely rare for somebody without a doctorate to be hired to be a prof at most universities. You can be hired as a lecturer, but rarely as an actual prof. And once you're a lecturer, it's almost impossible to switch to being an actual prof, that is, unless you happen to get your PhD while you're a lecturer.</p>
<p>so this path</p>
<p>Lecturer --> Assist. Prof --> Assoc Prof --> Prof.</p>
<p>isn't true in the US? i am SURE i've found a link online before for a univ. telling its faculty the route to Professorship, and i'm pretty sure it described the above. i'll try to find it.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there aren't any schools in the US who don't do that. After all, there are more than 2000 schools in the US, so I am sure that among that group, there has to be some that do what you said.</p>
<p>I am trying to describe what MOST schools do, and they tend to run 2 separate tracks, one for profs, one for lecturers.</p>
<p>sure. </p>
<p>i've even seen that at very top unis, PhDs sometimes are given LECTURER positions....</p>