Invisible wrote:
> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly
> failed my BSc as it is!)

	You're doing a poor job of convincing us of this fact.

	I went to a grad school ranked in the top 5 in my field (nationally,
not globally). There are plenty of people who are just below my level -
and yours (before I begin to start arrogant, there are probably those
higher up on the scale who feel the same about me...).

	Trust me - some of my fellow colleagues had trouble with elementary
calculus - and they were in a field that uses it a lot. And many can't
handle some of the stuff you've been posting here.

> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)
	
	No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options. In the US,
in engineering programs, the funding almost always comes from research
grants that your adviser gets. I wouldn't have even joined a grad school
unless I was guaranteed funding. Most students get funding for about a
year from the department as a teaching assistant - and in that year they
find an adviser and hook up with him.

> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it
> is.)

	In the US, if you have funding for a PhD, then you're paid to do one.
And depending on the city, you can be quite comfortable with that income.

> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a
> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants
> "experience" and/or "people skills".

	Actually, much of what you do in a PhD can count as experience. This
may depend on the country you do it in. In the US, a MS+PhD could take a
while (5-8 years total). In that time, you have a lot of opportunities
to give talks about your work, and attend talks and interact with them.
Unfortunately, this may not be forced on you, and you'll have to put
some initiative into it. Also, if you're a TA, you interact with students.

	For many companies, just that you have experience talking in public is
a _huge_ plus.

	And all those people you meet (if you take the initiative) can be quite
handy in helping you find a job after PhD. They'll be people with
similar interests.

> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a
> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

	Meh. Depends. If you're dissertation topic interests you, you'll
voluntarily do the work anyway, and it won't be considered boring,
tedious work.

> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff".
> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.
	
	True. That's what many in their first year do - they just keep looking
at all the options the department offers (i.e. the research areas of the
faculty), and use that time to decide what general area to work in. That
includes talking to professors and finding potential research topics.

	I'll be honest, though. All research topics will sound really boring in
the beginning. You get over that and begin to enjoy it after you've been
working on it for about a year.

> 7. Where the hell am I going to do a PhD anyway?

	Wherever you get accepted and funding is provided for?


-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

>> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly
>> failed my BSc as it is!)
> 
> 	You're doing a poor job of convincing us of this fact.

Having just discovered that I actually suck at Haskell, I think I'm the 
one who needs convincing. :-S

> 	Trust me - some of my fellow colleagues had trouble with elementary
> calculus - and they were in a field that uses it a lot. And many can't
> handle some of the stuff you've been posting here.

I manage to look like I know what I'm doing with derivative calculus. 
That doesn't mean I *actually* know what I'm doing. I mean, *I* think I 
know, but maybe I'm wrong about this too?

>> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)
> 	
> 	No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options.

OK.

>> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it
>> is.)
> 
> 	In the US, if you have funding for a PhD, then you're paid to do one.
> And depending on the city, you can be quite comfortable with that income.

Heh. We'll see...

>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
>> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a
>> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants
>> "experience" and/or "people skills".
> 
> 	Actually, much of what you do in a PhD can count as experience.

I see.

> 	For many companies, just that you have experience talking in public is
> a _huge_ plus.

Heh. Last time I had to stand up and give a talk (to 3 people, mind you) 
I almost threw up over the projector! o_O And only one of the people in 
the room actually knew WTF I was actually talking about anyway. And he 
already knew what I was going to say!

> 	And all those people you meet (if you take the initiative) can be quite
> handy in helping you find a job after PhD. They'll be people with
> similar interests.

I'm still trying to get back in touch with some of the lecturers from 
uni. (Doesn't help that the place couldn't continue operating without me 
and so immediately shut down once I left.)

>> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a
>> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.
> 
> 	Meh. Depends. If you're dissertation topic interests you, you'll
> voluntarily do the work anyway, and it won't be considered boring,
> tedious work.

Well, it's not unknown for me to stay up until ridiculous times of night 
just reading stuff because it's interesting. OTOH, I have a strong 
tendance to not finish things, which I'm sure wouldn't be very helpful...

>> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff".
>> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.
> 	
> 	True. That's what many in their first year do - they just keep looking
> at all the options the department offers (i.e. the research areas of the
> faculty), and use that time to decide what general area to work in. That
> includes talking to professors and finding potential research topics.
> 
> 	I'll be honest, though. All research topics will sound really boring in
> the beginning. You get over that and begin to enjoy it after you've been
> working on it for about a year.

Well, I've looked at the OU today. They're just down the road from me, 
but unfortunately all their "computing" stuff is really social stuff - 
what motivates programmers? What coding standards facilitate new team 
members learning the codebase? What metrics can be used to monitor 
programming projects? *yawn*

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 17:15, Invisible wrote:
>>> Ah, here we go: H2 is "0.08988 g/L". Apparently air itself is heavier 
>>> than that.
>>>
>>> (You would, of course, *expect* air to be heavier than the lightest 
>>> gas in the universe. But not thousands of times heavier...)
>>
>> Only seems like a factor of 10 difference to me.  You do realise that 
>> 1g/L is 1kg/m^3...
> 
> Heh. I hadn't noticed that the mass unit was different as well as the 
> volume unit. ;-)
> 
> Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected 
> something more like a few percent denser.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:08:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> I actually have no idea what you're talking about - although spending
>>> 3 years evaluating the intelligence of a half-mouldy cup of yogurt
>>> does seem like an amusing prospect. ;-)
>> 
>> That could be your dissertation. :-D
> 
> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in my
> left armpit". :-S

A most excellent poem. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected 
>> something more like a few percent denser.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number

There are 6.03 x 10^23 atoms in 12 grans of Carbon-12.

[A fact which our Java lecturer disputed. He was trying to claim that 
the range of a single-precision float is "oh, more than the number of 
atoms in the universe", and thus you don't really need double-precision.]

I'm not quite sure how that's relevant here though.

Post a reply to this message

>> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in my
>> left armpit". :-S
> 
> A most excellent poem. :-)

It excells - but at *what*??

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 17:50, Invisible wrote:
>>> Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected 
>>> something more like a few percent denser.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number
> 
> There are 6.03 x 10^23 atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12.
> 
> [A fact which our Java lecturer disputed. He was trying to claim that 
> the range of a single-precision float is "oh, more than the number of 
> atoms in the universe", and thus you don't really need double-precision.]

One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message did 
not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While studying 
physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was invariably 
struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the story of the 
teacher that could not write down the equation for a straight line?

> I'm not quite sure how that's relevant here though.

The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Certainly all the stuff the OU is looking at seems to be socially based. 
> "How can we make computers more cuddly?" I really don't give a fig.

Yeah. that one  made me retch a bit. I prefer my computers stone-cold 
and unfriendly. (But really cool looking)

OK, I like some ease of use, but NOT CUDDLY.

Maybe you could work toward one of the underlying technologies. Like a 
system that recognizes body language and facial nuances. Then it could 
be cuddly and a forensic tool.

>>> 8. Are you mental?
>>
>> Yes, yes I am.
> 
> Ah, I'm glad we sorted that one out. :-)

LOL. Indeed...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> [A fact which our Java lecturer disputed. He was trying to claim that 
>> the range of a single-precision float is "oh, more than the number of 
>> atoms in the universe", and thus you don't really need double-precision.]
> 
> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message did 
> not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While studying 
> physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was invariably 
> struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the story of the 
> teacher that could not write down the equation for a straight line?

Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
equation, there's no particular reason to know it. But yeah, generally 
neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, knew what they were on 
about. [With some notable exceptions.]

>> I'm not quite sure how that's relevant here though.
> 
> The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
> constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
> O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?

Because oxygen is only slightly further down the periodic table than 
hydrogen? I would therefore imagine one atom of oxygen is not "that 
much" heavier.

(I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> My wife is a teacher (elementary students) I seriously don't 
>> understand how she keeps from going homicidal. She's a very patient 
>> person.
> 
> ...so she teaches Boron and Lithium who to do their ABCs?

Err, no... kids. like 5 and 6 year olds.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 19:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> [A fact which our Java lecturer disputed. He was trying to claim that 
>>> the range of a single-precision float is "oh, more than the number of 
>>> atoms in the universe", and thus you don't really need 
>>> double-precision.]
>>
>> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
>> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message 
>> did not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While 
>> studying physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was 
>> invariably struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the 
>> story of the teacher that could not write down the equation for a 
>> straight line?
> 
> Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
> equation, there's no particular reason to know it. 

He was giving a lecture where he needed it. Does that count?

> But yeah, generally 
> neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, knew what they were on 
> about. [With some notable exceptions.]

That is why I advise people that are intelligent and interested in 
computers to study a real science, like physics or chemistry.

>>> I'm not quite sure how that's relevant here though.
>>
>> The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
>> constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
>> O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?
> 
> Because oxygen is only slightly further down the periodic table than 
> hydrogen? I would therefore imagine one atom of oxygen is not "that 
> much" heavier.

So you can't compute 3x9 in your head *and* you have failed to 
understand the fundamental concept behind the periodic table. Your 
future in academia becomes bleaker every post. ;)

> 
> (I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
> slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius (where the calculate radius 
of oxygen is even less than that of hydrogen)

And the radius of the atom is largely irrelevant for gasses as you could 
have known if you paid attention when the gas laws were introduced ;)

Post a reply to this message

>>> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
>>> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message 
>>> did not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While 
>>> studying physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was 
>>> invariably struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the 
>>> story of the teacher that could not write down the equation for a 
>>> straight line?
>>
>> Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
>> equation, there's no particular reason to know it. 
> 
> He was giving a lecture where he needed it. Does that count?

...EPIC FAIL.

>> But yeah, generally neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, 
>> knew what they were on about. [With some notable exceptions.]
> 
> That is why I advise people that are intelligent and interested in 
> computers to study a real science, like physics or chemistry.

Heh. Apparently in some places, "computer science" sees you studying 
Turing machines and the halting problem. I'm real glad I didn't end up 
doing *that*! o_O

> So you can't compute 3x9 in your head *and* you have failed to 
> understand the fundamental concept behind the periodic table. Your 
> future in academia becomes bleaker every post. ;)

Well, I did try to say... :-P

>> (I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
>> slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius (where the calculate radius 
> of oxygen is even less than that of hydrogen)
> 
> And the radius of the atom is largely irrelevant for gasses as you could 
> have known if you paid attention when the gas laws were introduced ;)

Uhuh. You realise that I've never been taught most of this stuff, right?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> My wife is a teacher (elementary students) I seriously don't 
>>> understand how she keeps from going homicidal. She's a very patient 
>>> person.
>>
>> ...so she teaches Boron and Lithium who to do their ABCs?
> 
> Err, no... kids. like 5 and 6 year olds.

So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly
> > failed my BSc as it is!)
>
>  Trust me - some of my fellow colleagues had trouble with elementary
> calculus - and they were in a field that uses it a lot. And many can't
> handle some of the stuff you've been posting here.

I've heard time and time again and have seen first firsthand that raw
intelligence, while useful to a point, is not the driving force behind a PhD.
Desire is what'll get you through it.

You are obviously quite capable of picking up material, learning it, and
communicating it.  Now you just need to transfer that skill from wikipedia to
google scholar.  Based on what you post here, if you had a hard time before, it
was probably because you were spending time learning what you really wanted to
be learning.

>  No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options.

Indeed.  The way to go about this is not just to apply to random schools you
like or think you can get into, but to contact faculty you like or think you
could work with.  The web makes this very easy.  Go to random schools'
websites.  Look at what the faculty does.  If something looks interesting, find
out anything you can about the subject.  If possible, look up papers or topics
the person has worked on recently.  (If you really want to work in this area,
you should be genuinely interested, not just a sycophant.)  Then email or call
the person.  They'll probably tell you to get lost, but if they don't then
you're in luck.  If you convince them you could do a good job and they want you
there, then the application process is a formality.  This could possibly be more
true if your marks aren't as high, so that you can convince them from the start
that you're more than capable.  It's also possible to apply, get accepted, and
try to find something that interests you once you're there, but you might not
find what you're looking for.  Trust me.

>  In the US, if you have funding for a PhD, then you're paid to do one.
> And depending on the city, you can be quite comfortable with that income.

Just think of it as a couple full time jobs...

> > 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
> > positive change to my employment situation.

Researching, innovating, writing papers, giving talks...  Seems that would look
great even if a job had little to do with your field of study.  Seems highly
*likely* to me.  I think you're looking at what difference a PhD would make in
your current job.  I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
will open up a completely different set of opportunities.

>  For many companies, just that you have experience talking in public is
> a _huge_ plus.

And even if you hate public speaking, it gets much easier when you know the
topic very well.

> If you're dissertation topic interests you, you'll
> voluntarily do the work anyway, and it won't be considered boring,
> tedious work.
>  I'll be honest, though. All research topics will sound really boring in
> the beginning. You get over that and begin to enjoy it after you've been
> working on it for about a year.

Yes, and on the contrary, if you discover it doesn't interest you, you'll move
right along.  I got less than halfway through a PhD program and realized I just
couldn't force myself to care about the topic and dreaded waking up in the
morning.  So I quit.  It became clear when talking to a neighbor at the same
point in the same program.  He said he was working all day on the weekends, but
it didn't even seem like work because he just loved it that much.  I was having
a hard time even opening books or facing the tasks I had to do.  That was a
couple months ago, and I had the good fortune to be able to start over
elsewhere on a project I really enjoyed previously.  Of course I would NOT
recommend Monte Carlo sampling of grad school programs; the only point is that
it should be an opportunity to make a living doing what you'd like to be doing
anyway.

Not many people say, "Should I get a PhD?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so."
If you get that far, you should at least talk to people, apply, and consider
your options, even if you ultimately decide against it.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:

> I've heard time and time again and have seen first firsthand that raw
> intelligence, while useful to a point, is not the driving force behind a PhD.
> Desire is what'll get you through it.
> 
> You are obviously quite capable of picking up material, learning it, and
> communicating it.  Now you just need to transfer that skill from wikipedia to
> google scholar.  Based on what you post here, if you had a hard time before, it
> was probably because you were spending time learning what you really wanted to
> be learning.

The whole module on project management *was* pretty boring, to be honest...

>>  No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options.
> 
> Indeed.  The way to go about this is not just to apply to random schools you
> like or think you can get into, but to contact faculty you like or think you
> could work with.  The web makes this very easy.  Go to random schools'
> websites.  Look at what the faculty does.  If something looks interesting, find
> out anything you can about the subject.  If possible, look up papers or topics
> the person has worked on recently.  (If you really want to work in this area,
> you should be genuinely interested, not just a sycophant.)  Then email or call
> the person.  They'll probably tell you to get lost, but if they don't then
> you're in luck.  If you convince them you could do a good job and they want you
> there, then the application process is a formality.  This could possibly be more
> true if your marks aren't as high, so that you can convince them from the start
> that you're more than capable.  It's also possible to apply, get accepted, and
> try to find something that interests you once you're there, but you might not
> find what you're looking for.  Trust me.

Thus far, I haven't seen anything remotely interesting-looking.

On the other hand, it's not like I'm doing to do a PhD on the LZW 
algorithm. That's neither new nor innovative. The requirement that you 
have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything 
has been done already. (Everything worth doing, anyway.) But we'll see. 
Maybe if I search around I'd find something...

>>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
>>> positive change to my employment situation.
> 
> Researching, innovating, writing papers, giving talks...  Seems that would look
> great even if a job had little to do with your field of study.  Seems highly
> *likely* to me.

 From what I can tell, "most" employers won't look at it like that. I 
mean, you could argue that I spent an entire 6 years of my life in 
higher education, and that demonstrates a great deal of commitment (I 
didn't give up) and reliability (I didn't fail). But nobody appears to 
give a ****. They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do 
not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.

On that basis, I don't think it would make a difference. (Although I did 
manage to find *one* job that required a PhD. But that was working for a 
bank, which is obviously absurd.)

> I think you're looking at what difference a PhD would make in
> your current job.

Oh, I don't *care* about my current job. I'm just itching to find a way 
to get rid of it!

> I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
> will open up a completely different set of opportunities.

Mm'kay...

> Yes, and on the contrary, if you discover it doesn't interest you, you'll move
> right along.  Of course I would NOT
> recommend Monte Carlo sampling of grad school programs;

LOL! What a way to live... Monte Carlo sampling of all possible fields 
of human exploration until you hit upon something interesting. :-D

Sorry, it has to be done now: http://www.xkcd.com/507/

> Not many people say, "Should I get a PhD?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so."
> If you get that far, you should at least talk to people, apply, and consider
> your options, even if you ultimately decide against it.

Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P

Still, I guess it merits further attention...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in
>>> my left armpit". :-S
>> 
>> A most excellent poem. :-)
> 
> It excells - but at *what*??

Being a piece of Vogon poetry, of course. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The requirement that you
> have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything
> has been done already.

I think the idea is that you find an advisor with a topic that interests you.
He/she has ideas that you implement and explore.  This leads to new ideas
(yours!) that you can explore.  Not many people can walk into a field with
fresh new ideas and no experience.

>  They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do
> not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.

As was pointed out, a few years of study in field Y should put you in touch with
people who also care about skill Y.

> On that basis, I don't think it would make a difference. (Although I did
> manage to find *one* job that required a PhD. But that was working for a
> bank, which is obviously absurd.)

I was using a computational fluid dynamics code written elsewhere by a grad
student.  I guess he now does stochastic modeling for a bank on Wall Street.

> > I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
> > will open up a completely different set of opportunities.
>
> Mm'kay...

Maybe I should elaborate.  At a Q&A session, people were worried they would be
viewed as overqualified or not have experience in exactly the right field.  The
answer was that if that's the case it's probably not the right job anyway, but
there are certainly jobs out there that do match a different set of
qualifications.  Many of these jobs may carry more freedom and responsibility.

> LOL! What a way to live... Monte Carlo sampling of all possible fields
> of human exploration until you hit upon something interesting. :-D

This would lead to two possibilities: either everyone and everything else in the
world is boring, or...

> Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P
>
> Still, I guess it merits further attention...

Forgive me.  I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, only trying to
convince you that it's not an impossibility.  You obviously want a job that
gives you the freedom to explore and apply yourself.  Grad school is one way to
move in that direction, but certainly not the only way.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)
> 

Not unless one turns out to be a pyro ..
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)
> 
> Not unless one turns out to be a pyro ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xuHumXoeV0

Sorry... couldn't resist.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> The requirement that you
>> have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything
>> has been done already.
> 
> I think the idea is that you find an advisor with a topic that interests you.
> He/she has ideas that you implement and explore.  This leads to new ideas
> (yours!) that you can explore.  Not many people can walk into a field with
> fresh new ideas and no experience.

Well sure. But it seems it would take little old me a *long* time to 
travel all the way to the frontiers of knowledge to do genuinely new stuff.

OTOH, presumably that's what your supervisor is for? ;-)

>>  They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do
>> not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.
> 
> As was pointed out, a few years of study in field Y should put you in touch with
> people who also care about skill Y.

It has a flavour...

> Maybe I should elaborate.  At a Q&A session, people were worried they would be
> viewed as overqualified or not have experience in exactly the right field.  The
> answer was that if that's the case it's probably not the right job anyway, but
> there are certainly jobs out there that do match a different set of
> qualifications.

Sounds plausible at least.

> Many of these jobs may carry more freedom and responsibility.

I was under the impression that "freedom" and "responsibility" are polar 
opposites.

>> Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P
>>
>> Still, I guess it merits further attention...
> 
> Forgive me.  I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, only trying to
> convince you that it's not an impossibility.  You obviously want a job that
> gives you the freedom to explore and apply yourself.  Grad school is one way to
> move in that direction, but certainly not the only way.

Hey, I started this thread to gather opinions. (And practical data too.) 
So far it's working. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly 
> failed my BSc as it is!)

You think you're failing at what you're doing now anyway, yes? So fail at 
something bigger.  It's like saying you're not going to take a job just 
because some day you might get fired.

Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)

> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)

Go where they'll pay for you. They need PhD students to get the grants, so 
the grants usually come with provisions for paying you enough to live on 
while you're doing the research.

> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it 
> is.)

Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while you're 
holding down a full-time job, IMO.

> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
> "experience" and/or "people skills".

Experience and people skills is what you get with a PhD. You meet bunches of 
people doing exciting stuff you enjoy while you're doing a PhD. Do you 
think, for example, that if you're doing a PhD having to do with (say) 
optimizing functional languages that you're not going to have dinner with 
the guys at Microsoft Research working on GHC?

All but one job I had since I got my PhD was through knowing people I met 
while I got my PhD. I had a couple of job offers guaranteed by the time I 
finished, because I was doing just what they wanted and they knew I could do 
it.

And yes, people actually do get impressed by PhDs.  Not necessarily the 
technical guys, but the guys making the hiring decision do.  (Hard to say 
about the technical guys, cause all the technical guys I worked for tended 
to have PhDs also, but nobody really made a big stink about it except the 
guy with the millions of dollars to invest.)

> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a 
> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

You're not talking about building oil rigs here. It's college like anything 
else. If you get a decent advisor, you're in good shape. Suck it up and do 
the job and write the paper. :-)

> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.

You have to pick what you want to do, then find the place that's doing that 
sort of stuff, then go there.

Here's how you do it: decide what kind of thing you want to research. 
Functional languages? OK, find research papers about functional languages. 
Look to see if they're funded by grants (usually mentioned in the ack's on 
the front page). See what university got the grant. Surf that university's 
web site, and look over the professors.  Call them up and ask them what 
their interests are because you want to get a PhD. 4) Profit!

Find people who have written papers in things you're interested in who have 
PhDs. Ask them who they recommend you go to. Note that *where* you go is 
less important than with *whom* you go.

> 7. Where the hell am I going to do a PhD anyway?

Wherever they're doing things you want to do.  First ask what you want to 
do. Then find the place that will pay you to do that.

> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who to 
> go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 

I've done it in the USA. Apparently the UK is much different. But don't 
limit yourself to the UK.  Lots of people travel abroad to do schooling like 
that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
> relational databases. 

It was some 25 years ago too. :-)

> Even I cannot comprehend the relational calculus though. Relational 
> algebra, sure. But relational calculus? Nah.

Same here. I understand that SQL itself is much closer to the relational 
calculus than the relation algebra. I'd have to go back and try to read it 
again, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>> As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
>> relational databases. 
> 
> It was some 25 years ago too. :-)

OK, so the book I'm worshiping is a little out of date.

Heh... you see what I just did there? :-D

>> Even I cannot comprehend the relational calculus though. Relational 
>> algebra, sure. But relational calculus? Nah.
> 
> Same here. I understand that SQL itself is much closer to the relational 
> calculus than the relation algebra. I'd have to go back and try to read 
> it again, tho.

Well, I recall a piece complaining that SQL doesn't actually follow the 
relational model very closely. (E.g., you can write querires where the 
ordering of colums matters. You can't treat derived relations in the 
same way as base relations. etc.) They emplored vendors to add the 
missing features, and generally close the gap.

This, I would assume, was completely ignored. :-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Even so, 10x higher still seems rather large. I would have expected 
> something more like a few percent denser.

http://www.dayah.com/periodic/

If anything, it should be closer to a factor of 15 than of 10.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
> constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
> O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?

You studied physics and you're confusing atomic number with atomic mass?

<insert asshole PhD comment here>

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
>>> relational databases. 
>>
>> It was some 25 years ago too. :-)
> 
> OK, so the book I'm worshiping is a little out of date.

No. That's my point. It's so seminal that it hasn't needed to be replaced in 
25 years either.

> Heh... you see what I just did there? :-D

> Well, I recall a piece complaining that SQL doesn't actually follow the 
> relational model very closely. (E.g., you can write querires where the 
> ordering of colums matters. You can't treat derived relations in the 
> same way as base relations. etc.) They emplored vendors to add the 
> missing features, and generally close the gap.

Yes. And you can have duplicate rows in your results, and so on. But that's 
just practicality.

My understanding is that the calculus describes "this is the result I want", 
while the algebra is "follow these steps".  Of course, the steps don't have 
to be followed in order in the algebra (associative, commutitive, etc), so 
that's OK.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>>>> As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
>>>> relational databases. 
>>>
>>> It was some 25 years ago too. :-)
>>
>> OK, so the book I'm worshiping is a little out of date.
> 
> No. That's my point. It's so seminal that it hasn't needed to be 
> replaced in 25 years either.

The mark of a Special title. ;-)

> My understanding is that the calculus describes "this is the result I 
> want", while the algebra is "follow these steps".  Of course, the steps 
> don't have to be followed in order in the algebra (associative, 
> commutitive, etc), so that's OK.

I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and got 
horribly lost...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 3 years evaluating the intelligence of a half-mouldy cup of yogurt 
> That could be your dissertation. :-D

Or dessert-tation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I guess I'm still smarting from that guy yelling at me because I keep 
> asking how rank-2 types work and I still can't get my head around it.

You need to sit down interactively with someone. There were a handful of 
things I just couldn't grok until I got someone more expert to give me a 
clue, then it all fell into place.  (LISP being one of those, for example.)

> Actually, I'm still not really comprehending why double-entry book 
> keeping is really relevant to a computer science degree, but still...

It's as relevant as anything else. Computer science (such as it is) doesn't 
solve any problems on its own. :-)

>> Aren't there lots of options for getting funding?
> *shrugs*

Yes. They will pay you to get a PhD.

> is another qualification going to be different?

Because in getting that qualification, you get introduced to all the people 
working in the fields that interest you.

>> and will have many more employment options once you are done.
> I currently doubt this one.

OK, put it this way...  So what? You're not finding any good jobs now. 
After, if you still don't find any good jobs, what did you lose?

> I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of it, 
> actually. :-D

You definitely should.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>> 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I 
>> nearly failed my BSc as it is!)
> 
> You think you're failing at what you're doing now anyway, yes? So fail 
> at something bigger.

LOL. Riiiight...

> It's like saying you're not going to take a job 
> just because some day you might get fired.

Mmm, whatever.

> Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)

Oh. My. GOD! >_<

You cannot *possibly* expect me to take anything else you say seriously 
now, can you? :-P

>> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as 
>> it is.)
> 
> Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while 
> you're holding down a full-time job, IMO.

Agreed.

>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
>> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
>> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
>> "experience" and/or "people skills".
> 
> Experience and people skills is what you get with a PhD. You meet 
> bunches of people doing exciting stuff you enjoy while you're doing a 
> PhD. Do you think, for example, that if you're doing a PhD having to do 
> with (say) optimizing functional languages that you're not going to have 
> dinner with the guys at Microsoft Research working on GHC?

Heh. Actually, a few weeks back I did look at MSRC. But I couldn't 
figure out what they were talking about. I surmised this probably means 
I'm too stupid to be there. :-}

Much as it would be fun to meet the legendary Simon PJ, I rather doubt 
they have any PhD openings to do with Haskell right about now. Sure, 
lots of people are working hard on GHC, but most of it is not "new" in 
any way, it's just getting around to applying techniques known from 
other compilers. It takes a while to alter a codebase that huge.

> All but one job I had since I got my PhD was through knowing people I 
> met while I got my PhD. I had a couple of job offers guaranteed by the 
> time I finished, because I was doing just what they wanted and they knew 
> I could do it.

That's pretty impressive, right there.

Other than my lecturers, I didn't meet *anybody* during my degree. And 
now I'm trying to track down some of my old lecturers just so I can 
maybe get some references out of them...

> And yes, people actually do get impressed by PhDs.

I guess it depends who you're asking...

>> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
>> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.
> 
> You have to pick what you want to do, then find the place that's doing 
> that sort of stuff, then go there.
> 
> Here's how you do it: decide what kind of thing you want to research. 
> Functional languages? OK, find research papers about functional 
> languages. Look to see if they're funded by grants (usually mentioned in 
> the ack's on the front page). See what university got the grant. Surf 
> that university's web site, and look over the professors.  Call them up 
> and ask them what their interests are because you want to get a PhD.

Hmm, time to track down all those Haskell papers which I carefully 
linked from our Haskell group for safe keeping. 8^D

(And if you believe *that*, you'll believe anything...)

> 4) Profit!

Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

> Find people who have written papers in things you're interested in who 
> have PhDs. Ask them who they recommend you go to. Note that *where* you 
> go is less important than with *whom* you go.

Mmm, OK.

>> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who 
>> to go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it. 
> 
> I've done it in the USA. Apparently the UK is much different. But don't 
> limit yourself to the UK.  Lots of people travel abroad to do schooling 
> like that.

Taking a PhD for no apparent reason is slightly crazy, but I'm gradually 
coming around to the idea. Leaving the UK is an absurd idea. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess I'm still smarting from that guy yelling at me because I keep 
>> asking how rank-2 types work and I still can't get my head around it.
> 
> You need to sit down interactively with someone. There were a handful of 
> things I just couldn't grok until I got someone more expert to give me a 
> clue, then it all fell into place.  (LISP being one of those, for example.)

Yeah, well... not much danger of that. ;-)

>> Actually, I'm still not really comprehending why double-entry book 
>> keeping is really relevant to a computer science degree, but still...
> 
> It's as relevant as anything else. Computer science (such as it is) 
> doesn't solve any problems on its own. :-)

See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care 
about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)

This is possibly why I'm so unemployable... :-/

>> is another qualification going to be different?
> 
> Because in getting that qualification, you get introduced to all the 
> people working in the fields that interest you.

I don't think anybody is "working" with Haskell. (As in, getting paid 
money to use it.) I could be wrong, but it seems pretty rare.

>>> and will have many more employment options once you are done.
>> I currently doubt this one.
> 
> OK, put it this way...  So what? You're not finding any good jobs now. 
> After, if you still don't find any good jobs, what did you lose?

Several thousand pounds in debts? Several years of my life? Possibly my 
sanity? :-} (Did you *see* the links I posted?)

>> I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of 
>> it, actually. :-D
> 
> You definitely should.

Meh. I tried making a list of cool things, and it ended up having 
entries like "complex numbers. Because you can calculate stuff with 
them!" Pretty retarded, eh?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, I guess it depends on finding a good subject.

First decide what subjects you'd be interested in working on.

Then find someone working on those subjects.

Then go to the school where that person is.

4 - Profit!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

> First decide what subjects you'd be interested in working on.
> 
> Then find someone working on those subjects.
> 
> Then go to the school where that person is.
> 
> 4 - Profit!

I'd settle for break-even, BTH.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 23:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
>> constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
>> O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?
> 
> You studied physics and you're confusing atomic number with atomic mass?

yip, not paying attention and writing mail while trying to concentrate 
on sets of cubic coordinate transformations. Not a good Idea.

Reconstruction: N2 is about 7x2x2 times as heavy as one H. I know I 
corrected one factor 2 for H2, but I don't know which any more.

> <insert asshole PhD comment here>

ok: Thanks for pointing out.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:54:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it
>> is.)
> 
> Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while
> you're holding down a full-time job, IMO.

Agreed.  I've got a few friends who got their PhD's and one of them made 
a little money on the side playing the stock market (risky, but Tim's an 
outstanding maths guy and good at research - and he took quite a while to 
get his doctorate, at that), but generally it was a full-time job paid 
for by grant money, like you said.

>> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who
>> to go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it.
> 
> I've done it in the USA. Apparently the UK is much different. But don't
> limit yourself to the UK.  Lots of people travel abroad to do schooling
> like that.

Agreed.  Plus going to school abroad looks great on a resume.  Andy 
shouldn't let his view of going to a foreign country be coloured by a few 
jerks in the company he works for who happen to be based in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:17:09 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> 4) Profit!
> 
> Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

Slashdot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 22:54, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while 
> you're holding down a full-time job, IMO.

It can be done. My only PhD student ATM has a full time job elsewhere. I 
sorta did that and one of my former PhD students also did not have a 
regular PhD position. It may take a bit longer doing it this way. The 
environment you are working in should be research minded of course.
Actually I think that for Andy it might work. At least in an environment 
like my department where the distinction between scientific staff and 
supporting staff is rather blurred. I think I mentioned it recently in 
another thread, we do have a couple of people that started out as 
supporting staff and then converted to do a PhD. I don't know enough 
about the English system to know if such things are possible there.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)
>
> Oh. My. GOD! >_<
>
> You cannot *possibly* expect me to take anything else you say seriously
> now, can you? :-P

Now we all know it's the truth, but you might want to play that one down, at
least until you're in:

http://ccartier.blogspot.com/2009/01/rejected-stanford-bschool-essay.html

> Heh. Actually, a few weeks back I did look at MSRC. But I couldn't
> figure out what they were talking about. I surmised this probably means
> I'm too stupid to be there. :-}

That doesn't mean your stupid [sic].  I'm sure many people in the field couldn't
understand it because they haven't worked on it.  What's important is whether
you can learn it, not whether you already know it.

> Much as it would be fun to meet the legendary Simon PJ, I rather doubt
> they have any PhD openings to do with Haskell right about now.

Don't doubt it.  Find out, and you might find something else interesting along
the way.

> > 4) Profit!
>
> Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park_episode)

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> <insert asshole PhD comment here>
> ok: Thanks for pointing out.

Just to be clear, I was calling myself an ass for making fun of you for a 
mistake like that. I wasn't calling you that. I'm not sure what your 
response means you thought I meant. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and got 
> horribly lost...

You should look up "universal quantification" and "existential 
quantification" on wikipedia. They're really straightforward concepts with 
big names. It's like one step up from boolean logic.

I strongly suspect you already know what the words mean, and you just don't 
know there's a mathematical term for what they name.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care 
> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)

What's interesting? Compiler optimization? Mathematics?

> I don't think anybody is "working" with Haskell. (As in, getting paid 
> money to use it.) I could be wrong, but it seems pretty rare.

The guy writing GHC is getting paid for it, isn't he?

In any case, by the time I graduated, I was pretty sick of the field I was 
studying. I went to interview at Bellcore, and they talked to me about it, 
and I said "I'm pretty sick of it, really."  And they asked "What would be 
more interesting?"  I said "Dunno. Multimedia?"  And that's where I got a job.

It's not like you're stuck in that field forever.

> Several thousand pounds in debts?

Get someone else to pay for it.

> Several years of my life? 

You don't lose years of life getting a PhD. You spend them. (It's not like 
you can save them up.)

> Possibly my sanity? :-} (Did you *see* the links I posted?)

Yes. And you know what? Those are people who picked a bad advisor. Pick an 
advisor who is motivated to get you to graduate, and he'll help you do so.

> Meh. I tried making a list of cool things, and it ended up having 
> entries like "complex numbers. Because you can calculate stuff with 
> them!" Pretty retarded, eh?

Not really. Keep going, is all. Spend some time thinking about it. You're 
not going to come up with the cool stuff yourself in a couple hours.

Now when you read stuff for fun, think about "why is this fun? What's cool 
about it?"  Give it a couple of weeks of gathering cool stuff.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You think you're failing at what you're doing now anyway, yes? So fail 
>> at something bigger.
> 
> LOL. Riiiight...

I'm serious. You're way too worried about this stuff.

Don't spend much money. Just get funding and go. You have no obligations 
right now. It's the best time in your life to start something questionable 
like this.

>> Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)
> 
> Oh. My. GOD! >_<
> 
> You cannot *possibly* expect me to take anything else you say seriously 
> now, can you? :-P

Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?

> Heh. Actually, a few weeks back I did look at MSRC. But I couldn't 
> figure out what they were talking about. I surmised this probably means 
> I'm too stupid to be there. :-}

No. It means you haven't done any sort of PhD work.

It's like saying "I don't want to go to school to study mathematics, because 
every time I read a math paper I don't already understand it."

> Much as it would be fun to meet the legendary Simon PJ, I rather doubt 
> they have any PhD openings to do with Haskell right about now. Sure, 
> lots of people are working hard on GHC, but most of it is not "new" in 
> any way, it's just getting around to applying techniques known from 
> other compilers. It takes a while to alter a codebase that huge.

You never know. That was just one example, since you seemed to like Haskell.

>> All but one job I had since I got my PhD was through knowing people I 
>> met while I got my PhD. I had a couple of job offers guaranteed by the 
>> time I finished, because I was doing just what they wanted and they 
>> knew I could do it.
> 
> That's pretty impressive, right there.

But that's how it works. By the time I started actually writing the thesis, 
I'd already published papers in three or four journals, been to two 
countries on the school's money presenting the papers, and peer-reviewed 
other papers about vaguely similar topics. You meet people at these things, 
and they're expensive, so you get the school to pay for it.

> Other than my lecturers, I didn't meet *anybody* during my degree.

Wrong degree! That's why it's "A Doctorate of Philosophy, oh by the way it 
had to do with computers."

> Hmm, time to track down all those Haskell papers which I carefully 
> linked from our Haskell group for safe keeping. 8^D

Exactly.

>> 4) Profit!
> 
> Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

Late-night three-easy-steps guides to getting wealthy?

I'm sure South Park was mocking reality in that bit.

> Taking a PhD for no apparent reason is slightly crazy, but I'm gradually 
> coming around to the idea. Leaving the UK is an absurd idea. :-P

It's not "no apparently reason."  Think of it like taking a job doing 
something fun, for not quite as much money as you might like, but probably 
still more than you're making now. :-)

Why is leaving the UK for a few years absurd?  Not that I'm necessarily 
recommending the USA, mind. We've kind of got our heads up our asses here 
the last few years.  But I'd guess most anywhere in the EU would have decent 
schools.

As far as doing a full-time job while getting your PhD, consider doing that 
if the company you're working for will pay for the PhD.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in
>>>> my left armpit". :-S
>>> A most excellent poem. :-)
>> It excells - but at *what*??
> 
> Being a piece of Vogon poetry, of course. :-)

I thought that was one from the pen of Grunthos the Flatulent?

Post a reply to this message

Others have replied comprehensively, but I do have a few thoughts:

Invisible wrote:
> 2. I have insufficient money. (I'm still paying for my BSc. Very slowly.)

I think most science/engineering PhDs in the UK are grant-funded, which 
means you'll get paid upwards of 16k to do it (tax-free). There are 
often conditions on the funding, but if you've got a 2.1 you may well 
qualify.

> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it 
> is.)

If you do one, it will have to be full-time. As others have said, as 
long as you're funded it's like having a new job.

> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
> "experience" and/or "people skills".

Not true. If you're going for a technical position, even if it's 
unrelated to your field of study, the fact that you are capable of 
completing a PhD says a lot. It says you stick with the job, have a 
capacity and interest for learning, have experience in 
communication/dissemination, etc... and that's ignoring the 
field-specific skills.

> 5. Presumably a PhD is a serious amount of hard work. It's not exactly a 
> pleasure cruise. So I'd need a good reason to do one.

Yep. Be interested in the project. That simple.

> 6. I rather doubt that you can get a PhD in "doing cool stuff". 
> Presumably it must be something rather more specific than that.

This is the interesting part. Certainly, make inquiries into fields that 
are particularly fascinating to you, but as at least one other person 
has mentioned (Andrel?), don't rule out subjects that are new to you. An 
applied computing project could get you into almost any technical 
subject imaginable, and it's surprising what you might find interesting. 
I know this from my own experiences!

> 7. Where the hell am I going to do a PhD anyway?

Wherever. Go where the funded coolness lies!

>  8. Are you mental?

I've got the wrong doctorate to answer that question impartially. :-)


Speculative queries to research groups in fields that sound interesting 
are well worth it. You don't need to follow the impersonal rules of 
regular employment - if you find some prof with research interests that 
look your kind of thing, just email and ask for more information, and 
say what you're interested in. Worst case is they simply don't reply.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> John had some problems with below average IQ and EQ people when he was 
> teaching, that is why he isn't anymore.

I couldn't decide which was the worst, either the handful of troublesome 
students, or the handful of troublesome parents, or the lack of 
badly-needed support I got from the administration.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_number
> 
> There are 6.03 x 10^23 atoms in 12 grans of Carbon-12.

6.02, not 6.03!

-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> It's as relevant as anything else. Computer science (such as it is)
>> doesn't solve any problems on its own. :-)
> 
> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care
> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)

	You have PhD written all over you.

	(And no, I don't mean it sarcastically - most PhD work has no use
whatsoever, but is done because someone found it interesting).

-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>     For many companies, just that you have experience talking in
>> public is
>> a _huge_ plus.
> 
> Heh. Last time I had to stand up and give a talk (to 3 people, mind you)
> I almost threw up over the projector! o_O And only one of the people in
> the room actually knew WTF I was actually talking about anyway. And he
> already knew what I was going to say!

	You get over it after a few times. Grab some fellow students in your
research area once a month, bribe them with pizza, and present to them.
Get their feedback. You don't have to worry about screwing things up
because no one cares.


-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well sure. But it seems it would take little old me a *long* time to
> travel all the way to the frontiers of knowledge to do genuinely new stuff.

	Nah. Getting a PhD, in a sense, is supposed to be the beginning. You
learn enough to do something useful, and if you go into academia, spend
the rest of your life simultaneously getting to the frontiers and adding
stuff to it (they're codependencies, not strict dependencies).***

> OTOH, presumably that's what your supervisor is for? ;-)

	Good ones, yes,


*** Giving idealized case. Most people in academia spend more time doing
administrative work + grant writing than actually doing research. They
just guide grad students to do it for them.

-- 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:49:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> 
>>>>> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in
>>>>> my left armpit". :-S
>>>> A most excellent poem. :-)
>>> It excells - but at *what*??
>> 
>> Being a piece of Vogon poetry, of course. :-)
> 
> I thought that was one from the pen of Grunthos the Flatulent?

D'oh!  I must now go and hang my head in shame for goofing that up.

Of course, you are correct.  Grunthos' poetry was deemed the second worst 
in the history of the universe.

Who can name the first?  (Vogons were third)

Jim

Post a reply to this message