My last “how to” post was about getting into graduate
school, so it seems logical to follow up with a post about how to kick ass once
you get into graduate school. Of course, the advice that follows won’t apply in
all instances, and some of it is rather obvious, but I hope that I can provide
some unique insights that might help you on your way. (Advice from other
sources are provided by links at the end.) I also need to note that this post applies
most directly to students who wish to make a career of research in academia or,
to some extent, in government, industry, or NGOs. In addition, all of the suggestions
apply to PhD students, whereas only some apply to MSc students. As an aside, I
think MSc projects are great (I got a lot out of mine) but many institutions,
including mine (McGill), and funding agencies put the major emphasis on PhD
students. As a result, it is more and more common to simply skip the MSc and go
straight from undergrad into PhD.
This post will be part 1 of 2 as the topic is super important and too much needs to be said to fit into a single post. Part 2 is here.
PUBLISH – EARLY AND OFTEN AND WELL.
We had better get the obvious out of the way first – your
success in graduate school is mostly determined by the papers you publish. You
want quantity. You want quality. You want quality in quantity. You want it
early and often and well. So how to achieve this?
Get started early. The earlier you start
publishing the better. I strongly suggest identifying a definable project very
early on that you can submit fairly quickly – in your first year. It doesn’t
have to be earth-shaking or ground-breaking. A (hopefully novel) review paper on your proposed research area is a good option.) It just gets you started. You
learn how the process works. You establish yourself as someone who can see research
through to completion, someone who has something to contribute, someone who can
get the job done. It will make everything easier: committee meetings,
qualifying exams, defenses, future positions, everything. If you conducted
undergraduate research, write it up early in your graduate degree (the longer
you wait the harder it will be).
Shoot high at some point. It is so much
easier to dump your work in open-access journals than to work your way through
the more picky alternatives. A few papers in open-access journals are fine
(especially early on) but you also need some papers in picky journals, ideally
society-based journals like Ecology
or Evolution or PRSB. These journals are a critical stamp of approval that says your
work isn’t just “solid” but also “important” and “interesting.” Of course, the glamour
journals (Science, Nature, PNAS) are even better career-wise if you can get into them, but
they are a big risk. I have known a number of students who have essentially put
their entire thesis into one paper trying to get it into those journals only to
have it rejected from all of them after years of trying. The student has then been
in such a hurry to publish before graduation that they dumped it in open
access. And then they had to scramble to come up with a few more chapters. So
it is a risky strategy to shoot for the glamour. Note that your supervisor will likely have strong opinions on these
points, and her/his suggestions come before mine.
First authored papers are by far the best.
Collaborations with other students, postdocs, and profs are an extremely
rewarding part of graduate school (more on this below) but what is most
critical for your future career opportunities is first authored papers. Don’t
make the mistake of thinking that a bunch of co-authored papers are equivalent
to a first-authored paper. Moreover, co-authored efforts can still take an
immense amount of time and effort, potentially reducing your ability to produce
first-authored papers. So collaborate on other projects but remember that your
success will be determined much more strongly by your first-authored
publications.
PLAY TO STRENGTH, WORK ON WEAKNESS
Very early on as a supervisor, I realized that students (in
fact, everybody) can be ordered along a continuum from “thinker” to “doer." Thinkers read all the relevant literature. They debate and puzzle and work over
every concept and idea in great detail and at great length. Doers see the task
and get it done – quickly and efficiently. The truth is that the current
competitive academic environment is geared to reward doers given that the sheer
volume of papers matters. Or, stated more precisely, a thinker who has very few
papers will have trouble moving on, even if those few papers are great. And
yet, at the same time, a doer who has tons of papers will sometimes be deemed
superficial or a dilettante if those papers are deemed too minor – or folks can
be suspicious of people who publish what they deem as “too many papers to do a
good job on any of them.” The first step is to realize where you fall on the
continuum: “My name is Andrew, and I am doer.” If you are a thinker, you must
force yourself in the doer direction. You have to set yourself goals and
deadlines and you must meet them. Stop thinking quite so much – and do some
more doing. You will publish more papers, which is good. Of course, the
opposite applies to doers – slow yourself down and do more reading and thinking.
You will publish better papers, which is good.
Key: There are two types of people: those that talk the talk and those that walk the walk. People who walk the walk sometimes talk the talk but most times they don't talk at all, 'cause they walkin'. Now, people who talk the talk, when it comes time for them to walk the walk, you know what they do? They talk people like me into walkin' for them.
IT’S THE DATA, STUPID
Publishing good work (early and often) depends first and
foremost on data, which depends on the best possible sampling/experimental
design and implementation. Nothing, simply nothing, can fix a poor sampling
design or insufficient/inappropriate replication. The subtext here is that
stats are great, and need to be done as well as possible, but the data come
first and foremost. Data are real and exist without stats. Stats do not exist
without data. Thus, don’t get too hung up early with trying to be a #STATSHero
– that can come later. Of course, knowledge of the stats you will apply will
greatly aid decisions about experimental design and effort. It is just that you
have to inflate your football before you can throw it. As an aside, it is true
that a #STATSHero will often get lots of publications by helping other students
with their stats and will be a desirable commodity as a postdoc and in many other
contexts. This is all well and good but remember that first-authored
publications are considered much better than a ream of co-authored
publications, and also that effort helping others with their stats can reduce
the time you can devote to your own work. Don’t let good stats come between you
and good data.
YOUR SUPERVISOR IS A COLLABORATOR, NOT A JUDGE.
Many students agonize over the precise details on drafts of proposals and papers that they are producing before showing them to their supervisor. The
undercurrent seems to be that they want to impress their supervisor (a
reasonable sentiment) and thus want their writing to be perfect before she/he
sees it. The reality is that you will
fail in this effort. Your early drafts will NEVER come close to satisfying your
supervisor – but that is the point, really. If your supervisor doesn’t trash
your drafts, then what good are they to you really? The truth is that your
supervisor is best viewed as an experienced and invested collaborator. They are
there to help and that help often involves an entire restructuring or reframing
of your paper, an effort in which they will usually (but not always) be well
informed. Thus, don’t worry so much about making your first (or second or
third) draft perfect because, no matter how hard you try, it won’t look
anything like what you originally wrote after your supervisor gets a hold of
it. Instead, it is much more efficient and less frustrating to get your drafts
to your supervisor in the early stages while they are still quite rough. It
will save everyone a lot of time and stress and will reduce the chances you
will be offended or hurt or crushed by massive changes to something you thought
was great. (Even if your paper is great at the start, it can always be better –
and that is what supervisors try to do: no matter how good the paper is, they
want to make it better.) Before moving on, I need to point out that you should not carry this suggestion to far. That is, supervisors also can get annoyed if
your document is too cursory or incomplete. Do a good job, just don’t strive
for perfection – that comes later.
Qualifying exams in their various forms are often terrifying
for students, who have to stand at the front of the room playing “guess what’s
in the professor’s head.” Here are some suggestions that can really help get you
through it. First, make sure (if the regulations allow) to
talk to all of the committee members well before the exam. Tell
them about your project and ask them what they suggest you should read before
the exam. This is essential because different profs with different backgrounds
often have very different ways of viewing the world and think different ideas
and papers are critical for you to know. No matter how much your supervisor
helps you prepare, they simply can’t intuit what the other examiners might be
thinking. Second,
realize from the
beginning that you will NOT know the answer to most of the questions. In
fact, the way these things play out is that professors are specifically seeking
to find out what you DO NOT know. Thus, as soon as it is clear you know the
answer to a particular question, they immediately want to move on to something
else. They are instead probing for what you DON’T know – and they will find it.
Think of it as their attempt to circumscribe the hypervolume of your knowledge so
they can decide if it is large enough to proceed toward a PhD. The definition
of this hypervolume requires, by definition, the exploration of its edges
rather than its center. So relax, you won’t know the answer to many of the
questions, which is fine and the point, really. Third,
admit when you don’t know the answer (don’t just blather on about
stuff that you hope is related) but then, whenever possible, say you are
willing to try to figure it out on the fly. Fourth,
failure (of the temporary kind) is often a good thing. It gives you
an opportunity to improve your knowledge in key areas and can lead to papers on
its own. In fact, evolutionary biologist Tim Mousseau turned his remedial paper
following a qualifying exam “failure” at McGill into a citation classic.
|
My Dad's frustration with qualifying exam preparation led him to blast out this poem one afternoon. He posted it on the departmental bulletin board and, apparently, the professors weren't impressed. I would have been. |
PRESENTATIONS
Like it or not, success in today’s scientific enterprise
requires (or at least greatly benefits from) not just good science but also a
good “presence.” In fact, after publishing papers, the next most important
skill – yes, even more than becoming a #STATSHero – is to give a great research
presentation. This is true at every level of your career: undergrad, grad,
postdoc, prof. The best way to learn how to give a good presentation is to
practice, practice, practice. By this I mean at conferences, retreats, lab
meetings, etc. – any opportunity you can get. It doesn’t matter so much what
you talk about (don’t worry if you don’t have data) but how you talk about it.
So do it early, do it often, and don’t quit doing it. Before each major
presentation, practice it for fellow students and, if possible, your
supervisor. Lab meetings are great for this. Immediately after a presentation,
ask fellow students and, ideally, your supervisor how you can make it
even better next time. Some of the advice will be technical (less text, simpler
figures, better colours, etc.) and you will gradually adopt what works and
jettison what doesn’t. However, the greatest improvement can come simply from
increasing your comfort level, which increases with the number of times you
give presentations. (If you are petrified by public speaking, think of joining
a debating club or taking acting/theater/performance classes – I think my comfort in speaking stems in
part from performing arts classes taken in high school.)
For evidence that it doesn't have to matter what you say - but how you say it - check out this Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken presentation.
SPEAK OUT
Following from the above idea of a “presence”, participation
in free-form discussions is very important. By this I mean speaking out in
discussions and asking questions in lab meetings and seminars and at conferences.
Becoming comfortable in such contexts is an extremely valuable skill and it
becomes increasingly important as one moves up the career path. For instance,
professors are often expected to have a strong opinion about almost everything.
Moreover, being animated in discussions is a great way to establish
collaborations, develop new ideas, and generally feel connected to your lab,
fellow students, and your department. I have a colleague (Mike Kinnison) who
challenged his students to ask at least one question per talk they saw at a
conference. I think this is a great idea – not just the actual asking but the
preparation for it. If you tell yourself that you are going to ask a question
at the end of a talk, then you find yourself paying much closer attention and
being more critical in your evaluation of the work. Doing so helps you gain a
lot more intellectually from a talk. I suggest you write down at least one
question per talk and try to ask it at the end. I realize that some people are
mortified about speaking out but I can first reassure you that no one ever
thinks anything negative of a student who asks a question – regardless of the
specific question. (Unless it is rude, which you should never do, or unless you
ask too many per talk!) In fact, they are nearly always impressed. So, if you
are in this shy category, find a context where you can feel somewhat
comfortable asking questions, ask as many questions as possible in that
context, then move up to the next context, and keep going.
Side projects can be great. They are an opportunity to do
something a bit different from your thesis, often with fellow students or with
postdocs/profs. And, returning to the point about publishing early, they are
often more defined - and therefore easier to publish quickly than your %&#%^$
thesis that has to be integrated across multiple chapters. Of course, too many
side projects can delay your progress and drive your supervisor nuts, so don’t
get too carried away. Indeed, side projects are the bread-and-butter of “doers”
but, for the reasons discussed earlier, doers need to restrain themselves from
too much temptation. The funny part is that side projects are often what people
become known for rather than their major thesis focus, so do follow your muse when
it strikes.
SOCIAL MEDIA
A social media presence through blogging and Twitter is
certainly a way to increase your profile, meet a community of like-minded
scholars, and get tips to important papers. I think every student should be on Twitter and be a part of some blog (not an administrator but rather a contributor).
However, social media is also a big time-suck and so it is critical to not let
it detract from your research. Of course, some people become more famous for
their social media presence than for their science, which feels good but
(usually) does not translate into a career in research. So focus on the research
and use the social media to supplement/promote it and yourself. Some ways to
minimize the negative aspects are to only follow a modest number of accounts
and restrict yourself to only a few tweets per day and posts per month.
|
http://oncirculation.com/tag/twitter/ |
TEACHING
Teaching is a valuable part of any graduate program and you should
be certain to do it a bit. Moreover, it can help distinguish you on the job market from someone with an equally-good publication record but no teaching experience. But I suggest not doing it too much (unless you have
to) as I can assure you it comes at a trade-off with progress in research.
CONCLUSION
Graduate school should be one of the best times of your life. You can help this to happen by being successful, as per the above comments, and by making sure to have fun. Indeed, many of the greatest joys of graduate school come from stuff unrelated to the research. Hell, I learned to fly airplanes while in graduate school and I had a long series of very late nights playing Doom with my office mate (I kicked your butt, Mike!) And the parties. And the fishing and diving trips. And I found my future wife! You obviously need to embrace these activities; and, yet, of course, you can’t get too carried away. You need to make sure that you are progressing in your research. So I guess the other way to say it is “work hard, play hard.”
--------------------------------------
Previous posts in this "How to" series
--------------------------------------
LINKS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH MY ADVICE (thanks to Kiyoko Gotanda for the list)