Want to Learn Something? Go to the Library!

Books are a great resource despite the proliferation of free information the Internet. Books have generally been done more carefully than the things you find online. I think some people appreciate books but every so often they have a bad experience.

You know the kind. The kind where the author’s treatment of a topic sucks. Unfortunately, what most people believe after that type of experience is that something must be wrong with them. That if they couldn’t understand the material from one author, they must be incapable of understanding the material. That the author’s presentation of the material is somehow the only way to present the material. I’m happy to say that this line of thinking is unproductive and misleading.

There’s usually more than one way to present the same material. And at least one of those presentations will more than likely make sense to you. Instead of thinking you can’t get the concept, think the author hasn’t communicated to you effectively.

Your best defense in this case is to find other authors and see how they present the subject. Search the Web and see what presentations/lectures pop up on the material of interest. If you search long and hard enough, you’ll find something. It may seem like it’s a lot of work, but in the end, it’s actually less work. It’s far better to understand material before an exam than after the exam. It’s far better to understand material before you have to use it in the real-world than after you have to use it in the real-world.

So the next time you find yourself wanting to learn something. 

1. Go to the library. 
2. Get a number of different books that cover the same topic. 
3. Skim through all the books you get. 

 You’ll know very quickly which author expresses things in way that really works for you.

Don't Be Fooled

I’ve been in the Cambridge area for a little while now.  I’ve come across a handful of MIT students, and I’ve noticed a pattern.  

They work hard as hell.    

There might be some that don’t really study for anything and still do well--but I haven’t met them.  I’d consider such people the exception and not the rule.  The typical MIT student has raw intelligence that is coupled with really, really hard work.  

The media rarely advertises how hard they work, but don’t let that fool you.  They’re putting in massive amounts of hours and leveraging multiple resources (e.g., other students, library, online resources).  MIT has a reputation and the students understand there’s a reputation to uphold. And unfortunately, in trying to keep up, some students burn out, but we rarely hear about those cases.  Again, thank the media for this.  So don’t be fooled!  Burning out and consequently dropping out totally happens.  

If you’d like to mimic the typical to excellent MIT grad: 

Work.  Hard.  As.  Hell. 

You’ll be damn good.  

Understanding Things On The Fly

How do you know when you know something?  Well, a person generally feels confident about his ability to do something if he has been tested and has shown his mastery of the thing in the test-like situation.  However, when you're reading material (whether for research or for a course), there’s not always a test for you to take to check your understanding of the material.  So what can you do?  

The answer: Be able to go from abstract to concrete, and from concrete to abstract.  

For example, if you claim to understand a loop construct in the C programming language, an abstract way of demonstrating your knowledge of this construct would be to say that  “it’s a programming control statement that allows for the same statements to be repeated.”  A concrete way of demonstrating your understanding of a loop programming construct in C would be to write a loop in the C language. 

Often, authors will talk at a high-level, so you will need to be able to drill down and be able to generate your own example based on what you’ve heard, read, or seen. As another example, if you come across a sentence that mentions an enterprise network, and you can't come up with a clear picture in your mind of what constitutes an enterprise network, it would be safe to assume that you do not understand the term "enterprise network."  If you can’t come up with concrete examples, or find it difficult to do so, you may assume that you probably don’t have a complete and solid grasp of the material.  So when you come across material that makes you uncomfortable, see if you can come up with a concrete example of what you’re talking about easily.  If you can, you should feel your level of comfort increase and anxiety decrease.

After doing this for a little while, you should be able to get the hang of it to the point that you can do this for many of the technical papers you read.  You'll find that your reading experiences will be more challenging yet rewarding and dare I say it--FUN.  

Cheers!   

“Read This Paper!”: What Does That Really Mean?

It’s not unusual for an advisor to occasionally tell you to read certain papers because she thinks the papers are relevant to your career or research. The suggestion (or commandment) to read the paper, if interpreted by most laypeople would probably translate to “read the words in this paper.” And this, unfortunately, is how many freshmen PhD students interpret the suggestion from their advisor. Poor souls...

When an advisor admonishes you to “read this paper,” she’s really saying “understand this paper and anything this paper relies on.” So what does that mean? That means you should also be reading any papers that the paper references. It means, if you don’t really get a concept, try to implement it in some small cheap way. Until you’ve become mature in your chosen field, you’ll rarely know and have understood all the references cited by the paper you’re reading and thus be able to avoid this “extra legwork.” And even when you have matured, you may come across a paper that uses linear algebra or statistical techniques you haven’t seen before. Can you guess what you’ll have to do? More legwork? Bingo!

You might be saying to yourself at this point: That sounds laborious. Newsflash: IT IS. Nobody promised you that your PhD program would be a walk in the park. And if someone did, shame on him for lying, and shame on you for believing him.

Trials and Tribulations: Keep Going

After spending whatever you consider to be "a lot of time" in a PhD program, it's easy to lose heart.  It's easy to doubt yourself and the path you're choosing. It's easy to take the attractive offer from Big Company X and to say "what the hell."  It's easy to conjure up all the obstacles you're facing and will have to face.  All of us that go through challenging PhD programs have those dark moments.  And to succeed, you must see yourself through those times.     

Let me share with you one of the MANY things that kept me going in those so called "dark moments."  One thing I used to say from time to time that helped put things into perspective was the following: 

The pain of the PhD program is temporary, but the pride (and everything else) that comes with having a PhD is forever. 

Get through a program that lasts 4 - 6+ years of your life, and get to be called "Dr." for the rest of your life.  Not too bad of a trade eh?   

Accept Criticism to Be a Better Scientist

Criticism is a part of the PhD process (read the fine print).

Should You Get a PhD?

More students than you think actually aren’t 100% certain that they want to get a PhD. There are some people that desire positions that have a PhD as a prerequisite (e.g., being a tenure-track professor). If what you want to be requires a PhD, then it’s probably in a student’s best interest to be certain she wants the PhD.

So for the rest of us out there who don’t need a PhD for some job we desire, the question is "should we get PhDs?”

I believe you should obtain a PhD if you believe its attainment will add substantial value to your life. 

When some people see the word value, they sometimes immediately think of money, but value is obviously more than that. Take me for example. The number one reason I decided to complete my PhD was that, because I knew I wouldn’t enter into academia, my life had a greater probability of being “interesting”--I couldn’t predict how my life would be altered--I just knew it would be altered, and it would be positive.  Now, I'm not going to lie, I also figured monetarily, if I played my cards I could come out on top financially as well--but this thought wasn't the primary motivation.  Quitting the PhD program after my Master’s to enter the workforce just seemed too boring and predictable a life.

The perceived greater potential of a “interesting life” was enough to drive me to finish my PhD. The trick is to find out if such a drive--that is, something valuable that’s derived from obtaining a PhD--exists for you in your life. Good luck!