In the comments thread of the previous post, Hary raised an important point, namely coursework for PhD students. Hary's perception is that PhD students at new institutes do not have enough course work before starting their research work, since faculty are too busy teaching the undergraduate courses.
Some people are of the opinion that new institutes should have started their PhD programmes after becoming well established and after their permanent campuses are fully ready and equipped. There is much to be said for this viewpoint.
However, I feel that waiting so long before starting a doctoral program would have been detrimental to their primary objective of combining strong undergraduate teaching along with conducting research activities. I am not sure how wise it is for any NIIX to restrict its research activities to undergraduate theses and summer research programs for the next 5 to 10 years. NIIXs are also hiring people who are expected to do research and for many of these people, having students is essential for progress in their research programs. So, having a well structured PhD program is one of the top priorities of these institutes. The training of their first few students and what these students do with their PhDs will go a long way in determining the future of these institutes.
Course work, we all agree, is an important component of a PhD programme.
However, not all agree about how much course work a student needs before embarking on research. For example, the course work that my departmental colleagues and I did as PhD students was more intensive than what PhD students in our department at N1 do. However, whenever my colleagues and I raise the issue of increasing the course requirements for our students, colleagues at other departments disagree with us because they feel that their students do not need as much course work. So, at the moment, we have balanced all view points by asking students to do some minimal number of foundational courses, upon which all departments agree. I don't think that determining the course requirements has anything to do with a shortage of faculty: the departments who insist most on less mandatory course work are in fact the departments which have a very high number of faculty members.
After this requirement is fulfilled, the student's advisor will direct the student to sit in for more courses which the advisor considers important for the student. The student can also voluntarily attend classes that he or she is interested in. For example, next semester, I will be teaching a course for final year undergrads at N1.
I have asked my PhD student to take this course because he cannot possibly start working on his thesis problem before taking this course. He will take this course not just informally, but also do all the work required from those who credit this course, that is, do the assignments and write the exams. Since he is a little senior to the other students in the course, the expectations from him will also be higher.
Likewise, he will be encouraged to take more courses in the future if they are relevant to his training.
For some part of this semester, he is visiting an older institute, which is running a special program in my area of research. He will be attending some lectures given by an expert on a topic which is very important for his future project. So, to answer Hary's question, like me, many supervisors encourage their students to spend time in Ox type institutes and do some course work, although there is no formal exchange programme. Many of us are aware of the exposure that our students need and encourage students to make good use of opportunities available outside N1. At the same time, however, we also don't want students to lose their focus on their research project by traveling too much, at least in the initial stages of their training.
Another resource which I hope we can utilize is our recent connection to the National Knowledge Network, which now gives us access to very high speed internet. This month, a senior professor in North America will be giving a series of lectures on a weekly basis which both my student and I will attend. All that we need is to connect via gmail webchat and have the professor's webcam facing the board on which he will write (or the screen on which he will project his slides). This way, if Mohammed cannot go to the mountain, the mountain can come to Mohammad.
With more technology, of course, one can have virtual classrooms on a larger scale in which we get instructors from all over India and the world. This could be one more way of giving more exposure to students who would like to attend more seminars or lectures and interact with research groups in other institutes.
I would like to ask readers the following questions:
If you are a supervisor, how much course work would you like your student to do before s/he starts working on the thesis topic? Do you encourage your student to attend more courses in the later stages of his/her training or would you prefer that the student focus entirely on their research project?
If you are a student, how much importance do you give to course work as part of your PhD training? Do you consider the course requirements at your institute or university as too much or too little or just right?
Some people are of the opinion that new institutes should have started their PhD programmes after becoming well established and after their permanent campuses are fully ready and equipped. There is much to be said for this viewpoint.
However, I feel that waiting so long before starting a doctoral program would have been detrimental to their primary objective of combining strong undergraduate teaching along with conducting research activities. I am not sure how wise it is for any NIIX to restrict its research activities to undergraduate theses and summer research programs for the next 5 to 10 years. NIIXs are also hiring people who are expected to do research and for many of these people, having students is essential for progress in their research programs. So, having a well structured PhD program is one of the top priorities of these institutes. The training of their first few students and what these students do with their PhDs will go a long way in determining the future of these institutes.
Course work, we all agree, is an important component of a PhD programme.
However, not all agree about how much course work a student needs before embarking on research. For example, the course work that my departmental colleagues and I did as PhD students was more intensive than what PhD students in our department at N1 do. However, whenever my colleagues and I raise the issue of increasing the course requirements for our students, colleagues at other departments disagree with us because they feel that their students do not need as much course work. So, at the moment, we have balanced all view points by asking students to do some minimal number of foundational courses, upon which all departments agree. I don't think that determining the course requirements has anything to do with a shortage of faculty: the departments who insist most on less mandatory course work are in fact the departments which have a very high number of faculty members.
After this requirement is fulfilled, the student's advisor will direct the student to sit in for more courses which the advisor considers important for the student. The student can also voluntarily attend classes that he or she is interested in. For example, next semester, I will be teaching a course for final year undergrads at N1.
I have asked my PhD student to take this course because he cannot possibly start working on his thesis problem before taking this course. He will take this course not just informally, but also do all the work required from those who credit this course, that is, do the assignments and write the exams. Since he is a little senior to the other students in the course, the expectations from him will also be higher.
Likewise, he will be encouraged to take more courses in the future if they are relevant to his training.
For some part of this semester, he is visiting an older institute, which is running a special program in my area of research. He will be attending some lectures given by an expert on a topic which is very important for his future project. So, to answer Hary's question, like me, many supervisors encourage their students to spend time in Ox type institutes and do some course work, although there is no formal exchange programme. Many of us are aware of the exposure that our students need and encourage students to make good use of opportunities available outside N1. At the same time, however, we also don't want students to lose their focus on their research project by traveling too much, at least in the initial stages of their training.
Another resource which I hope we can utilize is our recent connection to the National Knowledge Network, which now gives us access to very high speed internet. This month, a senior professor in North America will be giving a series of lectures on a weekly basis which both my student and I will attend. All that we need is to connect via gmail webchat and have the professor's webcam facing the board on which he will write (or the screen on which he will project his slides). This way, if Mohammed cannot go to the mountain, the mountain can come to Mohammad.
With more technology, of course, one can have virtual classrooms on a larger scale in which we get instructors from all over India and the world. This could be one more way of giving more exposure to students who would like to attend more seminars or lectures and interact with research groups in other institutes.
I would like to ask readers the following questions:
If you are a supervisor, how much course work would you like your student to do before s/he starts working on the thesis topic? Do you encourage your student to attend more courses in the later stages of his/her training or would you prefer that the student focus entirely on their research project?
If you are a student, how much importance do you give to course work as part of your PhD training? Do you consider the course requirements at your institute or university as too much or too little or just right?
7 comments:
Coursework is great. In the hands of a good teacher with solid experience in his/her field, we get a distillation of decades' worth of knowledge, and we get a feel for the 'culture' of the field.
But, but ...
It is grades that suck the life out of courses. With mandatory courses, if you slip in one mid-term, it ends up adding immense pressure -- so much so you look to jugaad to bail you out, learning be damned. And then there's this problem with courses in another field which "speaks" a different language. Even awesome students stumble because of this language barrier, and could come away with their sense of self-efficacy seriously damaged.
These days, I don't insist on anything beyond our mandatory course load which, as you said in the post, is pretty small. I may perhaps suggest auditing a course -- that too, only if it's from someone who's known to be a great teacher. And I won't go any farther ...
Good post.
Personally, I believe strong course works are quintessential for strengthening the fundamentals without which no PhD is strong. But again, this depends on the discipline and the school to a great extent. Here at OSU where I am, for example, in Comp. Sci. deptt., a PhD student pursuing research in say, operating systems, will have to (compulsory) take courses in all areas of Comp. Sci. like database systems, programming & algorithm, networks, comp. architecture, etc. before he is qualified to pass his candidacy. Whereas in electrical engg. deptt. to where I belong, a PhD student in any sub-specialized area is required to take courses only in his area of research with only three courses in another distinct minor area. So I being in solid state, is required to do courses for ONLY solid state part, and as such, unfortunately, although I will be a PhD in Electrical engg., I would have very little idea in other areas of ECE such as VLSI, circuits, control systems, power systems, etc.The total number of courses for students in electrical engg. or comp. sci. would be eventually the same.
And most professors here are aggressive in research with little interest in teaching or in making PhD students take courses (which is a little sad).
If I become a professor later, I will make sure my PhD students take enough course works and build a really solid base before doing actual research.
Thanks New Prof for this post. Quality teachers who run a demanding course are fantastic. A poor, or even a run-of-the-mill. course is of no use to anyone and a waste of time. So, I agree with Abi about taking a minimalist approach to formal course requirements. At the graduate level, there is another challenge: Who is the course aimed at? There is, after all, a distribution of student quality as there is of faculty quality. Here, as in many matters with institutional function, we have two levels of solution: The institutional and the subversive. Institutions evolve to have some structures: Exams, grades. All of which, I find repulsive but they seem to be pervasive and hydra-like in their ability to regenerate when crushed. Rather than reform the un-reformable , I prefer a route where we try to offer better courses, get better teachers, innovate syllabi etc, while making grades and exams minimally relevant. I am inspired (and was taught subversion) by the late C. V. Seshadri, who in his introductory Fluid Mechanics course threatened us undergraduates with a B if we did not attend any class and an A if we attended even one. Pretty much all our class got As: Those who had an instinct for the mathematics of fluid flow loved his course and the rest went away loving him. We don’t have to be tied by the system and CVS was not. I feel that, at the graduate level at least, those of us who are great teachers should just teach well and give everyone As. Those of us who are just about okay teachers, should do our best and give everyone As. I find it difficult and distasteful to evaluate and test adults: Much nicer to have a good discussion as enquiring equals. Sorry for the ramble. About your questions:
Q. If you are a supervisor, how much course work would you like your student to do before s/he starts working on the thesis topic?
A. Depends. If you are in Physics, Math, CS (agree with Digbijoy), good courses are vital. You need to learn the language of the subject. My bias, but basic chemistry and biology can be learnt on the fly (no pun, as we work on the fruit fly). The languages of much of biology and chemistry are logic and English (at least nowadays). Though quantitative methods, and therefore early training are becoming essential here too.
Q. Do you encourage your student to attend more courses in the later stages of his/her training or would you prefer that the student focus entirely on their research project?
A. In biology, there are excellent specialized courses which we offer and superb ones available all over the world. Every advanced student should attend high-end courses, lecture and laboratory, which collect the best students from the world in small classes. These are intellectually stimulating, develop critical approahes and result in good long-term bonding with the best students and teachers. Whether you are doing string theory or harmonic analysis or biology such workshops are the melting pot of the best ideas. Great for teachers and students.
Get more Rock Star teachers and courses to N1!
Its difficult, if not impossible, for all of us, old and new at old and new places, to be great teachers even some of the time. But, each of us can organize one great course every other year. That is fun for us, if taxing, and fun for the students (as long as we give all an A before the course starts).
In sum, we can rise above our individual limitations to get excellent and valuable foundations in rigor and thinking into our environment without becoming captive to a mindless system.
Cheers
In biology were most of our work is experimental, I would prefer my students to take only two 3-credit courses. Now that PhD has to be finished strictly in 5 yrs approx, if first 0.5-1 yr is lost in courses than it will be difficult to do quality work. This is my 2 cents.
In our institute at Delhi the new student has to take 12 credit coursework(4X 3-credit) which is not structured properly. It is just on "chalta-hai" basis and no one has failed or has been asked to leave the institute on the basis of coursework perfomance in the last decade or more. So a total waste of time for first 6 months.
Scientist_Delhi
This issue highly depends on the area and on the previous preparation of the student.
I generally prefer my students to take courses during the master's time or its equivalent if there is no master's (i.e., first 2 years of a 5-year PhD). After that I think students should concentrate in the topics of their research and keep learning from books and papers.
The post raises a great question. I agree with many of the points made by Vijay. It is true that to understand how much course work is deemed necessary for pre-phd students, one has to understand why course-work for pre-phd students is required at all. Quite often, the rationale for course work is that the previous training received by the incoming pre-phd students is inadequate and inferior and therefore some standardization is required to make sure all pre-phd students are up to the mark. (Unfortunately, in India, it is always assumed, often justifiably so, that the training at level X was inferior and the shortcomings has to be rectified at level X+1 by repeating many of the same courses that should have been taken and mastered at level X). As Vijay said, the problem arises when the quality of incoming pre-phd students are quite heterogeneous and it is impossible to design a one-size-fits-all course which would capture the imagination of the brightest without leaving behind the ones who need more basic training.I feel the key to the solution is to allow more flexibility for students to choose (with suggestions from a faculty mentor) the courses they can take. That requires
1. Floating lot of courses. That may not be immediately feasible for many N1 like places without a critical mass of faculty, but should not be a problem within a few years time as these institutes recruit more faculty.
2. Putting a lot of thought in designing innovative and exciting courses. The criticism by scientist_delhi that courses are often not well designed and decided on the fly is a valid one and this needs to change.
3. Personally, I too would do away with exams and give grades based on assignments, projects, involvement in class etc. (Full disclosure: I have done this for one of the courses I take, but not for the other)
4. Cooperation and coordination between
different departments for inter-disciplinary courses.
I also subscribe to the view that less is more when it comes to taking courses. A motivated student can learn a lot through self-study with appropriate guidance by the mentor. So, at the pre-phd level, a student should not be forced to take more than 4-5 courses which may be spread over the first 2 years if possible. That would give some students the option of starting their research projects while taking 1-2 courses on the side per semester.
Finally, as a supervisor, I feel it is better to finish taking courses within the first 2 years and focus mostly on research during the latter part of the PhD program. Exceptions can be made to short-term workshops or courses of the kind given by Rock Star in N1.
Good course structure for new institutes can take some time to develop. Also when you have small departments (very few PhD students), it's difficult to have enough PG level interesting courses.
One way of dealing with this problem is by collaboration among many of these N-type institutes. My university in Scotland has a similar collaboration with many other universities in Scotland, see, http://www.smstc.ac.uk/
So you have one professor from an institute teaching courses over the internet and then assignments are sent via email or post. The institutes have provided enough money to buy good quality hardware so that the lectures do not look like a Skype video call but more like a professional conference.
Post a Comment