My former advisor Professor Ram Murty is visiting IISER
Pune. While he was waiting in front of the
coffee machine, a cleaning staff member helpfully asked him if he was here for
a PhD interview (he has probably been given directions to do so to any unrecognizable
person as our Main Building is full of PhD aspirants nowadays). After he started laughing, the cleaning
person apologized and withdrew. Prof.
Murty later said to me, “Maybe life is giving me another chance to do a PhD.
This time, you become my advisor.” Later, my student joined us and we took him
to a room where we asked him a lot of questions that kept him on the board for
4+ hours. This happens to be the room
where we interview our PhD candidates – so, the jokes continued!
On a more serious note, he mentioned that he started
supervising his first PhD student almost 10 years after finishing his PhD. From what I hear, in USA and Canada, faculty
members usually don’t take students until they get tenured, nor are they
expected to. Supervision of
multiple students happens at an even later stage. On the other hand, in India (at least at
research and teaching institutions), faculty members seem to start supervising
much earlier in their careers. This is
especially true for new institutes, which by default mostly get very young
faculty and which have to build a PhD programme. At some of the new institutes, especially new
IITs, even people with contractual appointments have started working with
students. It is highly likely that the
contractual appointments will be made permanent, but what is remarkable here is
that these members are less than three years past their PhD.
Questions for readers:
1)
Is it a good sign that the demand for PhD in
India is as high as to require faculty to start supervising at a relatively
younger age? Or is it something to worry about?
2)
I am of course thinking from a
Mathematics-centric viewpoint. Perhaps,
it is more common in the experimental fields to start supervising at a much
earlier age and in much larger numbers.
If you are an academic, what is the trend in your field at your
institute or university?
3)
This also raises another question. How important are students for your research
programme? Again, observing my
experimental colleagues, it seems they really want to take students to work on
their projects. Am I mistaken?
7 comments:
yes, in experimental field or even in non-experimental areas of engineering, a faculty starts taking students as soon as he/she joins as a tenured-track assistant prof in almost any university in USA and Canada. In my Phd/post doc career @ USA, I really did not come across any faculty in any engineering department who hasn't taken students soon after joining as faculty.
In experimental fields, one needs to spend extended hours in lab. It is highly improbable for the faculty to wear out working 12-14 hours in lab and then to write proposals, teach courses, attend non-technical admin meetings etc. So taking students immediately after joining in India is just as common a thing as in USA. However, the number of students being inducted may vary widely.
In fields such as computer science, postdoc is not mandatory (but nowadays its is becoming more common because of scarcity of positions). It is quite common for faculty to start supervising within a few months after finishing their PhD
In engineering, in the US (and now also in India), PhD guidance begins as soon as the faculty member is assured of receiving funds for the research program and the support for the student (whether included in the research program or otherwise). The joining ("career development" etc.) funds are these days available in IIXs immediately upon joining even to youngest faculty, and so, advising begins just as soon.
In my university (again focusing only on engg.), they don't give me a job (they are concerned about polluting the Mechanical branch with graduates of Metallurgy), and so, the issue of advising a PhD student soon after my own PhD simply didn't arise in my case.
As to others in my university, I think, typically, they themselves aren't comfortable accepting PhD students for quite some time after finishing their own PhDs. They like to enjoy the promotion and the increased pay-scale, or at least additional increments, and also prestige going along with it, in the meanwhile. Hope I am accurate, but that anyway is the feel I get when I run into this Dr. So and So and that Dr. So and So every so often these days.
Hope also that it was not a very long comment.
--Ajit
[E&OE]
I am in the US and not in math, but I have had a fair bit of exposure to a variety of physical science fields, so I will chime in.
Mathematicians at my university generally do not work with graduate students or postdocs until after tenure. However, it seems to depend on the field: people in applied math function very much like in CS or engineering, and I know a few who have groups the size of typical CS group, for instance, with a lot of extramural funding even as assistant professors. But I would not say there are absolutes. I know of a female assistant professor in math (number theory, algebraic geometry) who is considered a bit of a superstar and she mentors not only grad students but also undergrads; she enjoys it and is good at it. Several of her contemporaries collaborate with postdocs who are here on fellowships, so not really in a supervisory role but more of a relationship of equals.
But yes, since I have reviewed a number of math tenure cases, I can attest that in math, as a field, there is no expectation to have graduated a student or brought in research dollars by tenure (which are pretty much requirements in all other physical sciences).
Startup packages for new faculty will have money for equipment as well as a couple of research assistants across the physical science fields other than math, so people start supervising grad students pretty much right away. As for experimentalists in the physical sciences, they really need hands in the lab ASAP; they generally start with an empty room and just building the lab up is very demanding in manpower.
Thank you all for your perspectives in this matter.
@xykademiqz, glad to have the perspective from someone who has reviewed math tenure cases at a research intensive university. I did not know that in math, faculty are not expected to bring in research dollars before tenure.
I did not know that in math, faculty are not expected to bring in research dollars before tenure.
It's definitely not a requirement for tenure in math (our math department has is explicitly spelled out) as it is for other field. But many math faculty do have one NSF grant (or similar) to cover 1-2 months of summer salary (professors are paid 9 months by the university, no salary over the summer unless you bring grants).
In non-physical sciences significant research is done after 40s whereas in physical sciences 30 is the golden age.
Similarly one should guide a PhD student when they are confident that they will pass significant training to the student. In other words non-physical sciences it is routinely seen that PhD students are taken after Postdocs by young faculty in the US. Postdocs come trained and can help establish the research lab, however PhD student come with lots of responsibilities like
1. It is expensive to maintain a PhD student than a Postdoc.
2. You need to train a PhD student so more hours.
3. PhD students will spend first two years in clearing course work and rotations.
So young PIs in the west even if they want cannot take PhD students (rotations itself will delay by 2 yrs).
In India, PhD students are the major work force. PIs have no option but to use PhD students to develop their labs and projects. If given an option, I believe young PIs would prefer a Postdoc over a PhD student while lab is being set. PhD-supervisor relation is a life long relation so training a PhD student decision should be taken after a long thought.
Also training a PhD student is not about finding a new signaling pathway/ protein/ structure/ phenomenon but developing a research attitude and aptitude.. and training a thinker, philosopher and a global citizen.
Post a Comment