This page has had
visitors since February 20, 1996.
Welcome to the CoC Ph.D. Student Handbook webpage. This document was written by Ph.D. students and faculty members from the CoC and other universities and is intended to serve as a "survival guide" for getting through the Ph.D. program. It covers topics from every level of the Ph.D. program starting with the first quarter and continues right on through with tips on getting a job (preferably a good one). For each chapter the author(s) is(are) listed and a link to their webpage is provided.
The table of contents is as follows:
If you find any errors, please let the Editor know (address below).
Hope you find this document informative.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Is interested in you as a person.
Balances the roles of academic guide, evaluator, and friend.
Includes you in important decisions, business meetings, demos, collaboration with outside visitors.
Shows confidence in your ideas (i.e. doesn't shoot your ideas down without thinking about it first and giving you a chance to explain).
Keeps communication channels open (email, meetings, etc.).
When collaborating with other faculty in a meeting and include you, make sure you are brought up to speed in terms of the context (i.e. don't start the meeting without cluing you in first).
Adapts to different working styles (this goes both ways of course) - some students may need a lot of meetings while others need few meetings - small tasks vs. big tasks, etc.
Is someone you can trust.
Helps you in difficult situations.
Encourages and motivates you.
Can be tactfully blunt when things aren't going well and won't wait till it's too late to say so.
Doesn't read their email when they meet with you.
Makes sure you know and clearly understand:
Is Several Steps Ahead, Thinking of what to prepare you for next.
Is compassionate.
Has a lot of knowledge of the field.
Has your best interests in mind.
Is willing to listen (open to new ideas).
Has a vision (a good one of course).
Is knowledgeable, well known, doing good research....etc.
Spends sufficient time with you every week.
Is willing to discuss things with you in as much detail as you wish.
Helps you when you are stuck.
Is able to tell you in which direction to go.
Is able to tell you when you are messing things up.
Offers constructive criticism when they're not satisfied with your performance.
Is able to tell you when you are not putting forth sufficient effort.
Praises you (or at least acknowledges you) for good work, or hard work.
Comforts you (or at least encourages you to try again) when your paper doesn't get accepted.
Speaks well about you to outsiders, invited speakers (if you deserve it).
Gives you good feedback on your ideas, and points out any trouble spots.
Teaches you how to do research.
Doesn't let you get away with shoddy work.
Is a good story-teller (i.e. to inspire you with stories of famous scientists).
Smiles at you in the corridor.
Gives you feed back on a regular and frequent basis (positive &/or negative).
Sets concrete objectives (short-term and long-term). These should interest the student and the advisor.
Is supportive of you work and reviews your work before you present it to the public.
Dicusses disagreements (and works things out) with you in private. And talks to you first and directly before talking about it with someone else.
Inspires enthusiasm for work in the field.
Is understanding of student life: poverty-stricken, short of time.
Knows when to press a student who needs it.
Puts his student's interests before his own (within reason).
Shows you the research/university life ropes.
Is open minded, patient, and has a little time for students.
Isn't a foreigner-phobe, and doesn't discriminate.
Helps students priortize things (if student is having a difficult time).
Can and will help you find a good job.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Is a good collaborator:
Takes initiative:
Is creative:
Click here to return to the table of contents.
As of this writing, no one has taken an Area Exam yet. However, it appears to similar to the former A.I. and Intelligent Systems Depth Exam which we have passed and we think our ideas might be helpful.
First, the Area Exam instills more fear in CoC students than any other hurdle in the Ph.D. program. But believe us, if we can pass, so can you, you just need a little strategy. We recommend you consider your Area Exam strategy long before you actually sit at your xterminal to take it.
The objective of the area exam is to evaluate whether you are capable of doing Ph.D. work. This means evaluating your capabilities to perform good research in the area you have chosen. Keep in mind that this is not an easy job for your committee and that they will not only evaluate your performance during the exam but also your history in the CoC. One of the best ways to demonstrate that you can perform good research is to actually do it! and for that you must learn in depth the knowledge related to your field.
With that in mind, here are a few things you can do to tip the odds in your favor:
However, this may not be enough. Publishing papers is good sign that you have performed research, but remember that you will be under very different time constraints during the exam. Do not rely on the fact that you have some papers published, but on the experience you have gone through in publishing and presenting those papers. Usually, this consists of knowing some of the open problems in the field you have chosen, being able to discuss some of the previous work and proposed solutions, arguing about their advantages and disadvantages, situating and defending your work in the field, etc. When you publish a paper you explore these issues in some detail and in the process of doing that you learn more about research, expand your knowledge about the field, and grow in experience. This prepares you better for understanding the questions and expressing your answers during the tight time constraints of the Area Exam and for your future PhD thesis.
Don't take the exam until you're ready. The rules say you should take it between the 7th and 9th quarters. If you won't be ready by the 9th quarter, don't take the exam! The worst that will happen is you get an ugly note from the Ph.D. Review Committee. Big deal, that's better than leaving school. In most cases however, 9 quarters is plenty of time to be ready.
Choose your committee carefully. You get to pick the committee (even in A.I.). They don't have to be in your area, and only a majority have to be even in the College. Usually the fewer members the better; you only open yourself up to more criticism with a larger committee. Also, remember that your advisor does not get to vote. You must convince the other members of the committee to pass you. To put it bluntly: pick people who will pass you.
Don't just read the papers, know the papers. The reading list represents what the committee wants you to know, they aren't kidding. Also, the reading list represent relevant background knowledge you should know to be able to perform good research. Knowing these papers will not only help you to pass the Area Exam but also help you to continue your PhD career successfully since it represents a compendium of the work of the community in your field. You can start early on this by looking at the list now and taking any and all courses in which papers on the reading list are discussed. This leads back to not taking the exam until you are ready. Even if the course that covers paper X is given only once every two years, don't take the exam until you take the course. If this is the case, tell your advisor about it in advance. The faculty might be able to adjust the course schedule. If you are in the situation that you might go beyond 9 quarters because you are waiting on a course, make sure you put it on the form you submit for the Ph.D. Review.
Taking the exam: The single most important thing you can do is get a good night's sleep. Don't even think about cramming. There is nothing you can learn the night before taking the Area Exam that will change the outcome of your performance. On the multi-question part of the exam (the first day), make certain that you divide your time evenly between the questions. Answer something to every question, make sure you answer the familiar questions correctly, then go back to the tough ones at the end. Have all the papers from the reading list easily indexed and available. You might need to go to some specific page during the exam to refresh some point you are trying to make. You will probably find that the ``creative'' question (the three-day part) is right up your alley.
Whereas the intent of the multiple questions section is to evaluate your depth of knowledge in the field, the intent of the creative question section is to evaluate your research approach to a difficult open problem (depending on the your committee of course). There is no standard answer this question (if it were then the answer would not be creative!). However, it always helps to formulate your answer strategy before starting to write. Also, it is always advisable to take a research stance in the answer strategy: analyze the problem, suggest solutions based on previous work, analyze their advantages and disadvantages, propose novel ways to overcome the disadvantages, explain why are they novel, discuss evaluation procedures, conclude about the potential benefits and limitations of your solution. Keep in mind that merely suggesting a weird and strange solution to is not enough to be creative. You must also properly justify the decisions you make and make explicit the assumptions you are making for your weird solution.
The oral: Go in with a plan. Anticipate what they will ask. Did you flub up one of the questions? Do you think they might disagree with one of your stances? Was one of your answers bizarre or unusual? Make up overheads to address these issues. Make more than you'll need, be prepared for any question. When you go in there, take the lead. If you did mess up a question, open with something like ``I think I might have given a confusing answer to question X, I'd like to explain what I meant.'' They will be much more confident in your abilities if you know you messed it up than if they have to tell you. Finally, listen carefully to the questions, make sure you understand what they are getting at before you commit to an answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Well, as sad as it may sound, it turns out that you will never feel ready: there is always something you don't know. But, keep in mind that the objective of the Area Exam is to evaluate if you are prepared to perform PhD work and this means, among other things, that you should be able to investigate about what you don't know effectively and efficiently. Thus, the more you know about the field and the more you will be able to focus on what is missing, make inferences, and formulate hypothesis. A good sign is when you can follow the flow of your thoughts from one topic to another making justified connections among them.
The strategy for reading the papers depends on personal style, background, interests, time, etc. Some people prefer to categorize the papers and read all the papers from one category at a time, others prefer to read the papers in chronological order of publication, others use the order used in the reading list. What is really important is that you understand the paper to a level that you can use its content to do both: place other work in its perspective or place its work in others perspective. At the beginning you may feel that reading some of the papers takes you enormous time and that it has nothing to do with the other papers you have read or your research. It happens! but as with many other things in life, you will get better with training. Just do it!
Good things to do:
Make a reading schedule well before hand and try to keep it up to date. Make a chart on the wall and cross out papers as you finish them, this will give you a sense of accomplishment as you go along.
Hunt down and read references that are repeatedly cited in the readings even if it is not in the reading list.
Type a synopsis of each paper into a file. You can search over this file later on for keywords.
Type a bibliographic entry for each paper as you go along, this will make it easy to include citations when you take the exam.
Bad things to do:
Think that something is not too important when you don't understand it that well.
Believe you are done.
There are always opportunities to publish. Most of the time they start with and independent study you do with your advisor or other professor or the work you do as a research assistant. Your advisor may help you identify the conferences or workshops that are relevant for the work you want to present. Usually, it is easier (and even better!) to get into workshops than conferences. Although conferences are more prestigious, workshops provide a better environment for discussion so you can meet a lot of people and spend more time listening to their ideas and getting feedback of your work. Sometimes you get rejection letters and some times you get notification of acceptance. Take the criticism seriously and use it to enhance your work. To publish and present a paper is not an easy job. You need to work hard, read a lot, be able to express yourself, have writing skills, and be persistent, but it is very exciting and fun. After all, this is what research is about.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
My good fortune in reviewing four dissertations in the last four weeks has catalyzed my thoughts on what I expect to see when I read one, and I thought that I would convey them to you so you have at least one data point on what a committee member expects when reading a dissertation.
First, I think that it is important to differentiate between a thesis and a dissertation. The dictionary defines a thesis to be "a proposition that is maintained by argument" and a dissertation to be "a lengthy, formal treatise, especially one written by a candidate for the doctoral degree at a university." That is, a thesis is a contention or principle of which you would like to convince your reader. A dissertation is a written presentation of it.
Because the purpose of the dissertation is to present a thesis, it makes sense to present it as early as possible. And because you may have readers with dissimilar backgrounds, it makes sense to present the thesis at a high level of abstraction. Combining these two observations leads to the suggestion that you begin your dissertation with your thesis, and that your thesis be initially expressed as a single sentence. Whether or not you follow this guideline, it is still a useful exercise to construct such a sentence. This may sometimes be realized as "the elevator speech": You are sharing an elevator with an acquaintance who asks you about your work, but will only be with you for fifteen seconds. What do you say? Alternatively, you can use the abstract thesis sentence as a starter when your Mother asks you what it is that you have been working on for so long.
Once you have clearly stated what your thesis is, you have two obligations to fulfill in your dissertation: You must convince your reader that the problem you are solving is a worthwhile problem to attack, and you must unequivocally demonstrate that you have solved it.
It is essential that you strongly justify all the effort that it takes to get a PhD. And unless the value of your thesis is self- evident, like your have solved the world hunger problem, then the justification will require you to place your work in relation to a set of larger problems and to the work that others are doing in the field.
It is a useful exercise to periodically justify the time and energy that you spend in terms of your goals in life. If, for example, you are working on solving a particular variant of the P == NP problem, then, presumably, your solution will help computer scientists better understand the power and limitations of computation, which, in turn, helps us make more effective use of computers in solving the world's problems. In your own mind, if not in your dissertation, you should justify each of these steps: are computers a positive tool in solving the world's problems, is understanding the limitations of computation essential to making effective use of computers, and is your own particular work useful in understand P and NP. At least some of this justification should appear in the motivation section of your dissertation.
2. The Related Work Section
Of course, an easy way to motivate your work is to point out that other researchers throughout the world have recognized its importance by devoting their energies to solving it. And you can provide evidence of this in the Related Work section of you dissertation.
This section is frequently misused and often boring. Perhaps it is best to begin with a list of what a Related Work section is not. It is not an inventory of all of the papers in a subject area that you have added to your personal bibliography. And it is not a collection of one sentence dismissals of other researchers. A Related Works section is an opportunity to present the evolution of ideas in your area and how the problem addressed in your dissertation relates to these ideas.
A proper discussion of an "evolution of ideas" requires both an "ontology" and an "ontogeny". For the purposes of this document, an ontology is a vocabulary of interrelated concepts. They can be formally presented, but more likely are informally, but precisely delineated. Similarly, an ontogeny describes how a collection of related ideas evolves over time, often reflected in the introduction of new terminology or a transformation in problem specifications.
The culmination of the Related Works section is a description of how your problem naturally fits into the ontogeny and how it relates to other current work in the same problem area. Which raises the question of how exactly to treat the work of other researchers. There are two possibilities: either the other researchers are working on a different problem (which should be clearly differentiate using the ontology, or they have have solved the problem a different way (which places on you the obligation of explaining the nature of the difference and why their solution is inadequate). In practice, of course, your differentiation from your competitors will be a combination of the two.
B. Obligation 2: Validating Your Thesis
The second obligation--to prove your case--is much more problematic and interesting, than the first. The bulk of your dissertation is an argument that step by step demonstrates that you have in fact reached a solution. My second suggestion is that you present these steps early and in a bulleted list. Doing so will have the added benefit of giving you an opportunity to describe the structure of you dissertation without the boring litany of "Chapter 1 contains ..., Chapter 2 contains...".
There are three basic paradigms in Computer Science for presenting a convincing argument: the theoretical, the empirical, and, for lack of a better term, the aesthetic.
A theoretical argument is a proof. That is, your problem space is a theory, your thesis a proposition, and your proof demonstrates that your thesis follows from the axioms of your theory. Such arguments are typical of the more mathematical and formal aspects of Computer Science.
2. Empirical Theses
Empirical arguments are also possible, particularly in areas like human factors and psychology, where it is possible to actually design and execute experiments. There are well- established rules in these areas for stating hypotheses and for demonstrating significant results. A variant of this kind of experiment is sometimes seen when a simulation is constructed and executed on some suitably random distribution of input data. Another variant is the systematic case study, sometimes seen in situations where it is impractical to isolate the independent variables being considered.
3. Design Theses
By far the most problematic situation arises with a "design" dissertation; that is, where a problem solution is demonstrated by actually constructing an artifact and arguing that somehow it exhibits certain difficult-to-measure properties, such as "elegance" or "simplicity". For this reason, I have called it an "aesthetic" argument, and warn you that it opens the door to all kinds of criticism. One way to forestall or mitigate the criticism is by way of testimonials; that is, an independent user of the artifact who is willing to state that he/she has actually used the artifact for some external purpose. Of course, supporting an external customer is additional work, and spanning the gulf between a "proof of concept" prototype and a production quality tool can be a formidable challenge. Nevertheless, research funding agencies are now looking more and more for the latter than the former. And actually putting in the extra effort while still a graduate student can give an aspiring assistant professor a head start in his/her research program development.
A section of the dissertation which is often written in a boilerplate fashion is the "Future Work" section. In particular, your reader has very little interest in what you intend to do in the future. In many cases, the author has little interest as well and is merely staking out some turf in the hope that either the reader will be persuaded not to pursue some promising topic because somehow the author has already branded it, or that his/her committee will not persevere in requiring an answer to some tough question because of a promise made in the Future Works section.
Despite these difficulties, there is still a need for a speculative section in a dissertation; that is, some discussion of questions that the dissertation raises but will not attempt to answer. In particular, any good research insight will raise interesting questions, and it will often be the case that one or more answers or answer directions will appear promising. It is entirely appropriate to raise and discuss these issues. After all, you are probably in a better position to do so than anyone else.
Another spin on this section is to discuss the implications of your now validated thesis. That is, feel free to predict the future in a well reasoned argument, the hypothesis of which you have just proven.
A dissertation has two purposes, roughly corresponding to viewing it as a product or as a process. On the product side, the dissertation is the description of a successful piece of research and, as such, should contain a properly motivated hypothesis and a well-grounded argument that validates it. To this extent, the comments made in this document can be readily specialized to any research paper. Viewed as a process, the dissertation serves as a final exam of an intensive course of research training. As such, it needs to give evidence of an understanding of the current state of a research field and the research procedures of that field (whether they be theorem proving, experiment design, or prototype implementation) can be correctly applied. It is the intent of this document to convince you not only that both views can be presented simultaneously, but that, in fact, your dissertation will be better for having done so. Oh yes, and don't forget the other important rule of CS dissertations construction: always include a quote from Lewis Carroll.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
In the acrimony surrounding Governor Weld's refusal to back a salary increase for UMass faculty, we have heard too many vague, ill-informed statements about how professors spend their time. Our purpose here is to describe a week in the life of couple of professors, so the taxpayers of Massachusetts can draw their own conclusions about whether we are underworked and overpaid, as alleged by Secretary Baker. We are associate professors in Computer Science and Psychology, respectively, at the Amherst campus of the University of Massachusetts. We are typical of faculty in strong research departments. Last week was intersession, when faculty don't teach. Otherwise it was a typical week. We worked from 9am to 11pm every day last week with 2-hour breaks for exercise and dinner, and we regularly work on the weekends. If the following account seems a bit scattered, that's an accurate picture: most faculty divide their time between teaching, research, committee work, advising students, and writing papers and proposals. Our days are long, but we are not complaining; our jobs are intellectually rewarding and many people work longer hours for fewer rewards.
Last week's research efforts were especially rewarding for Carole, who finished a study of 32 children in Springfield, MA. It took all day, Wednesday, to get the last four children interviewed (paying the $5 stipend for each participant in the project out of her own pocket, as well as their parking costs) and much of Thursday and Friday to analyze the data. Paul spent roughly ten hours working with graduate students on several projects, and four hours of preparation. Carole learned that four pieces of work had been accepted for presentation at a conference this summer, and spent some time informing her coauthors and preparing revisions. (Carole spends roughly $1500/year of her own money attending conferences.) Paul finished editing a paper for a symposium this March, helped two graduate students edit their papers for the same symposium, and revised some figures for a forthcoming book. Each of us spent approximately four hours writing letters of recommendation for undergraduates and graduate students, and another two hours advising these students on how to write applications for graduate school, fellowships, postdoctoral and faculty positions. So far this winter Carole has sent out about 200 letters of recommendation for students, all prepared on her own office computer, with supplies (paper and printer toner) purchased out of her own pocket because the University does not provide office supplies beyond a few legal pads a semester. Paul read the dissertation of a researcher who might join his lab, spent two hours discussing research with a faculty colleague, and three hours on the phone with collaborators in Colorado and New Jersey.
Funding is a continuing headache. The national funding picture is changing so rapidly that it's a full-time job to keep current. We spent an hour meeting with Paul's lab manager, who is coordinating a series of proposals to NSF, NASA, NIH and private foundations pertaining to science education for women and minorities. Paul spent two additional hours in funding meetings, two hours on the phone with funding agents and colleagues, and an hour in email. This was a slow week; the next major proposal isn't due until Feb. 15. We have submitted or coordinated three proposals, two preproposals, and two fellowship proposals since mid-December, but funding is so tight that Paul will be lucky to see one proposal in four funded. Funding is even more limited in Carole's field (perhaps 5% of psychology proposals submitted to federal sources are funded), so she does not realistically expect any of the six proposals she has submitted so far this year to be funded. Paul must maintain funding for four staff and five graduate students, a medium-size lab for Computer Science.
Most faculty serve the university and national communities. Carole sits on the personnel committee, Paul is the graduate program director. We each sit on international editorial boards and conference committees. Last week, Carole spent 2 hours and Paul 6 hours on these responsibilities; note that when the term is in session, these times increase significantly as the result of regular committee meetings and increased task assignments. Next week, Paul will start working through a stack of journal articles to review. Carole reviews 1-2 manuscripts a week on a regular basis for journals in her field; each review requires 1-2 hours.
Email claimed roughly 30 minutes each day last week; despite this, it's an efficient way to answer questions from students, coordinate projects across the country, set up meetings, and so on. Carole has been involved since July in efforts to obtain birth record information from the state Office of Vital Statistics in Boston; this information is required by the faculty and graduate students in her research area to recruit infant and child participants in research, including masters and doctoral projects. Although the application for this information was approved the information still has not been provided; Carole spends an hour a week on the phone and writing letters on this topic. In addition, she and several colleagues have spent approximately 2 hours a week for the last 4 months trying to arrange for our research office in Springfield MA to be moved to a new location. This involved driving to Springfield to look at new offices, as well as completing forms required by the University and the State. Although the space we have found is significantly cheaper and safer than the current location -- which is downright dangerous -- we learned yesterday that the paperwork will take a year to be approved by the University Planning office and DCPO in Boston. Thus, this task will continue to occupy several hours a week for the next year, time that is not recognized in any formal way yet is essential for the maintenance of our graduate and undergraduate courses.
Next week Paul will spend approximately eight hours on TA assignments, getting ready for the new term. Speaking of which, we both spent approximately four hours last week selecting readings for our respective seminars. When term begins, Carole will teach two courses; Paul, one. His funding supports a colleague to teach his remaining course. We will spend approximately three hours per course per week in the classroom and roughly six hours per course meeting in preparation. In addition, Carole spends one evening a week (3 hours) attending a graduate student - faculty research seminar; this seminar meets every week, term in and out; attendance is essential, and Carole makes regular presentations at these seminars as well as help students prepare for their presentations, which provide essential training for conference presentations, job interviews and other professional presentations. Carole also spends 5-6 hours per week meeting with students in her courses, particularly in one of her spring courses in which students conduct projects in the community and need very careful direct supervision. She lost an hour this week to a student who didn't show up for a scheduled appointment, and another explaining to irate students who have been closed out of her oversubscribed spring courses that the courses are full, and advising them about possible alternatives (which are few in number, because our department has lost several faculty who have not been replaced). Several of these students may face difficulties in completing graduation requirements by May because they cannot get into courses required for their major.
Not all faculty spend their time as we do. Some spend more time teaching, some devote more time to funding, many have much heavier committee responsibilities. We are happy in our jobs, and we are fortunate to have them, but we hope it's clear that we are not underworked or overpaid. We and our colleagues are weary. We have little time to read journals or new books, or keep up with Internet traffic (although Carole spends roughly $500/year on books, out of pocket, because the University library has been devastated by cuts.) We don't really have the time to write this letter. Perhaps this is why people are so ill-informed about what professors do: we don't have time to explain ourselves to the community. We take on more work every year, as our labs branch out into new areas, and we teach more students. We spend more of our own money on research every year. We aren't funded by the University during the summer, although we aren't on vacation; most of the activities described above continue unabated. It's absurd that a couple of professors feel the need to explain themselves to the community. Surely, the University should take at least this responsibility, instead of issuing "report cards" that the public and the legislature interpret as admissions of failure.
Click here to return to the table of contents.
Click here to return to the table of contents.