Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Musings of a Ph.D. student

Celebrating 6 years of blogging - a contributed post to my friend

My school friend, Meenakshi has been blogging for six years now. I have been following her blogs in the past year and we got an opportunity to discuss some of her posts last year when I was in Chennai. I like reading her posts, and some of them are quite informative. I wish her all the best in her writing and wish that she keeps up her stories! Here is a link to her blog. I am tempted to follow her up on some of the topics discussed in her blogs, but that is for later.
Recently (I have to admit that the word 'recent' here means few months ago) she requested me to write a guest article to celebrate her milestone. I readily accepted, as I was looking for an opportunity to write something, but have been somewhat busy to get down to it. Now that I have an opportunity, I needed a topic. I asked her for suggestions. She said, 'Why not write something on Padmini mam?' (Padmini mam is our high school chemistry teacher), or 'Compare college experiences of US and India?', or my experience on visiting India after being in US, or what kind of things a Ph.D. student goes through (since in her opinion, not many people really understand what Ph.D. is, and they think that we while away the time reading their favourite books, or they think that people do Ph.D.s because they don't get jobs!). All were interesting suggestions, but from my experiences, I thought it best to touch on aspects concerning the first and last on her list, namely involving our school teacher, and also my life as a Ph.D. student. That way I will have a bone to pick with people who claim that we do Ph.D. just because we don't get jobs. So here goes.
I would like to divide this article into three parts not only from a chronological point of view, but also to organise my thoughts to convey what I would like to the reader. The first part will follow the thoughts of a school kid in a typical city school - compete,compete,compete for the first rank, get an IIT rank, and then get admission to a university in US. Is this 'following the American dream'? I don't know. But that is the attitude in the majority of households in a city like Chennai, where every family wants to have their sons and daughters 'abroad'. The second part will shadow my experiences as a Ph.D. student in the U.S. of A, now that I have crossed the seven seas in par with my peers. What then? Has life come to an end? What next? What does a Ph.D. mean? I don't have answers, but I will try to collect my thoughts on some of these questions based on the examples set forth by the greats in science in the third part.

Madras to Madison

At a time when students entering high school swarmed to coaching centres that trains students to appear for the extremely competitive, and unduly stressful IIT entrance exams (for engineering streams) and PMPD entrance exam (for a medical career), it takes a great amount of courage and self-realisation not to be part of this crowd. One of my school teachers pointed out (during a school class period) that one must realise one's own potential before stepping into the above-mentioned competitive exams, and that when you try to stand on too many pumpkins in the water, you invariably fall into the water. It might have been a fleeting comment, but this comment of hers came at the right moment in my case, and she was my chemistry teacher- Miss Padmini Iyer. She warned and rightly so out of experience, that majority of people spend time and money on going to these coaching centres, don't have enough time to keep up with school work and eventually fail to do well in school or in the entrance exams. She was very wise to point out indirectly, what peer pressure can do to an otherwise well-performing student. I am very grateful to her for her harsh pieces of advice, because without them, I would have not performed as well in school. I could write a separate article on her, but to keep it brief, she is one person who has influenced me very much in terms of her sincerity, dedication, eccentricity, thoroughness, and love of chemistry. She being my favourite teacher, I could not learn enough from her, and I hope part of the dedication of my thesis to her serves as a small tribute to her as a teacher. So then, I did fairly well in my high school board exams, and enrolled into a Bachelor's program in chemistry. 
The next six years (six again!) saw me through my bachelor's and master's degrees, at the end of which I secured admission to the Chemistry Ph.D. program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. Since I have devoted this article to my Ph.D. years, I do not wish to dwell on these six years, except to say that college education in the arts and sciences has much to improve in India, and that without exposure to research in institutes like IITs or IISc (which mostly happens at the Master's level for science students), securing admission to universities abroad for several talented and bright students from other universities is a more difficult process. Universities in the US are aware of these two institutes, but are rarely able to make a fair judgement of students from other universities, frequently since students from these two places are considered to be the 'cream' of the lot. Indian education has much to improve in terms of its undergraduate science education, atleast its attitude towards it in the last two decades or so. A science or arts student is often considered to be in such a degree because they failed to secure a good rank in the engineering or medical entrance exams -- the stupidity of this attitude is only too evident. That being said, I will move on to some aspects of my time as a graduate student in the U.S. 

Madisonite years - 'Piled Higher and Deeper'

I have to inform the reader that these are musings of a graduate student in a typical U.S. university. When doing Ph.D. in Indian universities, one rarely has to teach while doing research. On the other hand, almost all students who have been in a science or mathematics Ph.D. program in U.S. typically teach one or several semesters while doing research rest of the time. The life of a graduate student then, comprises of being a teaching and research assistant. In the title of this section I have adopted the title 'Piled Higher and Deeper' from a popular series of comics aimed at the graduate student audience - 'Ph.D.comics'. The title conveys several things a student goes through - life in the university, life as a teaching assistant (TA), life as a researcher, life at home and one is 'piled' up all the way through in all of these aspects. I will recollect some of these aspects below.
Another article of mine reflected on my non-academic experiences in the U.S., and my musings on the american culture. To stop short of selling myself, I would encourage the reader to read that article to provide a complementary side of my stay in Madison!
I have to admit that the present reflections as a teaching assistant are mostly related to amusing incidents that have made my role more memorable. On a serious note, many will agree with me that one only learns a topic when they are able to teach it. Although I secured much 'bookish' knowledge in my Master's degree, I realised that I had to start from the very basics in order to first understand a topic myself in order to be able to teach it. Apart from this, I faced other barriers in the initial part of my teaching experience. One was the intimidating feeling of standing in front of a group of people (popularly known as 'stage fright'), another was the change of culture and learning to understand the accent (in spite of I being a hollywood movie buff), a third was the prospect of grading a mountain of student homeworks, quizzes and exams. Typically once or twice a semester, the teaching assistant is evaluated by students in terms of how effectively the TA has taught, and whether he/she is approaches, punctual etc. Interestingly enough, when my evaluation scores came during the first semester, I was amused to find that students found everything in my quite acceptable, except my grading style. They judged me to be a 'harsh' grader. What that means is that I have not given them credit for their effort, even if their final answers were wrong. I have to admit that that is entirely not my doing. For sixteen years of my life, the education system in India is such that the teacher typically crosses out an answer if the final answer is not correct, and if you are lucky, there will be few teachers who will fairly give you credit for the part of the answer that is correct. I had done so, but they were not satisfied that I had given them no credit for the 'effort' even if it landed in the wrong answer. Also they complained that I did not provide feedback to support my harsh grading style. I smiled to myself, and told myself that how I wish my teachers had given me feedback every time they crossed out even my partially right answers. I did change my grading style to a more lenient one, and one where I gave more feedback, and also spent more time with students on one-on-one basis. I enjoyed these sessions thoroughly and wished we have smaller classes in India to encourage such things. Another amusing time was when I came to the TA office one day early morning at 8 am all ready, fresh and perked up for a discussion at 9.10 am. I had my notes prepared, and I was looking forward to a good discussion session. I also had an assignment due in one of my graduate courses that morning, and I had to complete a last bit of it. I did so by 8.30 or so, and for whatever earthly reason, completely blanked out about my teaching duties as I got absorbed in some problem in my course-work. Time passed by, and at 9.30 am, two of the students from the class dropped by my desk to enquire whether there was to be a discussion. Oh the horror of the lapse in my memory! I am certain that she saw my face go pale. I smile at this tragic memory loss of mine, but at the time, I nearly had a panic attack. That was the last time I decided to work on a problem close to an hour of teaching. Anecdotes aside, I have made very good friends with my batchmates, and I think the teaching experience enhanced interactions not only in teaching courses, but also in discussing our research.
Reflecting on my role as a research assistant, it was very different. I had to learn to be more independent, and incorporate some sort of discipline to carry out my research in parallel with my teaching duties. I had some experience doing research doing my time at IISc, but managing it with teaching duties is a different ordeal altogether. A third part of your life has to do with managing domestic work, something again that is rare in an Indian university scenario, where typically students live in campus hostels and do not need to manage domestic work. An amusing side to doing research is how it trains you to coin technical terms for something that's perfectly simple to say. The following comic in the Ph.D. comics series comes to my mind- The sentence "Workspace augmentation of photon impingement through impurities removal" that means to say "washing the laboratory's windows". The comic has a different message to it, portraying the graduate student as a slave to the supervisor, which however the reader need not care about. Well, its fun to do this sometimes to just tax your brain to say simple things in a stressfully sophisticated way. On a more serious note, being a research assistant is almost a privileged role, because he/she is being paid to learn. Graduate years are some of the most enjoyable years in one's life, I think, for there is no other comparable time that is otherwise free of responsibility (apart from that you have towards your research), free of administrative duties (imagine how many things a professor takes care of), or free of  social obligations (this depends on the research group, but ideally there are none). I personally think that the freedom and independence that comes with it are worth the frustrations that come with research. Research may sound frustrating, but usually life gets interesting only when things don't act in an expected way. I learnt this attitude somewhat during the later years of my Ph.D., and its not easy to see this in the first few months of starting research. With constant pressure to publish, graduate students these days don't always have the proper mentorship that teaches them the pleasures of doing research. Often, the student have to see it for themselves as they gain experience. 
What should a Ph.D. degree give you? What has it given me? Before I direct you to my case, I encourage visiting this link about depicting Ph.D. in pictures. As it is mentioned in the end, it is important to keep in mind, that doing science does not mean losing perspective on life. Science cannot explain everything, and Albert Einstein said, "It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." Certain things are only to be experienced; science may not be able to articulate them in a way that conveys the same meaning. I would say that Ph.D., without doubt, enhances your research skills such as asking meaningful questions, model-building capabilities, problem-solving skills, sense of constructive critique, appreciate the power of rational thought, and confidence to tackle a new problem. In my case, I feel that I have learnt a bit of each of these qualities. 

What comes after Ph.D.?

Recently I read an article titled 'The Ph.D. factory - The world is producing more Ph.D.s than ever before. Is it time to stop?' The same issue of the journal had several other articles on the Ph.D. degree, how it no longer guarantees a ticket to an academic career, and needs some serious rethinking, on how the program needs to be reformed from the practice of the middle ages, and what the degree is really worth in the job market. Ah, but the list does not end there. These are probably practical aspects of having this degree, and how it can help you to earn a livelihood. But is that the only end a student of science sees? I will not deny that one needs food to eat, clothes to wear, and a house to live in. And that all of us study hard to land in a job that will enable us to live well. But to push this degree altogether into a category of 'necessary skills' to make a living or be part of a 'labour market' to contribute to economic growth is just criminal. The idea of doing science goes into the heart of evolution of the human brain, how it has a thirst for knowledge, and how it thrives on the sheer satisfaction of deciphering how the world works around him/her. I may be a romantic in stating this, but this is an aspect many seem to overlook in the rat race of making money, name and fame. If one is looking for any of these, science is not a business and not the arena in which to fight for! Interestingly enough, a post-doctorate even though specialised in their area of research, are a set of people with a remarkable sense of adaptability and do well in several fields. Whether they are in a job of their choice, or forced to be in one to earn their living is a separate issue. 
Before the second world war, I believe, getting a Ph.D. degree was a privilege, and such a degree holder was held in the highest regard, and was looked upon as an intellectual thinker. The past two or three decades however, has seen an explosion in the number of people obtain a doctorate degree, and with it, a somewhat dilution in their and their science quality. There is increasing competition to secure an academic position and to obtain funding for research projects. The selection criteria for people has evolved into one based on the number of journal paper publications, and not based on creativity, motivation, talent, or sincerity. This trend has fostered a 'publish or perish' attitude, where researchers want to churn out quick and dirty publications, merely to increase their number in their curriculum vitae. Several of these publications often lack in comprehensive analysis, sound arguments and make unfounded claims. The criteria for selecting candidates for a professor position are thus stereotyped for certain type of individuals. The fact that the peer-review system in several journals is a broken one (by that I mean two-sided anonymity of journal article submissions are not followed) compounds the problem. The journals are clogged with meaningless papers and a researcher these days spends more time sifting through them to just keep up with the literature in their field and leaves little time to diversify or broaden their horizons by reading literature outside their expertise area. The other side of the coin is not a pleasant sight either. Even if one secures an academic position, applying and obtaining funds for research projects seem to be based on how much one's research will impact society or 'contribute to innovation'. Science should be driven by intellectual curiosity, not by policy makers. A scientist is no less than a romantic, because he starts with the thought that anything is possible, and then uses experiments and theories to weed out that which is not. Where would we be if scientists like Max Planck thought of the impact on society when he proposed that light is composed of 'energy packets'? Not all hypotheses are correct, not all experiments work, but we (as in all people, not just scientists) have to have the perspective and tenacity to support exploratory, high-risk research rather than a goal-based problem solving approach. I do not think we (atleast I) have the clairvoyance to say what is worth and not worth doing. Science is not just about finding ways to cure disease, or discover ways to prolong one's life. It is rare to find proposals (funded i.e.) where one is allowed to do 'innocent' research - a project that is more exploratory and one that has no policy relevance. To quote my own Ph.D. work, what policy relevance can be there by knowing how the atoms in a molecule dance (study of vibrations) when light is shown on them? Albert Einstein said, " The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science."  
Addressing a more practical issue, what can a Ph.D. scientist do? Several things, encompassing both academics and industry. They can step into an academic career of a professor, a teacher, a policy maker, or academic administration; or in an industry environment, join 'R & D' labs, even join Wall Street jobs! The last possibility, I think has some interesting background to it. I have seen articles where they argue that brilliant scientists are drawn into such high-paying jobs because the competition for funding within academics, and also the fact that professors are typically not as well-paid as people in other careers. But there is good reason to it. Given that aspiring post-doctorates are looking for satisfying careers and do not want to channel their energy to scratch someone else's back so as to publish papers, or get funding, can we blame them? I am not saying that the back-scratching happens all the time, but politics is inevitably present in academics too. Some become disillusioned because of this culture, others choose to go away from it all. That being said, my point here was to merely mention that Ph.D. as a degree is not limited to the life of a professor, and one finds science Ph.D. degree holders in all kinds of fields. In my case, I did not worry about where my Ph.D. would lead me, but allowed me to enjoy what I like and do most- research. Regardless of how some people label post-doctorates as 'the ugly underbelly of academia', I could not care less, because I think it is important to do what one likes most, so much so that it becomes an integral part of your life. Curiosity-driven research has an innocence, perseverance and purity to it, something that every science student should keep in mind. Whether I land up being a professor, or someone else, I will know when I cross the bridge!






No comments:

Post a Comment