Getting a humane salary while doing your PhD

Let's face it, a PhD nowadays takes anywhere between 4 to 7 years, and I have seen even 8 or 9 in some special occasions.   That's almost 10% of your life, assuming a life expectancy of about 80 years. Most PhD students are getting paid way below the poverty line, and even with teaching duties and obscure scholarships, it's still gonna be a little tight to cover the basics.  Mugu has seen enough PhD students subsisting on eggs, toasts, and the occasional canned corned beef.   I am probably missing a vegetable somewhere, but you get my point.

On the other hand, Mugu also knows a few PhD students who managed to conduct their studies with a humane salary and healthy life style.  These are not super geniuses, but their being in creature comfort let them do some pretty impressive work unimpeded.  To quote Charleston Heston in the Ten Commandments, "A city is made of brick, Pharaoh.  The strong make many.  The weak make few. The dead make none."

Now, Mugu wants to throw some ideas at you.  While you are not going to get rich doing a PhD, you will not worry whether you will have enough dough to pay rent, or decide on what major food group to skip.  I will make two assumptions, and I think they are crucial in getting the most (money) out of your PhD studies ...

1) You don't really care (too much) what the project is, as long as it is in the general direction you are looking for.

2) You have been in the same field for a some time.  So you have some experience already, and more importantly, you have a rough idea of what ideas works and what doesn't.

3) You don't belong to any elite or privileged social class, or you are, but don't receive a penny from Mum and Dad.

Out of Mugu's time as a veteran grad student, he has seen three exceptional cases.  He wish he could only knew about them ...

Method 1:  Become a research engineer.  Towards the end of your Masters degree, you might be approached for a position of the "research engineer" at some professor's lab.  They are usually offered in 2 or 3 year terms, and the pay is usually quite reasonable, though not as high as working in the "real world."  But if the project has potential as a PhD project, you can effectively get a 2-3 year head start, in terms research progress and wealth accumulation.  When the contract is up, switch to a PhD.  At this point you don't have much time left.  Just sit for 2 years tops and get the helluva there.  Since all publications you wrote while working as a research engineer will be considered "pre-PhD", they go a long way i n scholarship applications.  This gives you extra cash to fund your PhD!  Speaking of double Whammy!


Method 2:  Piggy back with a company project.  This favors the older folks who are already working for a while.  Sometimes there are technical problems faced by your company, and you'd be surprised how  clueless your colleagues can become, not because they are incompetent, but because they don't have the time and just want to maintain status quo.  If you are involved in such a project, pitch this idea to your boss, to get some academic collaboration with a Professor and do a PhD at the same time, albeit part-time.  Some of your work will contribute to the research, and you're earning a normal man's salary. If you are persuasive, you can even get your tuitions paid for by your company.

Method 3:  Be a resident PhD student at a company.   This works usually in Europe, when there is a very well established system for something like this.  Some companies offer "research student" positions, where you will work on a project for a fixed time, usually 3 to 4 years.  These positions usually pay a lot better than an equivalent position at a university.  You are also guaranteed that whatever project you end up taking will bear some practical value, and it is in the interest of your company correspondent to get you out as quickly as possible because, for them, research is high risk, and they want to invest at little on it as possible.  Being a company, you will learn about getting things done as well.>
I think that's it.  Again, you're not going to get rich from a Ph.D, but at least don't sell your talent for much less than its actual market value! 

First time interviewing someone

Mugu has been to enough interviews, being grilled, and things thrown at, but all in all having a good time. But last week was Mugu's first attempt at giving an interview.  The candidate is a student who is about to finish up his PhD.  HR and his prospective boss, who asked me to show up for "observation", were also present.

Granted, Mugu was supposed to keep his mouth shut and looked pretty, but sometimes I just couldn't resist  asking a few questions, much to HR's displeasure.  But then again, there were so many awkward moment of silence, Mugu thought what he did was justified to keep things in motion.

Even as a rookie interviewer, here are Mugu's opinions, and perhaps this would help those who are still in the interview process.

1) Mugu can get a sense of who you are from reading your resume.  Don't underestimate this statement.  You can have tons of friends and professionals giving you suggestions of how to improve your resume, but what ends up going in there reflects you as a person, and your preferences and biases.  Typically this is what Mugu gets from reading resumes:

• What you should know and what you don't know
• Your personal goals and career priorities (whether you have an objective section or not)
• Whether you're telling me a bunch of crap

2) When I ask you a question, I am looking for a connection.  Assuming that your resume is impressive enough to get an interview.  Now you walk in, all nervous, but all in the while trying to do your best to impress.  I assume that you are technically competent.  The question is, whether I can work with you.  That's how I ask questions:

• Things you should know.  I want to see if you are up to standard.
• Things I know you don't know.  I want to see how far you go before you reach your limits.
• Things I don't know.  I want to see if you can convince me to see things your way.

Strangely, the last type of question is most difficult.  I might not know the answers, but I will know if you are trying to BS your way out.  It's better to come clean and tell us that you don't know, either.

3) If you fail to explain things clearly to me, you don't understand the topic good enough.  You have spent years mastering your own topic.  Now it's time to tell people what great work you've done.  The problem?  No one understands what you are trying to say, because every other word is jargon.  One who truly understands his subject will be able to explain his understanding appropriately.  You can always keep asking why indefinitely, but it takes great wisdom to say when to stop.  It also shows me that you have put some thought into what you are doing, aside from just doing what your supervisor told you to do.

4) Don't think that you can change the way we do things.  Mugu has made that mistake in his more ignorant days.  Now I see what kind of a prick I was.  You are here to work with our system, not the other way around.  The difference you make will be your work, not your system.  One of the most popular things to say is, "I would like everybody to use [insert someone's favorite open source tool here]."  If it is such a good tool, it would have been part of the corporate workflow a long time ago!

5) If I like you, we will make things easier for you.  A big part an interview is to see if we connect, whether we "click" will be very important.  This is not an exact science, and that's why most people tumble on this.  In the mean time, while I don't want to be so biased, but I would be inclined to help you out a little if I like you.  But, of course, I cannot make it that obvious ...

What does Mugu want to see from you.  Mugu doesn't ask for much.  All that is required is that

• You have a good idea of what is required of you.
• You are honest about your strengths and weaknesses.
• You know what are important to us.
• Your resume has a good experience-to-page ratio.

I did not make that decision, but if I were chairing that interview, I would not have asked him to come back for a second interview.  Here is what happened.

1. Every other word he used was jargon.
2. He tried to BS his way out of some questions for which he should know the answers.
3. He told us from his resume he could speak a foreign language, but in fact he couldn't.
4. He told us, in no less than 5 occasions, how his GPA was so high he could go to prestigious schools I have never heard of.

Somehow I have a feeling that he will be working next to me in a few month.  Time will tell.

Viva la Chica

Mugu received some very good news a few days ago.  He got a call from The Chica, who submitted her thesis that day after successfully defending it.  Our supervisor asked her to follow up my work after I finished up, to take my ideas "one step further", so to speak, which usually means "bribnging it to the real world".  She did it, and I was happy for her, that she finished with flying colors, and for me, that the ideas still works.

A bit of background story, The Chica is no Latina, in fact, she's, for the lack of a better word, a Hillbilly.  But being the only girl in the lab, and that majority of lab-mates are Ombres (yes, Latinos), that name got stuck very quickly.  Mugu met The Chica (before she was given this name) when he was teaching her class, but didn't really get to know her well until she came work with us as an intern.  She apparently like her stint so much, she came back a year later as a Masters student.

Unlike most of the grad students I have worked with, The Chica is a single mom before she finished high school.  After going through all sorts of odd-jobs, and strings community colleges, she finally settled on studying at our university.   She's also a very dedicated person.  I remember the first job I gave her (she asked me to give her some work because she was bored).  It was probably the most boring of all things.  That explained why I never got around to do it in the first place.  She did all that, within two hours, and was totally amazed.  There was also another time, when she was supposed to bring a grill to a research group party.  Her son was in a car accident, and had to bring him to the hospital.  She could have pull out in the last minute and have us figure something out, but she sent her boyfriend to drop off the grill.

The Chica was not without her quirks. Mugu remembered having to give her a quick, and brisk lecture on African politics because she was starting to talk about something to which she didn't know she had no idea.  On another occasion, she somehow invoked the wrath of the Ombres over some equipment sharing issues. Mugu had to come intervene, and everyone was happy in the end.  There were other episodes, but Mugu always took pleasure to watch over her.

There are two sides of The Chica.  On one hand, she's the bubbly "new kid" who, to us, is still a kid.  On the other hand, she's the mother who has to grow up quickly for her role.  I can only imagine how tough she it had to be for her to juggle the two sides of her life.  I remembered, when she took Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu to the airport.  Both of us (Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu) were exhausted and delirious from three straight days of packing and moving out.  Her motherly instincts kicked in, and put everything under control and took care of us like a good mother should be.  When she dropped off Mrs. Ubuntu to wait in line at check-in (now that's really tight timing), Mugu told her she was simply an amazing woman for doing what she has done and more.

Congratulations, Chica, for a job well done, and I wish you all the best in your future!

My Role models during grad school

I never cared much for celebrity gossips.  I still don't, but there are things I noticed about them, that are very special, and deserves Mugu's seal of approval. Yes, there are a couple, and they are not who you think they are.

 

1) Silvester Stallone:  I had Rocky and Rambo playing on my repeat to keep me company during my lonely months of thesis writing.  A lot of people think that his movies are better suited for the brainless machos.  A friend of mine in LA, who knows the Italian Stallion personally, told me that he is one of the few actors who insists of doing everything himself, including scripts and stunts.  The characters he created (Rocky and Rambo) reflects on his ideals for the person.  It is good motivation, a reminder how one can overcome any challenge.

 

2) Billy Blanks:  I first came across him with his TaeBo infomercials.  At first I thought he is all BS, but at some point I decided to watch it.  It's physically demanding.  Now, some people like to make things demanding to show you how much better they are, but not Billy.  In his rigor you can see that he is humble and gentle at heart.  He is also very warm and genuine in what he says at the end of each video.

 

3) Kyung-Wha Chung:  I already mentioned her in a previous article on this blog.  Her strength and determination almost parallel that Stallone depicted in Rocky.  Back in the days when the Asian violinist wasn't a household phenomenon, and that the musical world where she was in was dominated by a cartel of musicians who didn't want to accept her.   She knew she would win, and she did.

 

4) Robert S. MacNamera:  I learnt of him from The Fog of War.  Yes, he has been a contraversal figure, having served both JFK and Johnson during much of the Vietnam war.  What I was impressed about him was his effective use of numbers.  He has a certain acumen in analysis that I came to admire.  I later read his work In Retrospect, a sort of autobiography with a focus of his experience from the Vietnam War.  It is a very inspiring read and no detail was spared.  Not to mention, he is also the personification of the American Dream, where hard work and determination was the virtue of his time.

 

5) Jacques Brel:  I was drawn to his music when I visited the Jacques Brel Museum some years ago in Brussels.  I was moved to tears by his music.  Also, the amount he has accomplished in his short life (he died of cancer in 1978) was incredible, and served as inspiration of a new generation of singers.  The moment he discovered his terminal condition, he simply took the devil-may-care attitude and learnt how to fly.  He knew pretty well, that his body might perish with the disease, but his spirit would live on.

 
6) Richard P. Feynman:  I got a hold of his biography, Genius, by James Gleick.  Behind his intellectual powress, Feynman is no different than another other human beings.  He had his successes and failures, his achievements and disappointments, his friends and enemies, and his mentors and rivals.  His willingness to tread unknown territories (e.g., painting, biology, and his revamped lecture notes) was also something that is now missing in to-day's academia.  Though he is not known for siring new generations of academics, his influence is perhaps more far reaching.  He was the reason I started doing my PhD in the first place.

Why I left academia

For a very long time, I had the utmost admiration for members of the academic world.  They do research for the sake of advancing humanity, independent of social-economical forces.  This is, I think, a privilege, of being able to manipulate ideas so complex that most people simply do not have the comprehension.  We trust academics for their creativity, and we give them the freedom to exercise them unhindered.

However, there were a few things I became aware in my experience as a PhD student through which prompted me to re-examine my value towards the academic system.  I think these are symptoms of a bigger phenomenon, through which the fundamental aspects of academia has twisted into something else.  So here are my episodes:

The Perpetual post-doc

One day, I found a USB stick somewhere on the corridor outside my lab.  A PDF of his CV saved in the stick confirmed the identity of its rightful owner, and it was returned to him very quickly.  He was a middle-aged man who was a post doc in a nearby lab.  He received his PhD some 10 years ago, and has been hopping from Post-Docs to Post-Docs ever since.  He in his fifth post-doc when met him over his USB stick.  While he seemed to be at peace with his situation, but more because he has accepted his fate.  While I personally don't think he was faculty material, I also see that his situation is not all that uncommon.  It could very easily happen to me.

The Professional grant writer

Later, I managed to reconnect with an old colleague of mine.  He was a few years ahead of me, who received a tenure-track position a few months back.  He decided to "invite" me for a talk, and afterwards we discussed my "options" as an academic in general.  He mentioned, his department just hired a new faculty member, but he deciding factor was his ability to pull in 20 millions of research funding a year.  He also lamented that, now, in his fledging career, he spent way too much time writing grants and wooing companies for research money.  He no longer has so much time to provide guidance for his students.  I also have a similar type of supervisor.  As much as he is supportive of my idea, he did not have the time for me.

Academic pedigree preferred

New faculties are always more eager to look for new research staff to boost their research capacity.  Browing their wanted-pages, a lot of these faculty names I have not heard of, even though their research area(s) are not all that different from mine.  Strange, then I looked at their CVs, and they all have one thing in common.  Their supervisors were those I quickly recognized.  My academic lineage is not so persuasive, however.  Though I still applied for these positions, I doubted I would hear from any of them, and I was right.  Another episode involved another colleague of mine, a definite genius, who got his PhD in 2005.  Though he's no longer in Post-Doc Purgatory, he is still not faculty, all because his supervisor is not someone famous.

The Glorified technician

I did not have the luxury of having a post-doc lined up for me, so I spent some days towards the end of my PhD for research positions.  Things have evolved in academia, that professors preferred people with specific skills, whether it be ability to program sophisticated simulation models, or experience in certain specific experimental techniques.  Aptitude and ability to make breakthroughs no longer play a role.  Simply put, faculty members are looking for skilled people more than talents to serve their purpose.  Isn't the point of academia is to solve new problems in new ways, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over again?  There is a famous saying:  If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.  This brings me to the last point.

Lack of research insight

In recent years, there is a definitely shift of focus in research approach.  I was raised in the school where you gather the results, think very hard about why things happen in such a way, and then summarize them in the most direct way possible.  There is elegance, and it also gives purpose to the paper.  Whenever I write a paper, I abide to this principle.  However, the majority of the papers I read, or I was asked to review, simply tried to overwhelm readers with many figures, in the hope that the readers would be impressed by the shear amount of data.  These authors neither have the will nor the capacity to scrutinize their results in meaningful ways.  Many peer reviewers, who do not want to offend their mediocre efforts, approved the papers indiscriminately.

Part of a bigger phenomenon?

I think all of what I have observed is not so uncommon, and I have not said anything that my peers would disagree, whether they want to remain in academia or not.  "Economics" sums up my reasons for leaving academic very well.  By "economics" I do not mean financial rewards; I would sacrifice pay for academic freedom anytime.  By "economics" I mean how academia acts in a two self-contradicting aspects of the economy.  On one hand, professors are reduced to salesmen of their ideas in the name of attracting research capital.  On the other hand, costs of hiring talents were kept artificially low to increase head-count and therefore throughput.  As a result, what used to be an institution for higher learning now becomes a sweatshop for low-quality high-tech data.  I still believe that you need to start low and work your way up to build a career, but I have no longer desire to be any part of this intellectual Ponzi scheme.  Academic freedom is no more.

Objectivism - the misunderstood way of life

It is almost impossible to go through any stage of post-secondary education without coming across at least one person who calls himself (or herself, but most of the time it's himself) an "Objectivist."  "Objectivism" is some kind of philosophy introduced by the American writer Ayn Rand.  You will also find that these self-styled Objectivists will possess at least the Ayn Rand novels like Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead.  I read neither of them, but I am never a fan for fictions that are more than quarter inch thick.

Ayn Rand believes that selfishness is essential for personal growth, and the potential to achieve the Greater Good through selfishness can be realized through rational perception of reality.  Emotion deviates from rationality, and acting selflessly is the same as acting without purpose.  Both cases lead to sub-optimal outcomes.  So, in a nut shell, Objectivism promotes achieving collective gain through rational thinking while acting in self-interest.

Practitioners of Objectivism often praise its simplicity, unambiguity, and maximization of human nature, rendering highly effective application and adaptation.  What constitutes "rational" and "self-interest" is open to interpretation, however.  From my experience with these so-called Objectivists, whether they are aware or not, "rationality" devolves to "indifference", and "selfishness" is another word for "disrespect".  Quite expectedly, this version of Objectivism typically yields to personal losses at the expense of the Greater Good, hardly what Ayn Rand had originally in mind.

Let me take a real-life examples of what I mean by "common interpretations".  Yuri (to honor Ayn's roots) and I went out to lunch a few times.  Everytime he would eat up about 80% of his orders. Afterwards he would pick a minuscule flaw, then flagged down the waitress to demand either a refund or a replacement.  In questioning his motives, he would say, "I am simply seeing this Objectively [ed.: notice the big "O"].  The fact that I don't like it represents a problem.  I reported the problem and got a new plate served.  Thanks to my vigilance, they are now aware of the problem and they can improve on it.  They should see that I am doing them a favor."  I stopped going to lunch with him.

Another episode of Objectivist abuse came from a former mate of mine from my teenage years.  While we were sitting in a coffee shop, he mentioned Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement.  My then naive self asked him what he meant.  He said, I could earn money by referring someone to buy products that he's selling, and this way we could both win by acting in our self interest.  I ran for cover as soon as I heard him say "AmWay".   He might got the "selfish" part half right, but "rationality" wasn't exactly his selling point, in this case.

Though I don't consider myself Objectivist, I found the same problem as my two acquaintances in my more youthful self.  For instance, going to concerts during those days for me, was an exercise of listening flaws from the performance.  Though I did not always criticize the player(s) openly, it did rob me the ability to appreciate the music.  I was miserable, but the prospect of finding mistakes, so I thought, would make me better at enjoying the "perfect" performance.

In time, I realized two things.  (1), What I perceived as flaws was actually what made each performance unique, and to "correct" these flaws was to destroy the whole notion of art itself.  And (2), I did not gain anything, emotionally or materially, by being critical of the performers.  Later, I came to accept these performances as they were.  I began enjoying the music immensely, and the performers were encouraged by my acceptance.  Both grew from this experience.

This is not to say that one should just "hang loose".  There are times when it is necessary to be rational and critical.  Working on projects is a good example.  All parties have a vested interest to examine their situations and options rationally and critically.  The best solution, however, is one that everybody gains.  This is the goal of the Objectivist approach.

Interviews ... good, bad, and ugly

Wow ... it's been a while!  But I am still alive.  I have a couple blog post ideas, but for now let's pick up where we left off ... interviews.

Good thing is, I don't have to do this anymore, but I also would like to share with you some experiences that I have ... good, bad, and ugly.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

The Good

1) Ricky's Autos: An Italian chop shop, been around when grandpa's still sucking his thumb.  After almost four generations, it still has a very mom-and-pop feel to it.  Signor Ricky himself saved the day when I was asked questions to which I couldn't answer (there was only one, and it turned out they weren't looking for an answer at all).  Most of all, throughout the process, they treated Mugu with a helluva respect.  Respect, Ricky.

2) JC cells: Another mom-and-pop joint, this time they sell batteries.  It was probably the most relaxing interview Mugu ever had.  For two and a half hours, we talked more about economics and politics, more than we talked about batteries.  It's also a good sign when the HR lady could take jokes about them being evil (that means they really like you, too).  Don't try this, even if you think they can take these sucker punches; I got lucky this time.

The Bad

1) Oswald Lighting:  These people sell light bulbs.  Most of the time they were busy protecting their trade secrets than interviewing.  If they treat every interviewee like a potential industrial spy, you wonder what happens if you do end up working for them?

2) A-La-Pee Urinals.  Granted, this is not a dream job, and I don't qualify.  At least they could have ended it there. Instead they said they wanted me back for a second, then gave lame excuses with each follow up until they sent me a PFO for finding the other-than-you-right-person. I should have pissed on them.

The Ugly

1) Janice's Last Gig.  Got this lead through a friend of a friend of a friend.  I guess the fine folks at Janice didn't like this kind of wheel-greasing to ruin their reputation, so they decided to make an example out of me.  Invited me down to an interview, then again, and was told that an offer would come in two weeks' time.  After two weeks, I called them up, and they Mugu was told what the "right way" should be to get a job at Janice's -- start as an intern.

2) Money Shot Thrusters.  No, it's not a porn studio.  Somehow they got Mugu's CV, and decided to bring me down for an ambush interview.  Mugu knew that sometimes interviewers pretend to be assholes, but these people weren't pretending.  The "key grip" thought he was Johnny Wadd, and the "director" seemed to be getting a kick out being a jerk.  At least they reimbursed my expenses on time (to HR ... you know what "being on time" means).

Sidelined by your supervisor? The Story of Kyung-Wha Chung

Your mentor is turning a blind eye on you, while he's bonding with everybody else?  I have been on both sides of the game.  Yes, I got on the right side of the line by being able to deliver (even if I don't, I won't admit it) but there were time when I fell on the wrong side, for reasons other than my competence.  Maybe you don't play the right sport, or say the right thing, or don't belong to the same social / ethnic circle as your supervisor.  Unless you go out of your way of being a total asshole, I think being sidelined sucks big time.  Lately, I came across an article about a very famous violinist, Kyung-Wha Chung, and I think her story would restore faith for those of you sideliners.  It's the classic underdog story, except it is not based on a true story; it is a true story.

Kyung-Wha Chung came from a musical family in South Korea.  Her two younger siblings, brother (Kyung-whun Chung) and sister (Myung-wha Chung), are also famous musicians.  Chung came to the US to study the violin at the Julliard in the 60s, without speaking a word of English.  Back in those days, the stereotype of the violin-playing Asian kid simply didn't even exist.  With the Korean War just ended, and the Vietnam War in full swing, you can imagine the sort of colorful names that people would give her.  But she worked very hard, and eventually proved herself worthy, at least in the eyes of her very demanding teacher, who also taught a number of very renowned violinists.

Her ambitions, however, did not end there.  In 1967, Chung wanted to participate in a very prestigious violin competition. While her teacher did not doubt her abilities, he did worry about her lack of proper relations.  You see, another competitor was also another student of his from Israel by the name of Pinchas Zukerman, who had the backing of the violinist Isaac Stern.  Stern was the Vito Coreleone of the musical world.  Over his long and successful career, he hand-picked many young musicians and brought them into prominence, such as Zukerman, Itzhak Perlman and Yo-yo Ma.  Chung, unfortunately, wasn't one of them.  Her teacher warned her that disappointment would be inevitable, but she still went ahead.  When her mother knew about this, she sold her house and used that money to buy a Strad for her (that must have been a pretty expensive house).  So off to the competition she went, literally with her family fortune on her hands.

Competition was one of most grueling experience of any budding professional musician.  You are judged among the best in your group, and often you are just number to the jury.  In this particular competition, the judges were known to be so demanding, they would rather withhold the prize if they felt none of the players were up to standard.  Both Chung (19) and Zukerman (18) were the only two remaining candidates, but the judges could not figure out who the winner should be.  Isaac stern demanded them to play again, but they still couldn't make a decision.  For the first and only time in the competition's history, they were declared co-winners.  Irrespective of the verdict, Chung already knew it was a job well done.  She took a nap during the two-hour wait for the jury's decision.  Though Zukerman's fame continued to soar with under Stern, Chung went her own way, and her success was no less prominent than her Israeli counterpart.  The rest was history.

Unbeknownst to Chung , she also pioneered a new trend among the Asian population.  Yes, it's the stereotype of the violin-playing Asian kid.  She was one of the first renowned Asian musicians, and her fame brought inspirations to others like her.  Back in the Cold War era, American musicians only had to worry about competing with the Soviet musicians.  Chung opened the flood gate and brought the entire Asian musical community into the game.  In fact, one of  Zukerman's first violin protegees was a Korean-American violinist by the name of Sarah Chang.  Zubin Mehta, a conductor often associated with Isaac Stern's circle, discovered the Japanese violinist Midori.  Both Chang and Midori are now very well established artists.

Now, why do I write all these?  Mugu knows what it means to be sidelined.  There were times I wish I had examples like Kyung-Wha Chung so that I knew there is always hope.  The important thing is, you know yourself, and you know your destination.  Be persistent and eventually your hard work will prevail even in the face of extreme adversaries. True, Chung's family was rich enough to support her through these hardships, but don't forget, that musicians are born, not made.  She has it in her, and she stops at nothing to get to where she wanted.  This is the example we should follow, regardless which side of the line you're on at the moment.

Interviews ... between the lines, above and beyond

Interviews, I dread those.  The first couple are fun but it goes stale very quickly.  Here are some stats of Mugu's on-going job search process:

Jobs applied for so far: about 50
... from which Mugu feels he is very well qualified:  about 20
Opportunities Mugu got through
... networking:  3
... job fairs: 2
... unsolicited application: 1
... referrals from "headhunters": 5

Invitation Interviews:  about 12
... out of Mugu's "very well qualified" list: about 10

... from which came seconds: 2
... Mugu turned down: 1

Now some stats on the actual interviews themselves

Minimum personnel present:  1

Maximum personnel present: 5

Shortest duration: 5 min.

Longest duration: 3 1/2 hrs.

Of which I had to give a presentation: 2

Of which I had to fill out some form: 2

Of which I asked where the door was: 1

Shortest wait for (negative) feedback: before I leave

Longest wait for (negative) feedback: 4 months

Lesson learned

1) If key personnel is not present, you're (pretty much) toast.  Interviews at every "big" company should have at least the hiring manager and HR-rep present.  If HR isn't there that means the job might not exist.  I have had offers that were said to be on the way, only to be stopped dead by HR because the hiring manager didn't follow "procedure".  If the hiring manager isn't there when he said he would, he thinks you're not worth his time (for whatever reason) and gave instructions for his underlings to exercise extreme prejudice.

2) If your competition knows someone (and you don't), you're definitely toast.  The hiring manager pulls you over and whispers in your ear, "I would really like to hire you but the other guy knows people at the right places."  You know they are just playing it out.  It's not fair, but moving on is all you can do.  Be thankful that the manager is nice enough to warn you.

3) Be weary of instant positive feedbacks.  No one gives positive feedbacks on the spot anymore because they want time to think.  If they do, they want you out of the room without pissing you off.  Snappy offers to second interviews, and comments like "if you find a job, please let us know", or "we really like you, but this will take us a while to get back to you" are classics.

4) Key questions to prepare for.  This allows you to polish your answers to some sticky questions.  Most of the time the questions and answers are close enough but if they aren't, there will be opportunities for clarification.  Some common and important ones are:

• How did you deal with the asshole at your last workplace?
• How did you take care of impossible deadlines? (working longer is not the answer)
• Would your colleagues want to work with you again?
• What problems did you encounter and how did you solve them?
• What do you do when you are asked to do something you're not very good at?

You should have solid, real-life examples for each of them.  Also, even if these questions weren't asked, use every opportunity to bring them up.

While I am at it, here are some more

• Tell me about yourself (don't regurgitate your resume)
• What are your strengths and weaknesses (weaknesses shouldn't be real weaknesses)
• Where do you want to be 5 years from now (your choices: "Manager" or "Specialist")

5) If you are in a room full of assholes, they might be testing you.  Even though there are assholes at every workplace, chances all of them congregating at your interview is very slim; they have better thing to do!  So when you're in a room full of asshole-acting people, remember that they are doing that to throw you off balance so that they can see your true colors.  Emotional detachment is key to dealing with this kind of interview tactics.  Even if they are real-life assholes, at least it's a good attitude to take.  You can always say, "um, okay, maybe I will go where the people are nicer."

6) Talent agencies are whores.  Sign up with these "talent agencies" and they will give you some tips on writing resumes (at least get everything you have done nicely spelled out), but don't count on them in helping you land a job.  Once they realize you are not as on high demand as they hoped for, they will stop calling you for the "next greatest opportunity".

Why is it so hard to get a job these days

or, the cost of hiring the wrong person.

Well, Mugu has been looking for work for the last little while.  No matter what the job is, the scenario is all the same.  You find something you think you can handle, apply, and then that's it.  Once in a blue moon you would get a call to an interview, then after that, again, nothing.

Sounds familiar?  Not that I condone this kind of snobbery from companies, but you also need to understand why things happen this way.  Sure, many web sites offer just about every explanation under the Sun, and you can pick the one that fits your mood at the moment, but all operate on the same principle:

"The cost of hiring the wrong person outweighs the cost of rejecting the right person."

That's it!  That's why companies cry a river about having a shortage of talents, but in the mean time turning a 180 on you and me.

Here is an illustrative example.  Marty "Pants" d'Avis, has just been hired as a project manager at ABC Widgets.  There are 5 employees under his direct supervision.  He's making 100k + benefits (about 25%) p.a., and his underlings are making half that, also with similar benefit packages.  During his reign, Pant's team ie able to turn over 2 x their salaries in gross profits.  He also authorized 75k of expenditure in equipment and supplies.  So let's do some math:

annual net profit = (2 - 1.25) x (100k + 250k) - 75k = about 200k

Not bad, but unfortunately that's not how it went down.  Pants has his two favorites spending full time on his dead-end pet projects.  He also likes toys, so he ended up spending about 100k on various state-of-the-art equipment, which are now glorified dust collectors.

So how much money is involved this time?  There is, of course, the salary, which is obvious.  Let's assume the three sideliners do not partake on his day-to-day affairs.

annual net loss = 1.25 x (100k + 100k) + 100k = 350k

Now, if there is not enough money to burn already, there is another thing called opportunity cost.  That is, the time and money that Pants and his minions could have spent on more productive ends.  Let's be generous and assume Pant's team is only expected to break even (salaries + benefits).  The sideliners are somewhat more productive; they recover half their book value:

annual opportunity cost = 1.25 x (100k + 100k + 75k) = 350k

So Pants just blew 700k a year, not including collateral damage from lost clients and other dissatisfied employees at ABCW.  What's more, if ABCW expects the original profit of 200k from Pants to stay alive, then this figure balloons to 900k per year (or 550k, if opportunity cost is not considered).  So can companies like ABCW afford to make such a mistake in hiring decision?

Of course, this is a very extreme case, but similar circumstances do happen and often in multiple instances.  In the case of Pants, even though he managed to pissed off just about everyone above and below at ABCW, it still took management eight years to get him to "voluntarily resign" from his position.  If he wasn't hired in the first place, and he turned out to be the great manager who would potentially bring in 200k a year, all that ABCW would lose would be juet that, the potential 200k a year, not the hard cash of 700k from his antics that ABCW would sustain for almost 8 years.

So, next time you don't get picked.  It's not because you are not good (in fact, I think would do just fine).  It's just the risk, no matter how slim, of you bringing everything down faster than they can draft a termination notice that worries them.

As for what to do, I can only give two pieces of advice, coming from someone who's constantly on the receiving end.  First, be honest with who you are.  Second, if you get the boot, don't take it personally.  There is more where it's coming from.

Getting things done for your research

Our profession (if you can call it that) is what people call "creative", meaning that the process is as important as the results.  Sometimes it is very easy for the grad student to spend all his time on the process and left none for the results.  A technician told me, in his 25 years working at the university, he has perhaps seen only 1 out of 8 students who completed their research successfully.  Success, as in demonstrating how a new idea works and have the hard data to show, that is.  From my life as a grad student, I would say his estimate is in-line with my observations.

Unfortunately, for the outside world, this is perceived as "not getting things done".  What they think of use, however, has a hint of truth in it, and I would like to suggest ways to turn things around.

Mitigate your risk. Granted your success depends on a lot of things, luck being one of them, I think it is also the risky nature of graduate research.  You are charting unknown territory, and you won't know if something works unless you try it.   I have seen students going "all out", designing the most sophisticated equipment and ordering very expensive parts, only to see their plans fell apart for reasons unknown after investing only 4 years and almost $100k.  Now, if you are that grad student, will you spend that money and time to find out, or would you look for something that would provide feedback faster and cheaper?

Exercise judgement.  Good judgement and experience also help getting results faster.  If a professor suggests to you a possible solution that is not 100% certain, has a 8-week waiting time, and costs 600 bucks, you might want to look elsewhere for a solution.  In my case, I managed to find one that worked every time, worked that very evening, and cost nothing.  Always ask yourself if the end justifies the means, and if not, move on to something that does.

Know your limits.  No matter where you are, at some point you will end up doing things you are not very good at.  They will be the bottleneck of your progress.  Out of bravado (I am still accused of that once in a while) one would try to trek even further into unknown territory and get themselves exposed to further risk.  For things you are not good at, give it a day or two to try.  If the progress don't look too encouraging, look for ways to get around them, quickly.

Accept failures. Sometimes things stagnate out of fear of failure.  I waited about 2 months before I started my very first field test, because I was honestly afraid of seeing something to go horribly wrong.  It did, and it did throughout.  Thankfully things were minor, and could be fixed without causing injury.  The trick is to accept that things will go wrong, but take every steps to minimize your exposure if it does.

More difficult to deal with is, perhaps, when "bad" results arrive.  I had those on my desk, and it was discouraging.  I eventually found out what happened, but only a few months later.  I must admit, a trip to the supervisor's office might not give me a solution right away, but it would give confidence, and would have shaved 2 months off.

Clean up after yourself.  In the chaos of the grad students' labs, it is tempting to make patchwork solution that works right away to get you out of here.  It might sound like a good idea, but it slows everyone down.  A very able colleague got some results, got out, but it didn't take long to find out how he did it.  Good that we did a very thorough check (1 week) of the lab before we started.  Most of that time was spent on weeding out things that he introduced during his stay.

Grad research is no different than other types of work.  True, there is a lot more risk involved, but it is possible to moderate your risk with good judgement.  Once in a while, things will not work the way you wanted, but it is time to look for other interpretations (through other opinions).  Most importantly, knowing that you are not working alone, help others get things done as well.

Dealing with that guy in the lab

Every research group has at least one of those.  You know, that guy.  When he opens his mouth, no one understands him.  When he passes by the hallway, the technicians will whisper the damages he caused last week.  When he bring stuff in the lab, they look like booby traps.  And on the rare occasion when he finally gets to do work, the safety officer will come and shut it down.  He is bad news, but he doesn't seem to know that himself.

Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I started my lab internship.  I took an office occupied by a grad student, let's call him Steve, who left a week ago, seemingly in a hurry, judging from the clutter still on his desk.  A few weeks later, my boss told me Steve's story.  He came to study about 2 years ago.  Back then he didn't speak much English, so he failed his comprehensive exam.  As his English improved, it was getting very clear that he had no formal education.  It turned out Steve was a farmer, and he forged his papers so that he could get a student visa, because it was easier than getting a work visa.  I ran into Steve when he came back to picked up his stuff.  Apparently he became a taxi driver in another city.

Here is another one.  Let's call this guy Yeti.  He was easy to spot because you can smell him from a distance away.  He's the kind of guy who does the wrong thing at the wrong place at the wrong time at your expense.  He once asked me about my recent run-in with one of the other grad students, just when I was talking to that other student in question.  During a talk he asked the speaker about his son's recent coming out. Another famous stint involved Yeti replacing his colleague's name with his on a paper and published it in secret.  A slap on the wrist was all he got.  No one knew what else he did, but when he was finishing up, he got a lot of job offers and awards based on his "groundbreaking" work.  For a slap on the wrist it was a pretty good bargain.

When I started grad school (a long time ago) there was this Egyptian PhD student, let's call him Ali.  Ali was a laid back but brilliant student, and I learned a lot from him.  Out of good humor, he often refer to his wheeled, portable test rig as his "car bomb".  But something changed near the end.  He scored a shrubberry of a beard while he was writing his thesis, and became very strict with his religious regimens.  Then he disappeared three months before his defense.  His Muslim colleagues told me Ali had left to join the Taliban.  His car bomb is still on proud display in the lab.

A few years later I had the pleasure to work with this new student, let's call him Tuck.  Tuck got this name because he looked like Friar Tuck and spoke like Donald Duck.  Whenever he appeared, office items from our desks would gravitate towards his area.  Then hazardous chemicals started showing up on his desk, next to ours, in open containers.  A word from the safety officer didn't change things much.  He eventually moved office, taking all the chemicals with him.  When he came back two years later to pick up his stuff, his computer was taken apart, and the only thing left was the case.  Obvious angry, he called the police but they never showed up.  Consider it frontier justice.

Jogging memory again, a postdoc this time, let's call him Moe.  While he was with us, strange maladies would inflict upon our lab equipment.  When Moe asked me to fix them, it was pretty clear whodunit.  Once crunch time came along, he needed 30 copies of a 200-page annual report in a hurry, with colors and all.  He somehow thought it'd be cheaper to print them all in-house.  Half way through printing he'd spot some typos and whatnot and the whole print job would start over a few times.  Moe finally got his 30 copies after a week or so, but all the lab printers were damaged from overheating.  Back in the days when laser printers cost $1500 apiece, and color ink jets about half that, Dropping $500 at Kinko's didn't seem like a bad idea anymore.  But, hey, he didn't have to pay for the damage because, according to him, the printers, toners, ink cartridges, and paper were just "public properties".

Perhaps this one is the craziest I have seen.  Let's name this guy Bluto, another postdoc.  He's a older, stocky guy who showed up one day without notice.  No hi, no nothing.  He kept to himself, but in spite of that everyone seemed to mind.  That's probably because he kept gawking at a female colleague in the lab, let's call her Olive.  The fact that she was engaged to ... uh ... Popeye ... was no nevermind to him.  Passion overruled reason one day, and a fight broke out between Bluto and Popeye over Olive in the lab, and my friend Wimpy intervened before it got out of hand.  A couple police officers came to the lab the next day to investigate. Apparently Bluto reported an assault on him from Popeye after the incident.  Neither of them was there so Wimpy set the record straight.  We never saw or heard from Bluto since, nor the cops.  Popeye and Olive lived happily thereafter.

Presentations for the introverted

Where I went to grad school, there used to be a tradition called the annual seminar.  Students, with their research at various stages of incompletion, were asked to present their work, to be evaluated by the presiding professors. Unfortunately, these presentations almost always devolved into somewhat of a Roman gladiatorial spectacle. The whole system was eventually replaced by a more constructively themed orientation session.

Presentations are unavoidable.  You want your work known to your community, or at least to the right people.  You have 20 minutes to summarize years of hard work.  But you didn't have much time organizing your results, let alone presenting them.  And everyone is on the same boat so they cannot help you in that department.  How do you conquer your butterflies, or at least make them fly in formation?  I have a few notes that I would like to share, and I hope this would make you more confident over your upcoming presentation as well.

You are in control.  When you are presenting, they want to listen to your research.  Stop guessing what your audience want to hear and focus on what you want to say.  You would be surprised how much your audience appreciates it when someone finally takes the driver's seat.

The 10-20-30 rule.  Guy Kawasaki proposed this dead simple rule of thumb: 10 slides, 20 minutes, 30 point font.  Mind you, these rules were meant for start-ups pitching ideas to venture capitalists.  So here is the modified form for grad students:  10 topics, 20 minutes, 30 point font.  Typically these are the topics I cover

1. Introduction (1-2 slides)
2. Your problem (1 slide)
3. Your (proposed) solution (1 slide)
4. Theoretical background (1-3 slides)
5. General solution strategy (1 slide)
6. Each aspect of your solution (1 slide per aspect of your research)
7. Progress/results of your strategy (1-2 slides per aspect)
8. Interpretation of your results (up to 1-2 slides per aspect)
9. Conclusions / recommendations (1-2 slides)
10. Future work (1 slide)

So you have a minimum of 10 slides.  My research consisted of 4 aspects: analytical, experimental, numerical, and practice.  My presentation ended up to be 24 slides, including the title and thank-you slide.  Is it too little? Hell no.  Also, I have a 40-minute version of the same presentation with (just) 36 slides.  But this extended version contains no extra crucial information that the 20-minute version does not provide, other than additional graphs and figures (i.e., eye candy).

Know what you want to say.  There is a theme, ain't it?  Even though you don't have concrete results, there is still a point to your presentation.  Make this clear to your audience throughout, and you will become confident with it.  Also, it you can help it, do not present items that you don't feel confident presenting, just for the sake of filling up your time slot.  If you have to bring it up, put it at the end as "future work", instead of in the results section as "work in progress".

Less is more. As a consequence of using at least 30-point fonts on your presentations, you need to discriminate your information.  Figure out the one very important thing that you want to tell your audience with every slide and stick to it.  Everything else is either supporting evidence or embellishment.  Also, mainly out of fear losing track themselves, many presenters load their slides with words and recite them off the screen.  If you are the forgetful/nervous type (I don't blame you), use cue cards.  When lights are low, as it is almost always in presentations, no one will see you reading off cue cards.

Pace your way, your way.  You are the second element of the presentation, and don't forget, they are coming to see you.  Engage your audience with explanations, antedotes, and examples.  These things compliment the main points on your presentation, and makes things interesting for your audience.  You can also control the flow of your presentation much more easily with the amount of verbal communication.

Treat equations like figures.  If you have to present equations, treat it like you would for a figure.  Direct the audience to what are essential (i.e., important terms and their implications, contributing parameters, trends, etc.) instead of reciting the equation term for term.  Like this title suggests, also do the same for figures.

No bells and whistles.  Slide animations and transitions effects are lame.  So are weird slide layouts and inappropriate background and color schemes.  On the other hand, black text on white background is much more hypnotic than most minimalists think.  Find something easy on the eye.

Practice with reason.  I don't usually rehearse rigorously, because I run a risk of "scripting" it, and i will get nervous if I don't remember what I am scripted to say.  Instead, go through the slides quietly, make notes on them.  Present it to your colleagues for casual feedback.  The best way is to go, is knowing what you want to say, and say it.  If there is something the audience does not understand and care about, they will ask for clarification.

Going through these steps will force you to think very hard over your work, and what you should (and should not) present.  By the time you are done, you will have a very solid idea about the presentation.  There will be the first two minutes of awkwardness when you start presenting.  Once you find your momentum, however, you will be at ease, and so will your audience.  Again, there is no way to get rid of the butterflies in your stomach, but at least they will fly in formation.

Postscript: Too much information already?  At least take this one home. Treat your presentation as if it cost $20 per slide five secretary-days to prepare, just like the good old days before Harvard Graphics almost 20-odd years ago (that's even before Mugu's time).  I bet you will change the way you think about presentations very quickly.

Advice for thesis preparation

My thesis seemed like a monumental undertaking at the time of writing.  I started, scrapped and restarted three times, over two years before I gained enough momentum to get that all done.  I was still waiting for a lot of stuff to come together, mind you.  It was not exactly easy

If your grad department lets you compile a publication-based thesis, you're lucky.  For everyone else, I hope the following antedote would help all aspiring writers to get this done and get on with real life (quickly, hopefully)!

Don't panic. Often, you don't know what is missing in your research until after your start writing.  When you have one of those moments (and you will have many), take the time to put the missing pieces together.  You will become more confident with your work and, if not, you will at least know what to do to for improvement.

Use LaTeX.  LaTeX handles all the formatting for you, so you don't have to worry about your figures jumping all over the place.  For references and equations, its BibTeX and math mode will save you a lot of time and mouse clicks than their WYSIWYG alternatives.  Besides, it doesn't cost you a dime to pick up the legal version.  The lack of proofing tools might be a problem, but LaTeX front-ends like Texniccenter usually come with a spell checker.  It's not going to be easy learn, but you will be glad you LaTeX'd your thesis.

Get to the point.  You want your readers to know exactly what your problem is, what you did, and what your findings are.  So your introduction and conclusions/recommendations chapters should be short and direct.  I am talking about less than 10 pages each.  Literature review contains everything under your universe, and no one cares if you can't organize it.  Chapters on your research should contain just enough detail to guide your readers along, but not so much as to detract them.  All other interesting but not directly relevant information can be placed in the appendices.

Think hard about the scope.  When you are very confident about your research direction, invest the time to write down your thesis scope.  These few paragraphs will be a reminder of what you should be doing for the rest of your degree.  If you are on the right track, your scope would only need minor adjustments at most.

Use B/W figures whenever possible.  Unless it's a thesis on Visual Arts, chances are, your thesis will be printed or photocopied on B/W at some point, very likely by your committee.  B/W figures are much easier to read and reproduce.  In addition, it also forces you to look for ways to present the data effectively.  After all, admit it, you used color because you just wanted to copy and paste what your favorite charting program spat out.

Simple language.  If you know already what you want to write, then jot it down right away instead of toiling over a better way to write it.  It might not sound very elegant, but it got the point across, and (most of the time) that was all that matters.  If you still don't like how you wrote it, you will come back to it, which brings me to the next point ...

Proofread your thesis backwards.  A neat little trick I learned from my high school English teacher.  Start from the last page, and work your way back to the first.  This forces you to go through everything, and you will catch a lot of typos and grammatical errors.  You will also have the opportunity to rigorously examine your writing.

Save acknowledgement for last.  Having the acknowledgement page written out first gives you a false sense of accomplishment.  You will slack off, or wasting time embellishing this page.  When the going gets tough, the temptation will be there to write it.  Without this page to distract you, you will find yourself more focused, more motivated (maybe) to devote your energy on other parts of the thesis.

(Almost) seven years in Grad school ... point form summary

I am not going to write a novel, but I need a decent first post (after the intro, that is).  So, here is what happened, good and bad, during my seven years in grad school.  No explanations, ever; all I know is that they happened.  I am limiting it to 10 each to give an impression of balance and, as usual, I will start with the bad things first:

Bad things

1. Took a lot longer than expected
2. That incompetent, asshole professor who kept getting in the way of my research
3. The same asshole who wanted to steal a piece of the action
4. Other asshole grad students who are trying to steal a piece of the action
5. Being sent "messages" by wannabe overachievers
6. Leaving Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu in limbo (When are you done, honey?  I have no fn' idea!)
7. Having to wait eons for things to happen (Sorry, man, but I have a huge backlog. You'll have to come back in two months)
8. Frustration of being alone when you are stuck
9. That grad student whose only expertise was pissing everyone off
10. For a long time being sidelined because of my (lack of) credentials

Good things

1. My research worked out, much better than everybody expected, even myself
2. Supervisor allowed me to control my own research directions and bailed me out when I was in trouble
3. Answered a lot of my own questions to satisfaction (I can be one stubborn SOB)
4. Met colleagues whom I can count on ... for life
5. Got to do research overseas
6. Earned respect of (some of) my peers, though it took a while
7. Finally got to jot down that quote I have always wanted on my thesis
8. The asshole (point 2 above) was "denied tenure" a month before my defense (yo name ain't gonna be anywhere on my research no more, mofo)
9. Met Mrs. Ubuntu
10. Got out knowing that nothing would be more difficult than those 7 years

Who am I? Why? Why now?

It's been a while since I earned my degree.  It took a long time, but all in all it was worth it.

A little bit of introduction.   I managed to get my degrees somewhere in North America, all three of them.  I have moved and worked around in different cities.  Being an R&D kind of guy, I like looking at very strange problems and see strange ways to solve them.  Still do, even after I married Missus Ubuntu ...

I came to do grad school because I wanted to further my technical knowledge.  When I came out, I learned a whole new bag of things, good and bad.  After hearing a number of my friends who are going to grad school, I realized that there are always something in common.  So I have decided to write it down, and hope that someone would find it useful.

Aren't there already enough websites talking about grad school already?  I have read them, too.  I think you need a blog that tells it like it is.  I am not going to even try to generalize my case.  Your experience will be different, and I encourage you to talk about it, but at least there is someone to relate to.

Like I said, it's been a while since I finished my degree.  I think as time goes by, it is getting "safer" to blog about it.  Some of the stuff I am about to write will not be very pleasant to those who are in the know.  Therefore, identities and physical circumstances have been altered to protect the innocent and guilty.  Yes, even the guilty deserves some level of anonymity.

But let me get one thing straight.  The path of academia is the one that I chose to take.  It is long and difficult, and I did not expect otherwise.  Even though sometimes I wish I had done certain things differently if I had it again, I have never regretted making the decision in the first place.  A friend of mine used to say, "whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger."  I still think he's right.