Doing a PhD

• do some or all of:
  • Build some stuff (e.g. new multimedia FS)
  • Measure some stuff (e.g. power use on laptop)
  • Evaluate some stuff (e.g. performance of new web server scheduling algorithm)
  • Analyze some stuff (e.g. queuing theoretic model of the Internet)
• Write a dissertation
• Submit and get viva’d – scary!

Risks

• Treat PhD like high school
• Ask supervisor what to do
  • Don’t understand it
  • Don’t agree with it
  • But do it anyway
• Finish task and wait for next task
  • Play CSGO or do consultancy in meantime
• Write nothing, read nothing Repeat until PhD deadline and realize
• You don’t have a thesis; or You have a thesis you don’t understand

Choosing a Topic

• Don’t have to fix on this on day one!
  • Do some stuff, work with others, write some papers, and then choose
  • 6 – 18 months is fine
• How to choose something?
  • Read a paper you hate – decide to fix it
  • Read a paper you love – join effort
  • Discover a problem – aim to solve it
  • “Scrabble” – invent something

Better Strategies

• Work with others from day one
• From 1 year in, aim to have a current “draft” of your PhD in your head
• Do something every month
  • Read + critique a bunch of papers
  • Write some code
  • Do some measurements
  • Write down results, designs, ideas, …
• Dual-task if at all possible: left brain / right brain parallelism
• PhD itself typically in-depth: You become the expert at something
  • But your time on the PhD program should cover more than this:
    • Work with others (& in other areas)
    • Internships particularly valuable
  • Post doctoral jobs typically favor a broader outlook (too narrow == bad!)

Critical Thinking - Reading

• Do I like it? Hate it? (opinion)

• What problem is it trying to solve?

• How does their approach differ from previous ones?

• (how much previous work do I know about – read it! (reference chaining))

• Does it work?

• What could be improved?

Critical Thinking - Writing

Consider a paper (or your thesis) as an argument

• What is the problem?

• If not well known, why is it a problem?

• Why are all previous approaches insufficient (broken / wrong / stupid)?

• What is your approach?

  • how does it work?

  • how well does it work?

  • how does it improve on previous attempts?

Managing your Supervisor

• Extreme #1: “The Gauleiter”: He or she has an idea and/or plan & Your job is to carry this out
  • Pros: Should be clear what to do & Can make progress from day 1
  • Cons: Little opportunity for creative thought & May feel lack of control or ownership
  • Strategy: read, think & argue
• Extreme #2: “The Don”: Vaguely interested in everything & Expects you to come up with an idea, and then go off and do something good (but may not mention this)
  • Pros: Lots of flexibility and options & Lots of positive feedback from supervisor
  • Cons: Easy to get stuck, or lost & Feedback may be vague or esoteric (low usefulness)
  • Strategy: Attempt to engage him/her concretely in your work & Impress with your own erudition / intelligence
• Key point: it is your responsibility to make your supervisor work for you & You’re the one who wants to get the PhD
  • General Strategies: Have relatively frequent meetings & Aim for concrete deliverables (e.g. whiteboard design, or draft paper) & Educate: be[come] the expert on your topic & Learn to argue/discuss/explain

Aim to Publish

• Work with others
• Get feedback: Reviewers are often smart and dedicated

How to Publish

• Start by writing down something
  • Starting point usually either “stuff I’ve done” or “thing I believe”
    • “Stuff I’ve done” – first write a tech report which just describes it
    • Add `blank’ related work section
    • Retro-fit argument of some sort
    • Give to peers / supervisor / others, get feedback, modify, repeat, …
    • Submit to appropriate workshop / conference (with proximate deadline)
• Start with an idea / belief
  • Write out skeleton argument
  • Critique related work
  • Work out what you need to actually do to back up your argument, and then
    • Sketch out solution in paper, run past peers / supervisor / others, submit position paper
    • And/or start to do actual work
      • Add details / results etc as you go

Reasons for Paper Rejection

• Paper not clearly written (at a word / sentence / paragraph level)
• Paper not clearly written (at a structural / argument level)
• Paper clearly written, but:
  • argument is weak / false; or
  • solution is obvious / incorrect; or
  • experiments (or analysis) are poor
  • PC are biased idiots

Writing up

• Need to write a dissertation which supports your PhD thesis
• typically 30-60K words:
  • Longest document you’ll have ever written
  • Hard to ensure a single “story” throughout
  • Core (“meat”) usually 1—3 chapters
    • E.g. design, implementation, eval
    • E.g. technique1, technique2, technique3
  • Produce drafts and get frequent feedback
• Expect 6-12 months just for write-up!