Wow. I just defended a few weeks ago, at 7 years. And honestly, until about year 5, I felt no rush whatsoever to get out. Not that I was derping around -- I finished with 20+ papers -- but I was enjoying it, and I realized that once I was out, two undesirable things would happen:
- I would have to start running the grant treadmill (and indeed, I'm just in the middle of finalizing a training grant that has as one of its requirements...that I must write another grant)
- In the US NIH, there is a 10 year "New Investigator" status that lasts 10 years from the PhD, where you are preferred for certain types of grant awards. So I reasoned it is much better to graduate late and start this clock from a strong position than to rush up the hierarchy and find yourself victim of the Peter Principle.
So for me, delay was a conscious strategy. Only downside was I had to live on a modest stipend. It was worth it for me, though. Another point that I'm making is that "productivity" is not equivalent to "graduating/getting promoted as fast as possible".
As for TFA, I would say that amazing quantities of work can get done by pushing yourself, deadlines, etc, but the creative work that lays groundwork for future growth only occurs during low-stress periods. I try, therefore, to set up alternating periods of both types.
Congratulations! I should have clarified in my initial post that:
1. I had no intention to stay in academia after my PhD, it was the best paying gig I could find in 2008 when the world was ending financially and the project was interesting with very little supervisory oversight as the area was new to him as well.
2. If you are enjoying the work, the funding is there and you feel like you are achieving what you want then taking your time is totally cool - I was more focussing on their other end when people want to finish up and can't get done.
Not really. My salary was funded by my PI and he was happy to keep someone at my skill level as long as I wanted (and at a bargain salary to boot).
From my department and committee, I started to feel rumblings around mid-year-6 of the "you should get on with it" lines. But they weren't trying to force me out or anything, it was more like concern.
I was spending (and still do) a much bigger percentage of my time on collaborative work than my peers, and they were concerned I wasn't adequately focused on my own career. But that wasn't the case at all -- I was doing what I thought was in my best interests, especially considering my field (bioinformatics) is inherently highly collaborative compared to the wet-lab stuff going on around me.
However, there were some institution-level reasons I cut it off at 7. After that, the institution's policy is that you have to start re-taking some classes you already took (and passed). It was irritating to always have to go to an irrelevant journal club every week (I was in a department that really had nothing to do with my research). Also, I had some appealing opportunities available if I finished when I did. But in no way was I "forced out".
Oh, God, I'm not sure anyone is totally happy with their dissertation, but I guess I should get over it. I got about 2/3 of what I wanted to done. I'm continuing with the project, though.
Don't worry, I cannot judge anything anyway. I just read you were into aging research. I went at a few senescence panels a few months ago and am very curious about the subject. Is your thesis a step into finding applications for this domain ? or more general ?
Well the project arose like this. I got interested in aging halfway through the PhD. I started collaborating heavily with aging people at my institution. But there are so many papers and so much data to get informed about the area.
So I wondered "is there some semi-empirical way to find out what is 'most important' in aging so I can focus my future efforts on that?"
The solution I hit on was to take all the available gene expression data and to build a system to ask "what genes/pathways/systems change most strongly and consistently with age across species, experimental conditions, and tissues"? This would be a "core aging signature", if it exists. Obviously this is only one of many ways to answer my question and neglects epigenetics, proteomics, etc, although we're currently extending the system to DNA methylation. There is not enough high-throughput proteomics data to make it possible to do this with protein yet. We do not use sequencing for now because it is much more of a processing burden and human RNA is behind dbGaP embargo. And at the time I started this, there really wasn't that much of it compared to GEO.
My boss's interests are much more general than aging, so he encouraged me to develop the system to be more generic while still answering my question, which I did. It became a general meta-analysis system for asking "what genes change expression with <arbitrary condition> across the available experiments in GEO?" We found other things we could do with such a huge amount of expression data, and some of them are in Chapter 5.
I would say the system itself is 80-90% done. But sadly I did not get to a really detailed analysis of aging yet, although my findings so far on that are in Chapter 4.
Thanks for your interest. I've actually met him once -- a friend of his I was talking to over beers introduced us -- but at the time, he was seemingly more interested in his pending date with the blonde he had just picked up than talking with a lowly graduate student. Can't say I blame him :) His papers are excellent, though. A more philosophical and broad approach is needed in aging, I think. He has mellowed a lot from the exaggerated claims he was making in the early 2000s. Maybe he saw my poster which covered an early version of this work, but we didn't talk about that.
The best aging researcher alive right now IMO though is Jim Kirkland. I've had the good fortune to work a little with him and the man is a living encyclopedia. His brilliance is obvious even in a conference full of PhDs.
haha so not surprised by your anecdote, I met him only once but it seems very degrey. Doesn't waste time.
From I what I could hear, he has to spend a lot of time managing funding for sub parts of the foundation and other efforts. Maybe this dilluted his claims a bit in time. All of his friends seemed to be pretty high grade researchers, it was a bit of an SF experiment sitting among that crowd.
- I would have to start running the grant treadmill (and indeed, I'm just in the middle of finalizing a training grant that has as one of its requirements...that I must write another grant)
- In the US NIH, there is a 10 year "New Investigator" status that lasts 10 years from the PhD, where you are preferred for certain types of grant awards. So I reasoned it is much better to graduate late and start this clock from a strong position than to rush up the hierarchy and find yourself victim of the Peter Principle.
So for me, delay was a conscious strategy. Only downside was I had to live on a modest stipend. It was worth it for me, though. Another point that I'm making is that "productivity" is not equivalent to "graduating/getting promoted as fast as possible".
As for TFA, I would say that amazing quantities of work can get done by pushing yourself, deadlines, etc, but the creative work that lays groundwork for future growth only occurs during low-stress periods. I try, therefore, to set up alternating periods of both types.