一篇对新PhD很有指导意义的文章

闲情UID: 111016

发信人: yup (临渊羡鱼，不如退而结网), 信区: AdvancedEdu
标  题: 一篇对新PhD很有指导意义的文章
发信站: 北大未名站 (2004年03月05日03:04:41 星期五), 转信

主要针对CS，但是因为文章中不涉及十分技术性的东西，
所以所有专业的PhD都值得一读。
为什么要读PhD是所有在这儿关税的ggjjddmm将来要考虑的问题。
希望这篇文章对大家又帮助。

这篇文章的连接在这里
[url]http://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/hitch4.html[/url]

为了方便上国际网不方便的同学，我把原文贴在下面。


Brief description
A computer science graduate school survival guide, intended for prospective
or novice graduate students. This guide describes what I wish I had known at
the start of graduate school but had to learn the hard way instead. It
focuses on mental toughness and the skills a graduate student needs. The
guide also discusses finding a job after completing the Ph.D. and points to
many other related web pages.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

"So long, and thanks for the Ph.D.!"

a.k.a.

"Everything I wanted to know about C.S. graduate school
at the beginning but didn't learn until later."

The 4th guide in the Hitchhiker's guide trilogy
(and if that doesn't make sense, you obviously have not read Douglas Adams)

by Ronald T. Azuma

v. 1.08

Original version 1997, last revised January 2003



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Introduction

"To know the road ahead, ask those coming back."
- Chinese proverb
In February 1995, on a beautiful sunny day with clear Carolina blue skies, I
turned in the final, signed copy of my dissertation. The graduate school
staff member did some last-minute checks on the document and pronounced it
acceptable. After six and a half years of toil and sweat, I was finally
done! While walking back to the C.S. department building, I was sorely
disappointed that the heavens didn't part, with trumpet-playing angels
descending to announce this monumental occasion. Upon hearing this
observation, Dr. Fred Brooks (one of my committee members) commented, "And
the sad fact is, you're no smarter today than you were yesterday." "That's
true," I replied, "but the important thing is that I am smarter than I was
six and a half years ago."

That day was over two years ago, and since then I have had plenty of time to
reflect upon my graduate student career. One thought that has repeatedly
struck me is how much easier graduate school might have been if somehow,
magically, some of the things I knew when I turned in my dissertation I
could have known when I first entered graduate school. Instead, I had to
learn those the hard way. Of course, for many topics this is impossible: the
point of graduate school is to learn those by going through the experience.
However, I believe other lessons can be taught ahead of time. Unfortunately,
such guidance is rarely offered. While I had to learn everything the hard
way, new graduate students might benefit from my experiences and what I
learned. That is the purpose of this guide.

Very little of this guide discusses technical matters. Technical skills,
intelligence and creativity are certainly strong factors for success in
graduate school. For example, I doubt there is a C.S. graduate student who
didn't at one point wish he or she had a stronger mathematical background.
However, it's beyond the scope of this guide to tell you how to be
technically brilliant, as the following joke implies:
  

The Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm:
1) Write down the problem.
2) Think very hard.
3) Write down the solution.
You don't have to be a genius to do well in graduate school. You must be
reasonably intelligent, but after a certain point, I think other traits
become more important in determining success.
This guide covers the character traits and social skills that often separate
the "star" graduate students from the ordinary ones. Who are the students
who are self-motivated, take initiative, find ways around obstacles,
communicate well both orally and in writing, and get along well enough with
their committee and other department members to marshal resources to their
cause? Which students seem to know "how the system works" and manage to get
things done? These traits are hardly unique to succeeding in graduate
school; they are the same ones vital to success in academic or industrial
careers, which is probably why many of the best graduate students that I
knew were ones who had spent some time working before they came back to
school.

This document is aimed at junior C.S. graduate students, but these
observations are probably broad enough to apply to graduate education in
other technical fields. My conclusions are certainly colored by my
particular experiences (doing my dissertation work in interactive computer
graphics in the Computer Science department of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill) but I think they are fairly general in application
and should be of interest to readers at other schools and other C.S.
specialties. Obviously, these are only my opinions and may not represent the
views of other sane individuals or organizations. Some points may be
controversial, but if they weren't this would not be interesting reading.
Parts of this document come from two informal talks I gave at UNC about "the
Ph.D. job hunt" and "observations from spending one year in industrial
research." Both talks had larger audiences than any informal technical talk
I gave at UNC, which told me that students are definitely interested in
these subjects!


Why get a Ph.D.?

"Being a graduate student is like becoming all of the Seven Dwarves. In the
beginning you're Dopey and Bashful. In the middle, you are usually sick
(Sneezy), tired (Sleepy), and irritable (Grumpy). But at the end, they call
you Doc, and then you're Happy."
- yours truly
The most basic question every Ph.D. student must know the answer to is: "Why
the hell am I doing this?"

It's a good question. The hours are long. The pay is low, with minimal
benefits. After graduation, Ph.D. salaries are higher than B.S. and M.S.
salaries, but the difference doesn't make up for the income lost by staying
in school longer. The M.S. has a better "bucks for the time invested" ratio
than the Ph.D. does. And in terms of social status, a graduate student
doesn't rank very high on the ladder.

If you do not have an acceptable answer to this question, then don't get a
Ph.D. I repeat: if you do not have a rock-solid reason for getting the
Ph.D., then it is better that you leave with a Master's.

Why? Completing a Ph.D. is a long, hard road with many potholes and washed
out bridges along the way. You may run over some land mines and have to stop
and turn around and explore other routes. If the goal is important enough to
you, then these obstacles will not prevent you from completing your journey.
But if you don't know why you are on this road, then you will get
discouraged and will probably leave without finishing, having wasted years
of your life.

I faced this situation after the first time I took the Doctoral Written Exam
(which at the time was the entrance examination into the Ph.D. program). I
missed passing it by just 4 percentage points. I then had to decide whether
or not to try again next semester (committing myself again to spending weeks
getting ready for the test) or just leave with an M.S. degree.

I didn't come to graduate school with the Ph.D. as the primary goal. So this
test result forced me to answer the basic question "Why the hell am I doing
this?" After much soul searching, I found my answer and decided to take the
test again, passed it, and went on to get my Ph.D.

I got the Ph.D. because I wanted to get a research position after leaving
graduate school. I wanted to work with the state of the art and extend it. I
did not want to "bring yesterday's technology one step closer to tomorrow."
I wanted a job that would I find interesting, challenging and stimulating.
While an M.S. would give me a chance at landing a research position, the
Ph.D. would give me a much better chance. And I did not want to live with
regrets. If I took the Doctoral Written Exam again and failed again, then I
could say that it wasn't meant to be and move on with my life. I would have
no regrets because I had given it my best shot and was not able to make it.
However, if I left with an M.S. without taking the test a second time, and
five years later I was in a job that was boring and uninteresting, then I
would have to lie awake every night for the rest of my life wondering "What
if?" What if I had taken the test again and passed? Would I then be in the
job that I really wanted? That was not a situation I wanted to be in. I did
not want to live the rest of my life regretting what might have been.

In hindsight, I think one of the main reasons I successfully completed the
Ph.D. was the fact that I didn't pass the exam on the first try. It's
ironic, but life sometimes works in strange ways. That initial failure
caused me to answer the basic question, providing the mental fortitude to
keep going despite the hurdles and problems I would later face.

My answer is you should get a Ph.D. if it is required for your goals after
graduate school, such as becoming a professor or a researcher in academia,
government or industry. Your answer may differ from mine. As long as you
have an answer that you believe in passionately, then that's enough. If you
don't have an answer, then save yourself a lot of grief and don't get the
Ph.D.

Academia is a business
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules."
Academia is a business, and "graduate student" is a job title. This is
especially true at private universities. Academia is very peculiar type of
business. It is certainly not the Real World and does not work in the same
way that the ordinary corporate world does. However, it is a business
nonetheless and as a graduate student, you must treat it that way. Graduate
school made a lot more sense and became much easier for me after I realized
this. If you think of graduate school as an "Ivory Tower" free of politics,
money problems, and real-world concerns, you are going to be severely
disappointed. If you don't believe me, read The Idea Factory by Pepper White
(listed in the references) for one account of graduate life at MIT.

A few graduate students are independently wealthy or have fellowship and
scholarship money that cover all their expenses for their total stay in
graduate school. Such students are rare, however. Most of us needed
financial support, in the form of Teaching Assistantships or Research
Assistantships (RA's). In general, RA's are more desirable to students since
those can directly fund the research you need to finish.

Where does the money come from to fund RA's? Your professors have to raise
funds from external organizations. These include government agencies such as
the National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and others. Private
companies also fund some university research, although this tends to be less
common, in smaller amounts, and in the form of equipment donations. These
organizations don't just give money away as charity. They expect their money
to accomplish something. Increasingly these days, this takes the form of a
contract for a working demonstration that must be shown at the end. That
means once the money is delivered, your professors must come through with
the working demonstration. It is rare that they do this by themselves.
Instead, they find some very capable, young, self-motivated people who are
willing to work long hours for small amounts of pay. In other words, they
fund RA's.

The RA job is crucial to the academic business. If the RA's cannot
successfully conduct the research, then the demonstration will not work in
the end and the funding agencies may not be happy. They may choose not to
fund your professor in the future, which will bring his or her research
program to a halt. And there are many professors and other researchers
chasing too few research dollars these days; it is a competitive market.
Thus, each professor wants the best students available. These students are
the most capable ones who can get the research done required to fulfill the
funding contracts.

That means you must treat an RA like a job. You must prove to your
professors that you are capable of getting the work done, being a team
player, communicating your results, and most of the other characteristics
needed to do well in regular jobs. That's why many of the upcoming sections
in this guide sound like ones written for the regular workplace.

What do you get out of this? At the start, you may have to do tasks
specifically related to the funding contracts. But eventually your professor
must be flexible enough to fund your own specific research program that
leads to the completion of your dissertation. Your stipend and tuition
waiver should be enough to live on frugally without going into debt. You
will learn the state of the art in your chosen speciality and conduct
cutting-edge research on a subject that you find interesting and enjoyable.
If you don't find this compensation sufficient, then you shouldn't be in
graduate school in the first place.

The bottom line: realize that academia is a peculiar kind of business and
the role you play in this enterprise. If you do your job well (and have good
negotiation and interpersonal skills, as discussed in future sections), both
your needs and your professors' needs will be met. But don't enter an RA
position thinking that the computers, research equipment, staff members and
other resources that you are provided with are your birthright. Don't take
them for granted! Most of those exist only because your professors have been
able to raise the money to provide those to you. In turn, you must fulfill
your end of the deal by doing great research with those resources. If you
don't do your job well, don't be surprised if your professors choose not to
fund you in the future. They do not have to provide you with an RA job or
let you use the computing equipment they acquired. And the student who has
no funding, no tuition reimbursement and no access to required computing
resources is the student who leaves the university that semester.

How do you make sure you are one of those best, highly desired RA's? Read
on!


Graduate school is a different ballgame
"Don't let school get in the way of your education."
- Mark Twain
"The IQ test was invented to predict academic performance, nothing else. If
we wanted something that would predict life success, we'd have to invent
another test completely."
- Robert Zajonc

If you go through a Ph.D. program, you will find graduate school a very
different world from undergraduate school. If you just get an M.S., then
graduate school may not be much different from undergrad (depending on where
you get your degree), except that the courses are deeper and more advanced.
But for a Ph.D. student, graduate school is a whole new ballgame. The
students who do well are the ones who learn this earlier rather than later
and make the necessary adjustments.

Graduate school is not primarily about taking courses. You will take classes
in the beginning but in your later years you probably won't have any
classes. People judge a recently graduated Ph.D. by his or her research, not
by his or her class grades. And, without any offense to my professors, most
of what you learn in a Ph.D. program comes outside of classes: from doing
research on your own, attending conferences, and talking to your fellow
students. Success in graduate school does not come from completing a set
number of course units but rather from successfully completing a research
program.

Graduate school is more like an apprenticeship where each student has his or
her own project, and the masters may or may not be particularly helpful.
It's like teaching swimming by tossing students into the deep end of the
pool and seeing who makes it to the other end alive and who drowns. It's
like training clock designers by locking students inside a clock factory
with some working clocks and lots of clock parts and machines for building
clocks. However, the instructions are at best incomplete and even the
masters themselves don't know exactly how to build next year's models.

Excelling in a Ph.D. program requires different skills than doing well in
undergrad. Undergraduate education tests you through class projects (that do
not last more than a semester), essays, midterms and finals. For the most
part, you work alone. Your professor may not know your name. Every other
student in your class takes the same tests or does similar projects. But in
a Ph.D. program, you must select and complete a unique long-term research
program. For most of us, this means you have to learn how to do research and
all that entails: working closely with your professors, staff and fellow
students, communicating results, finding your way around obstacles, dealing
with politics, etc.

I'm not saying that tests and grades are completely unimportant in graduate
school. One of the two biggest hurdles in completing a Ph.D. is passing the
qualifying exam. (The other is finding an acceptable dissertation topic.)
But because graduate school is not nearly as exam-based as undergraduate
education and requires different skills, the GRE and undergraduate grades
are not as good an indicator of who will excel and who will drop out as
admission committees seem to think. Those tests do not measure creativity,
tenacity, interpersonal skills, oral presentation skills, and many other
important traits.

The next several sections discuss these traits.


Initiative
"The difference between people who exercise initiative and those who don't
is literally the difference between night and day. I'm not talking about a
25 to 50 percent difference in effectiveness; I'm talking about a 5000-plus
percent difference, particularly if they are smart, aware, and sensitive to
others."
- Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
The dissertation represents a focused, personal research effort where you
take the lead on your own, unique project. If you expect that your adviser
is going to hold your hands and tell you what to do every step of the way,
you are missing the point of the dissertation. Ph.D. students must show
initiative to successfully complete the dissertation. This does not mean
that guidance from professors is unimportant, just that this guidance should
be at a reasonably high level, not at a micromanaging level. If you never do
any tasks except those that your professor specifically tells you to do,
then you need to work on initiative.

At UNC, there is a famous anecdote about a former UNC graduate student named
Joe Capowski. Many years ago, UNC got a force-feedback mechanical arm to use
with molecular visualization and docking experiments. The problem was how to
move it to UNC. This mechanical arm is a large, heavy beast, and it was in
Argonne National Labs in Chicago, IL. Unfortunately, there was a trucker's
strike going on at the time. Joe Capowski, on his own initiative (and
without telling anyone), flew out to Argonne, rented a car, drove the
mechanical arm all the way back to North Carolina, and then handed the
computer science department the bill! Many years later, Joe Capowski ran for
the Chapel Hill city council and won a seat. Prof. Fred Brooks gave him an
endorsement. I still remember the words Dr. Brooks said: "I may not agree
with his politics, but I know he'll get things done."

While the Joe Capowski anecdote is perhaps a bit extreme, it does show that
it is often better to ask forgiveness than permission, provided you are not
becoming a "loose cannon." Certain universities (e.g. MIT) are good at
fostering a "can do" attitude among their graduate students, and therefore
they become more assertive and productive. One of the hallmarks of a senior
graduate student is that he or she knows the types of tasks that require
permission and those that don't. That knowledge will come with experience.
Generally, it's the senior graduate students who have the most freedom to
take initiative on projects. This privilege has to be earned. The more that
you have proven that you can work independently and initiate and complete
appropriate tasks, the more your professors will leave you alone to do what
you want to do.


Tenacity
"Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal. My strength lies
solely in my tenacity."
- Louis Pasteur
You don't need to be a genius to earn a Ph.D. (although it doesn't hurt).
But nobody finishes a dissertation without being tenacious. A dissertation
usually takes a few years to complete. This can be a culture shock to former
undergraduates who have never worked on a project that lasted longer than
one quarter or semester (at the end of which, whatever the state of the
project, one declares victory and then goes home). No one can tell you in
advance exactly how long the dissertation will take, so it's hard to see
where the "end of the road" lies. You will encounter unexpected problems and
obstacles that can add months or years to the project. It's very easy to
become depressed and unmotivated about going on. If you are not tenacious
about working on the dissertation, you won't finish.

Tenacity means sticking with things even when you get depressed or when
things aren't going well. For example, I did not enjoy my first year of
graduate school. I didn't tell anyone this until after leaving UNC. I was
not on a project and was focused on taking classes, some of which I didn't
do all that well in. I didn't feel a part of the Department, and really
wondered whether or not I fit in. Still, I stuck with it and when summer
rolled around and I got a job in the Department, I became much more involved
in research and enjoyed graduate school much more. Part of earning a Ph.D.
is building a "thick skin" so you are not so fragile that you will give up
at the first sign on any difficulties.

One lesson I learned as a graduate student is the best way to finish the
dissertation is to do something every day that gets you closer to being
done. If all you have left is writing, then write part of the dissertation
every day. If you still have research to do, then do part of it every day.
Don't just do it when you are "in the mood" or feeling productive. This
level of discipline will keep you going through the good times and the bad
and will ensure that you finish.


Flexibility
"Back in graduate school, I'd learned how to survive without funding, power,
or even office space. Grad students are lowest in the academic hierarchy,
and so they have to squeeze resources from between the cracks. When you're
last on the list for telescope time, you make your observations by hanging
around the mountaintop, waiting for a slice of time between other observers.
When you need an electronic gizmo in the lab, you borrow it in the evening,
use it all night, and return it before anyone notices. I didn't learn much
about planetary physics, but weaseling came naturally."
- Clifford Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg
"The Chinese call luck opportunity and they say it knocks every day on your
door. Some people hear it; some do not. It's not enough to hear opportunity
knock. You must let him in, greet him, make friends and work together."
- Bernard Gittelson

Flexibility means taking advantage of opportunities and synergies, working
around problems, and being willing to change plans as required. As a
graduate student, you are on the bottom of the academic totem pole. Even
undergraduates can rank higher, especially at private universities (because
they actually pay tuition!) You cannot order anybody to do anything. In
general, you will be in the position of reacting to big events rather than
controlling them. Therefore, you must be flexible in your approach and
research program.

For example, you may not have as much access to a piece of laboratory
equipment as you would like, or maybe access is suddenly cut off due to
events beyond your control. What do you do? Can you find a replacement? Or
reduce the time needed on that equipment? Or come in at odd hours when no
normal person uses that equipment? Or redefine the direction of your project
so that equipment is no longer required?

Events can be good as well as bad. The difference between the highly
effective graduate student and the average one is that the former recognizes
those opportunities and takes advantage of them. I had nothing to do with
bringing Gary Bishop to UNC. But after he arrived I realized my research
would progress much faster if he became my adviser so I made the switch and
that was a big help to my graduate student career. Opportunities for synergy
and serendipity do occur, but one has to be flexible enough to recognize
them and take advantage of them.


Interpersonal skills
"For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in
matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea
to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people
who can't handle the truth."
- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of
people."
- Isaac Newton

Computer Science majors are not, in general, known for their interpersonal
skills. Some of us got into this field because it is easier to understand
machines than people. As frustrating as computers can be, they at least
behave in a logical manner, while human beings often do not. However, your
success in graduate school and beyond depends a great deal upon your ability
to build and maintain interpersonal relationships with your adviser, your
committee, your research and support staff and your fellow students. This
does not mean you must become the "life of the party." I am not and never
will be a gregarious, extroverted person. But I did make a serious effort to
learn and practice interpersonal skills, and those were crucial to my
graduate student career and my current industrial research position.

Why should this matter, you may ask? If one is technically brilliant,
shouldn't that be all that counts? The answer is no, because the situation
is different from your undergraduate days. In both graduate school and in
business, you must depend upon and work with other people to achieve your
goals To put this in perspective, I have excerpted the following from an
article called "Organizations: The Soft and Gushy Side" by Kerry J.
Patterson, published in Fall 1991 issue of The Bent:
  

I first learned of the capricious, human side of organizations some 15 years
ago while studying the careers of engineers and scientists. The research
design required that I spend eight hours a day in one-on-one interviews. For
two hours I'd ask "career" questions of an engineer, chemist, physicist, or
applied mathematician -- all of whom worked for a Fortune 500 firm. During
these 120 minutes, the subjects talked about the perils of the
organizations. Two hours was scarcely enough time to share their stories.
All energetically discussed their personal careers. Most had been frustrated
with the "soft and gushy" side of organizations. Some had figured out the
system and learned to master it. Others had not.
As part of the research design, we asked to talk to low, medium, and high
performers. This in itself was an interesting exercise. To determine
performance rankings, we would place in front of a senior manager the names
of the 10-50 people within his or her organization. Each name would be typed
neatly in the middle of a three-by-five card. After asking the manager to
rank the employees from top to bottom, the managers would then go through a
card sort. Typically the executive would sort the names into three or four
piles and then resort each pile again. Whatever the strategy, the exercise
usually took only minutes. Just like that, the individual in charge of the
professionals in question was able to rank, from top to bottom, as many as
50 people. It rarely took more than three minutes and a couple of head
scratches and grunts. Three minutes. Although politics may appear ambiguous
to those on the receiving end, those at the top were able to judge
performance with crystal clarity.

This performance ranking (conducted by individuals not involved in the
interviews) was then used as a dependent measure. Those of us conducting the
interviews attempted to surface information (independent measures) that
would predict the ranking. What about a scientist's career would lead to a
top ranking? What trashed a perfectly good career? Surely scientific prowess
would have an impact. And it did.

But technological prowess wasn't as predictive as another factor. We
discovered that we could tell what performance group the interviewees
belonged to within a minute or two by their attitudes toward people and
politics. Individuals who were ranked low by their managers spoke of
organizational politics as if it were poison. They were exceptionally
annoyed by the people side of the business. They frequently stated they
would rather be left alone to conduct their research untrammeled by human
emotions. They characterized the social side of organizations as "soft and
gushy." They sounded like Spock turned bitter.

Top performers, in contrast, found a way to work within the political
system. They hadn't exactly embraced politics. They didn't appear like that
toothy kid you knew back in college who lived to fight political battles.
They didn't come off as glad-handling sales folks. These were professional
scientists who were often top ranked in their field. They looked and talked
liked scientists. The difference between them and those ranked at the bottom
of the totem pole was clear. They had found a way to make peace with
organizations, people, and politics. They climbed to the top of their field
by mastering both hard things and soft and gushy people.

Engineers and scientists aren't the only ones who find the human side of the
organizations to be annoying. As we expanded our research to include
professors, accountants, and other professionals, the findings were
remarkably similar. All found political machinations to be distasteful. It's
just that some had found a way to master the social aspects -- the top
performers.


Students usually look down on politics, but politics in its most basic,
positive form is simply the art of getting things done. Politics is mostly
about who is allowed to do what and who gets the resources (money, people,
equipment, etc.) To succeed in your research, you will need resources, both
capital and personnel. Interpersonal skills are mandatory for acquiring
those resources. If you are incapable of working with certain people or make
them mad at you, you will not get those resources and will not complete your
research.
For example, which group of people did I try my best to avoid offending? Was
it my committee? No, because healthy disagreements and negotiations with
your adviser and committee are crucial to graduating within a reasonable
amount of time. Nor was it my fellow students, because I did not need help
from most of them, and most of them did not need me. The critical group was
the research and support staff. These include the research faculty and all
the various support positions (the system administrators, network
administrators, audio-visual experts, electronic services, optical and
mechanical engineers, and especially the secretaries). I needed their help
to get my research done, but they did not directly need me. Consequently, I
made it a priority to establish and maintain good working relationships with
them.

Cultivating interpersonal relationships is mostly about treating people with
respect and determining their different working styles. Give credit where
credit is due. Acknowledge and thank them for their help. Return favors.
Respect their expertise, advice and time. Apologize if you are at fault.
Realize that different people work in different ways and are motivated by
different things -- the more you understand this diversity, the better you
will be able to interact and motivate them to help you. For certain people,
offering to buy them dinner or giving them free basketball tickets can work
wonders.

A true example: at one point in my research, I needed to make significant
modifications to some low-level code in the graphics computer called "Pixel
Planes 5." Doing this required expertise that I did not have, but another
graduate student named Marc Olano did. How should I tap into Marc's
expertise and get my necessary changes done?

The wrong way is to go up to Marc, explain the problem, and get him to make
the changes. Marc doesn't need the changes done; I do. Therefore, I should
do most of the work. Expecting him to do the work shows disrespect of his
time.

What I actually did was to explain the problem to Marc and he sketched out a
possible solution. Then I ran off and worked on my own for a few days,
trying to implement the solution. I got part of it working, but ended up
getting stuck on another part. Only at that point did I go back to Marc and
ask him for help. By doing this, I showed that I respected his time and
wanted to minimize his burden, thus making him more willing to help me.
Months later, when he and Jon Cohen needed my help in setting up a system to
demonstrate some of their software, I was more than happy to return the
favor.

Interpersonal interaction is a huge subject and goes far beyond my
description here. All I can really do in this section is (hopefully)
convince you that these skills are vital to your graduate student career and
encourage you to learn more if you need to improve these skills. I still
have a lot to learn myself. I recommend reading The 7 Habits of Highly
Effective People and Type Talk (both listed in the References section) as
starting points.  The magazine article "How to be a star engineer" (listed
in the References) also touches on this subject.


Organizational skills
"Failing to plan is planning to fail."
Since academia is a type of business, you will have responsibilities that
you must uphold. You will be asked to greet and talk with visitors, give
demos, show up to meetings, get projects done on time, etc. If you are not
well organized, you will have a difficult time meeting those obligations. A
technically brilliant student will be greatly hampered if he or she exhibits
an "absent minded" personality and develops a reputation for being
disorganized.

There are many different time management and organization skills, and you
can find many books on those at your local bookstore. This guide is not
going to describe them. Find one that works for you and use it. I can highly
recommend Stephen Covey's book, listed in the references. But whatever
system you pick, just make sure it works for you. I have never found anyone
else who uses my filing scheme, but it is effective for me (by minimizing
the combined time of putting away and locating a piece of information). All
that really matters is whether or not it works.

One metaphor I found useful is the following: Organize your tasks as if you
were juggling them. Juggling several balls requires planning and skill. You
must grab and toss each ball before it hits the ground. You can only toss
one ball at a time, just as you can only work on one task at a time. The
order in which you toss the balls is crucial, much as the order of working
on tasks often determines whether or not you meet all your deadlines.
Finally, once you start a task (grab a ball) you want to get enough done so
you can ignore it for a while (throw it high enough in the air so it won't
come down for a while). Otherwise you waste too much time in context
switches between tasks. Do you see jugglers try to keep each ball at the
same height above the ground, frantically touching every ball every second?

Randy Pausch (a professor at CMU) has a set of notes on time management.
Three words in his guide summarize the most vital step: Kill your
television. He asks you to keep your priorities straight. What is the most
important thing to a Ph.D. student? It should be finishing the dissertation,
not watching every episode of Friends. That doesn't mean dropping everything
else in life, but it does mean knowing what takes priority and allocating
time accordingly.


Communications skills
"What is written without effort is, in general, read without pleasure."
- Samuel Johnson
"Present to inform, not to impress; if you inform, you will impress. "
- Fred Brooks

I am always amazed that articles written about businesses consistently put
good communication skills at or near the top of list of skills that
employers want to see in people but rarely find. But you know what? It's
true!

Communication skills, both written and oral, are vital for making a good
impression as a Ph.D. student and as a researcher. At a minimum, you have to
defend your dissertation with an oral presentation. But you should also
expect to write technical papers and reports, give presentations at
conferences, and give demonstrations to groups of visitors. If you can write
and speak well, you will earn recognition and distinguish yourself from the
other graduate students. This is especially true when giving presentations
in front of important visitors or at major conferences.

Conversely, if you cannot communicate well, then your career options after
graduation will be limited.  Professors spend most of their time
communicating: teaching, fundraising, guiding graduate students, and
documenting their results (through papers, videos, viewgraphs, etc.)  In
industry, we need people who can communicate well so they can work in teams,
learn what businesses and customers need, present their results, raise
funds, and transition to leadership roles in projects and personnel
management.  If you are technically brilliant but are incapable of
communicating, then your results will be limited to what you can accomplish
alone and your career growth will be limited, both in industry and academia.

Unfortunately, not all graduate students receive training in giving
presentations or writing technical documents (which are different from
English essays). These are skills that can be learned! Don't worry if giving
presentations and writing papers are not something that comes naturally to
you. I was not very comfortable giving oral presentations when I started
graduate school, so I made a concerted effort to learn how to do so, by
taking classes, reading about the subject, and practicing. It's not easy,
but it's well worth the investment. If you need practice, try giving
informal talks at research luncheons, joining Toastmasters, and studying
good speakers to see what they do.

Covering everything about this subject would fill a guide by itself (check
out the SIGGRAPH page on preparing and giving presentations), and would
probably better done through a videotape than a written document. But here
are a few basic points:
  

Organization counts. Within the first few paragraphs or first few minutes,
tell me why I should read your paper or listen to your talk. Make it clear
where we are going and what we have already covered.
Make the text in your slides large enough so that people sitting in the back
can read them. For large presentation halls, this usually means no more than
6-7 lines per slide and 28 point type minimum. You'd be surprised how many
experts on visualization (especially tenured professors!) give presentations
with unreadable slides.
Variety retains interest. Vary your pace, tone, and volume. Emphasize the
important points. Look around the room. Throw in some video, pictures, or
live examples.
Don't stand in front of the screen and block everyone's view. You'd be
surprised how often people do this without realizing it.
Point out the limitations of your work. That helps your credibility.
Similarly, give credit where credit is due.
Make friends with the A/V crew! Running A/V is a thankless, negative
reinforcement job. If everything runs smoothly, well, that's what was
supposed to happen so nobody says anything. But if anything goes wrong, the
entire audience looks back at the control room. Help the A/V people help
you. Always check in early and test the equipment. Tell them what you are
going to do in your presentation (e.g. I'm running 3 video segments). Make
sure you know how everything works long before you come up to the podium.
And thank the A/V crew for their help after you are done!

Confidence is the key to giving a good presentation. And the way to gain
confidence is to give good presentations. When you're just starting out,
this is a Catch-22. However, once you become good enough, this turns into a
positive feedback cycle that can make giving talks a pleasure.

Writing papers and getting them published is vital for Ph.D. students who
want to get jobs in research after graduation. Your ability to write well
significantly improves the chances that your paper will be accepted. When I
was a young graduate student and read a paper that I didn't understand, I
thought "Gee, I must be dumb." Today I will read the same paper and think
"Boy, this is a lousy paper. The authors did not do a good job explaining
and presenting their work." If I am reviewing that paper, such a reaction is
enough for me to reject the paper.

Where do you submit your papers? Your professors will help you with this
choice, but in general I would suggest shooting for the best conferences or
journals where you think it has a reasonable chance of being accepted. It's
not much more work to write, submit and present a paper in a highly
respected venue than in less respected venues. And if you don't shoot for
the top you'll never know if it would have made it. The field of computer
graphics is a bit unusual in that the most desirable place to publish is a
conference (SIGGRAPH), rather than a journal. Be aware that journals can
take years to publish submitted papers; the turn-around time is much faster
in a conference.

Finally, don't forget to communicate with your professors and your
teammates. Keep your committee appraised of your progress. One thing I do
(which few others do) is write short (1 screenfull) status reports, which I
religiously e-mailed to my professors and team members on a weekly basis.
These serve as an efficient way of keeping everyone up to date on what I'm
doing. They are also a good way for me to record my progress. If I need to
remember what I got done during a six month period, I have plenty of old
status reports that I can read. You'd be amazed how appreciative professors
and managers are of this simple practice. I also throw in a different
humorous quote at the end of each week's report to reward people for reading
it.

When you are working in the lab and you reach a milestone or achieve a
result, let people know about it! Bring in your professors and fellow
students and show it off! That's a win-win situation. It lets others know
that you are making progress and achieving results, and you get valuable
feedback and advice.


Choosing an adviser and a committee
"Some students in the lab are only nominally supervised by a thesis advisor.
This can work out well for people who are independent self-starters. It has
the advantage that you have only your own neuroses to deal with, not your
advisor's as well."
- from "How to do research at the MIT AI Lab"
The choice of an appropriate adviser is crucial to successfully completing
the Ph.D. Your adviser must be someone who can cover your area of
specialization and someone you can get along with. When I started graduate
school, I thought the adviser - student relationship was supposed to be very
close, both professionally and socially. In reality, the relationship is
whatever the professor and the student choose to make of it. It can be
close, with invited dinners at the professor's home, or it can be distant,
e.g. meeting once per semester just to remind the professor that the student
is still alive.

One basic question in choosing an adviser is whether to pick a junior
(non-tenured) or a senior (tenured) professor. Non-tenured professors tend
to travel less and are generally more available. It is difficult to get help
from an adviser who is never in town. Non-tenured faculty have fewer
advisees that you have to compete with to get time with the professor. They
are more likely to be personally involved with your research -- writing
code, spending time in the lab at midnight, etc. Non-tenured faculty must be
energetic and hard working if they want to be awarded tenure, and this work
habit can rub off on their students. However, tenured faculty have several
advantages as well. They are usually the ones with most of the money and
resources to support you. They do not have to compete with their students
for publications and recognition. The advisee does not run the risk of
having his or her adviser not getting tenure and leaving the university.
Tenured faculty are more experienced with "how the game works" and thus may
be better sources of guidance, personal contacts, jobs after graduation,
etc.

I ended up with a non-tenured professor (actually, he was not even on the
tenure track at the time) as my adviser, but also put several tenured
professors on my committee, including some of the most senior ones in my
specialty. In that way, I got the best of both worlds: the day-to-day
attention from the primary adviser, combined with the resources and
experience of the committee.

Professors develop reputations amongst graduate students. Some are known to
graduate their Ph.D. students rapidly. Others are impossible to get hold of,
so their students take forever to finish or leave without graduating. Some
dictate what their advisees have to do, while others are accommodating of
student interests. Ask around. What you learn may be revealing. And if
circumstances change to make another professor a more appropriate match to
your needs, don't be afraid to switch if that is an overall win.

When picking a committee, you want to make sure they can cover all the areas
of your thesis. You also want to make sure that it is likely that all the
committee members will be available for meetings! Including too many
professors who travel often will make it difficult to get all five or six
together in one room for a three hour oral exam or proposal meeting. When
scheduling such meetings, start by finding times when the difficult-to-reach
professors are in town, and then add in the other committee members.


Balance and Perspective
"Life goes by so fast, that if you don't stop and look around, you might
miss it."
- from the film Ferris Bueller's Day Off
"Generally speaking, people provide better maintenance for their cars than
for their own bodies."
- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

When I was in graduate school, my top priority was crystal clear to me:
getting out with a Ph.D. Other people described me as "focused like a laser
beam" on that goal. In retrospect, I may have been too focused. There is
more to life than graduate work. Keeping your health and your sanity intact
are both vital to achieving the primary goal of getting out.

Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) is a major occupational hazard in our
industry. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is just one type of RSI. If you do not know
how to set up your workspace for good ergonomics, learn now! The Pascarelli
reference at the end of this guide is a good book on this subject. Over a
dozen of my friends and coworkers have been inflicted with this problem. In
severe cases, RSI can be a career-ending injury. If you can't type, it's
rather difficult to write papers, computer programs, presentations, etc.
Don't let this happen to you! Prevention is the way to go. Recently I have
been working with weights to strengthen my shoulders and wrists as an
additional preventative step.

Earning a Ph.D. is like running a marathon. You have to learn to pace
yourself and take care of your body if you want to reach the finish line.
Unfortunately, students often act like sprinters running a marathon. They
are highly productive for a while, but then fall by the wayside because they
aren't eating correctly, exercising, taking time out to recharge their
batteries, etc. You maximize your long-term productivity by not ignoring
those other aspects. While I was in graduate school, I took time out to
travel up and down the East Coast, from Boston down to Orlando. That was an
important part of keeping my stress down and recharging my batteries. I also
did some running and circuit training for exercise. For shorter breaks, I
shot nerf basketballs at a tiny hoop mounted in the graphics lab and kept a
guitar in my office. Figure out what works for you.

It's easy to lose perspective while in graduate school. You are surrounded
by so many other smart, hard working people that it is easy to feel inferior
and lose self-esteem and confidence. But without an underlying confidence
that you do have what it takes to complete a dissertation, it's too easy to
drop out when the going gets tough instead of sticking it through. I found
it useful to keep in touch with the "real world," to remind myself that the
graduate student population is not representative of humanity in general and
to keep my perspective. You got into graduate school because you have
already shown to your professors that you have potential and skills that are
not typical among most college students, let alone most people -- don't
forget that.


The Ph.D. job hunt
On résumés: "The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he
fills out a job application form."
- Stanley Randall
Real World, The (n.): Where a computer science student goes after
graduation; used pejoratively ("Poor slob, he got his degree and had to go
out into the REAL WORLD."). Among programmers, discussing someone in
residence there is not unlike talking about a deceased person."
- the fortune program

Ideally, the job hunt begins years before you graduate. Networking is very
important: while you are in the middle to late phases of your graduate
studies, try to get yourself noticed by professors and industry people at
other sites. One way to do this is to offer to give a talk about your work
at another site. This is not that difficult to do, since most research
places love to host seminars and bring in fresh ideas. Attending conferences
and working elsewhere during the summer are other ways to get exposure. Make
friends with graduate students and personnel at other schools. Make and
carry your own business cards. Schmooze with important visitors during major
site visits. For about two years, I ran the informal "Graphics Lunch"
symposia at UNC. That means I was the point of contact for many speakers who
visited UNC and that helped me make contacts. There is also a "star" system
that exists. Certain outstanding graduate students can get labeled as
"stars" by their professors and that can be an enormous help in getting an
interview at CMU or other prestigious locations. It's nice if you can get on
that track but one shouldn't rely upon it!

Networking is important because many jobs are found and filled that way. I
got my position at HRL partially because I visited there, at my own expense,
two years before I even started my job hunt. That meant that when I
circulated my résumé, I was more than just a piece of paper to them. You
are not going to be looking for job ads in the newspaper. Instead, you'll
look for announcements in major journals, at conferences, on the Net, and
through your contacts. For industrial positions, it is crucial to get past
the Human Resources department and find the individual with the ability to
hire and deal with that person directly.

When do you start asking for interviews? You can start when you are able to
give a talk about your dissertation work. Don't be too early or too late,
because you only get one chance per site. Academic positions generally have
a particular "season" (much like getting admitted to school) that starts in
the Fall and ends around April; industrial positions generally don't follow
that. The job hunt and interviewing process can take months; factor that
into your time allocation.

The job supply and demand situation can vary dramatically in a few years,
and anything I say here about how strong the job market is today (Jan. 2003)
will likely be out of date by the time you read it.  For example, during the
time I was job hunting (end of 1994 to early 1995), good positions were not
easy to find. If I had a dollar for every site that told me "We don't have a
permanent position, but would you take a postdoc?" I could buy a lot of
lunches. However, around 1997 the graphics job market became very strong,
with many individuals getting multiple offers with high salaries. 1998 was
an excellent year for people looking for tenure-track graphics faculty
positions. I know many friends who found good tenure-track positions that
year.  So when I revised the guide in 2000, I said the job market was strong
with high demand. Of course, the tech industry went downhill at that point
and hasn't recovered yet. Now it is much more difficult to find research
positions in industry or academia.  With luck, the market will be much
better at the time you read this.

Before starting the job hunt, determine your goals and parameters in advance
and the "angle" you will take to sell yourself. For example, my strength was
in systems, so I chose to emphasize that in my cover letters. Customize your
approach to each site, if time permits. What you do for your thesis
determines who will and who won't take a look at you. Try to get at least
one reference from outside your university.

This guide is not going to cover the basics of interviewing; you can get
that from many books (e.g. the Martin Yate and Bob Weinstein books listed in
the references). However, I will mention some tips. Don't interview on the
day of arrival, and try to avoid Mondays and Fridays. Be prepared for hard
or illegal questions, but you probably won't get them. Do your homework on
each site before interviewing! It continually amazes me that people show up
for interviews without knowing anything about the institution they want to
join. If the target is a research lab for a major company, you can easily
find Wall St. Journal articles, annual reports and stockbroker reports in
your library. If your goal is an academic position, check out the Tomorrow's
Professor site for guidance.  If you interview at a university, get their
course catalog and use their numbering scheme to describe the courses you
can teach. Interview to find out more about them, not just to sell yourself.
Your 45-60 minute research presentation is crucial; make sure you practice
it thoroughly. Interviews create interviews. That is, if you've already gone
on many interviews at other places, then that makes you appear more
desirable since others want you, and that makes it easier for you to get
more interviews. Broadcast this fact by keeping your interview schedule on
your web page. There is an anecdote about one student who received offers to
interview at many different places, but only after Stanford interviewed him!
Keep logs on who you talk to, what you talked about, and when. That makes it
easier to keep things straight when juggling several contenders. The major
conferences in your field are a good place to schedule preliminary
interviews to get your foot in the door, because it is cheap for the company
or university. The people you need to meet are already there, so that saves
them the expense of having to fly you out and house you at their site.

Offers are a waiting game. Be prepared for lots of frustration. You need a
written offer or nothing is official; you should also accept or reject in
writing. Negotiate, but be aware of the strength or weakness of your
position. Starting salary may not be as important as the type of work,
benefits, and growth potential. Drug tests and other factors are becoming
more common; you will have to decide how you want to respond to those.

Ah yes, salaries. Everybody wants to know about those. For academic (tenure
track) salaries, you can get typical numbers from the annual Taulbee
surveys, printed in the Computing Research News newsletter and the
Communications of the ACM. Realize that these are 9-month salaries. Whether
or not you can procure funding that covers 2 or 3 months of summer salary
makes a big difference to your bottom line. Also, professors can make money
by consulting at rates of $1000-2500 per day, although this is more common
among established professors. Figures for industrial salaries are harder to
come by. The Maisel and Gaddy references are the only ones I have found that
specifically surveys young Ph.D.'s in industry (also see the chart a few
paragraphs down). Salaries depend heavily on geography. Silicon Valley is in
a league of its own, with salaries far above any other region. But before
you decide to move to Palo Alto, remember that the cost of living there is
also in the stratosphere. In Sept. 1997, a $60k salary in Indianapolis
bought the same standard of living as a $101k salary in San Jose! The cost
of living difference is larger today.  Decent houses in the Silicon Valley
cost more than half a million.  More general computer science salary surveys
are run by the IEEE and EE Times, available at the JobStar salary survey
site.

Acquire salary information on your own by making use of your network. Don't
ask for someone's salary directly, unless it's someone you know very well
and even then be very careful. Instead, bounce figures off people and see
how they respond. Do they think the figure you mention is high, low, or
about right? By seeing how people respond you can get an idea of what the
market range is.

Factor in benefits and the expected workload into your compensation
evaluation. That $100k offer may seem less attractive if you have to work 80
hour weeks in that position.  Traditionally, stock options made up a large
fraction of the compensation packages for startups and Silicon Valley
positions, but with the tech bust that may no longer be the case.

The type of work and compensation varies dramatically with the types of
positions. Academic positions are tenure-track, research staff (non tenured)
and postdocs. Tenure-track positions at major universities are fairly hard
to come by; you need to be both good and lucky. Read the Feibelman and
Ralston references for more details. The tenure-track also requires a lot of
hours and dedication. As Randy Pausch put it, tenure is a competitive
process where you get compared with the other assistant professors and the
already-tenured professors. If they worked 70 hour weeks for six years to
get tenure, don't expect to get away with working 40 hour weeks. Postdocs
are low paying but good for padding your C.V. if you think you need it to
get a tenure track position. Just be sure to read the Feibelman reference,
which tells you exactly what you need to do to survive a postdoc. In
general, academic positions don't pay as well as industrial positions, but
universities offer more freedom, prestige, a richer intellectual environment
and the possibility of long-term stability (with tenure). There's a big
difference between startups, regular industrial jobs, and industrial
research positions. Startups can be the most lucrative financially, although
that's a big gamble. Read the Kawasaki and Bell references if you want to
work at a startup. Expect to put in long hours while losing contact with the
research community. Industrial research lies in an uncomfortable middle
ground between production jobs and academic research, and blends the
advantages and disadvantages of industry vs. academia.

The next two charts are the latest figures I have for academic and
industrial salaries.



The above chart is from the March 2002 issue of Computing Research News.  It
shows the results of the latest Taulbee survey of academic salaries, where
nine-month assistant professor salaries average in the $70-80k range.



The above chart is from the November 2002 issue of Computing Research News,
showing compensation for industrial positions (based on 11 organizations and
689 responses). Unsurprisingly, expected compensation from bonuses and stock
options dropped significantly from 2000 to 2001.  Industrial compensation is
higher than academic, although the Taulbee figures are for nine months of
salary (not 12).  With summer salary and other supplements, the difference
is reduced.  Still, Computing Research News estimates that total
compensation for assistant and associate professors lags that of comprable
industrial counterparts by 25%.

No matter where you go after you graduate, maintain your contacts with your
alma mater. You may change jobs and move from place to place, but you will
always have your degree from your university. If you keep good relations
with your university and your fellow former students, that will serve as an
excellent base for your personal network.


Conclusion
"Dissertations are not finished; they are abandoned."
- Fred Brooks
The following story, called "The Parable of the Black Belt," is excerpted
from Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, by James C.
Collins and Jerry I. Porras.
  

Picture a martial artist kneeling before the master sensei in a ceremony to
receive a hard-earned black belt. After years of relentless training, the
student has finally reached a pinnacle of achievement in the discipline.
"Before granting the belt, you must pass one more test," says the sensei.

"I am ready," responds the student, expecting perhaps one final round of
sparring.

"You must answer the essential question: What is the true meaning of the
black belt?"

"The end of my journey," says the student. "A well-deserved reward for all
my hard work."

The sensei waits for more. Clearly, he is not satisfied. Finally, the sensei
speaks. "You are not yet ready for the black belt. Return in one year."

A year later, the student kneels again in front of the sensei.

"What is the true meaning of the black belt?" asks the sensei.

"A symbol of distinction and the highest achievement in our art," says the
student.

The sensei says nothing for many minutes, waiting. Clearly, he is not
satisfied. Finally, he speaks. "You are still not ready for the black belt.
Return in one year."

A year later, the student kneels once again in front of the sensei. And
again the sensei asks: "What is the true meaning of the black belt?"

"The black belt represents the beginning -- the start of a never-ending
journey of discipline, work, and the pursuit of an ever-higher standard,"
says the student.

"Yes. You are now ready to receive the black belt and begin your work."


To me, there are two lessons in this story.
First, the Ph.D. is the beginning, not the culmination, of your career.
Don't worry about making it your magnum opus. Get out sooner, rather than
later.

Second, if you bother to talk to and learn from the people who have already
gone through this process, you might graduate two years earlier.

Good luck.


Other Related Guides
Tomorrow's Professor, a collection of interesting articles for current
graduate students and those seeking academic positions after graduation.
The superb Graduate Student Resources on the Web! at U. Michigan
Jeff Hollingsworth's guides on job hunting
Information resources for the graduate student. Includes MIT AI Lab guide
and other guides from Indiana University and other places.
Improving the Graduate School Environment for Women in Computer Science
Graduate School Survival Links
Advice on Research and Writing
Rice University Chemistry grad student guide
Marie des Jardin's "How to be a Good Graduate Student"
Stanford Graduate Student Survival Guide
(Humor) A Day in the Life of a Grad Student
(Humor) The Ph.D. vs. the Lotto
The National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
RPI's Grad Student Survival Guide in Math Sciences
Douglas Comer's essays on computer science and the Ph.D.
(Humor) Lord of the Rings as an allegory for getting the Ph.D.

Recommended Reading
Bell, C. Gordon and John McNamara. High-Tech Ventures: The Guide for
Entrepreneurial Success. Addison-Wesley, 1991. ISBN 0-201-56321-5.
Dated, but recommended reading if you want to work for a startup.
Bronson, Po. The Nudist on the Late Shift. Random House, 1999. ISBN
0375502777.
A fun read, giving the flavor of what working in the Silicon Valley is
like.  Many of the chapters previously appeared as articles in Wired.  A
snapshot of the culture before the tech bubble burst.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Fireside Simon
and Schuster, 1989. ISBN 0-671-70863-5.
Excellent overall, with sections on time management, guiding principles and
interpersonal skills.

EE Times Salary Survey Issue.
EE Times produces an annual survey and commentary about industrial salaries.

Feibelman, Peter J. A Ph.D. is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in Science.
Addison-Wesley, 1993. ISBN 0-201-62663-2.
Good discussion of research career paths. A must read if you choose to take
a postdoc.

Kawasaki, Guy. The Macintosh Way: The Art of Guerrilla Management. Harper
Perennial, 1990. ISBN 0-06-097338-2.
Despite problems that occurred at Apple, this book shows the energy and
chutzpah required to survive in a startup.

Kelley, Robert E.  How to be a star engineer.  IEEE Spectrum (October 1999),
51-58.
Good description of the skills that are needed to excel at work, which go
beyond sheer technical skills.

Kroeger, Otto and Janet M. Thuesen. Type Talk: The 16 Personality Types that
Determine How We Live, Love and Work. Tilden Press, 1988. ISBN
0-385-29828-5.
Introduction to the Myers-Briggs type indicators, useful for interpersonal
relations.

Maisel, Herbert and Catherine Gaddy. Employment and Salaries of Recent
Doctorates in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 40, 9 (September
1997), 90-93.

Maisel, Herbert and Catherine Gaddy. Employment and Salaries of Recent
Doctorates. Communications of the ACM 41, 11 (November 1998), 99-101.
One of the few surveys I have seen for recent C.S. Ph.D.s that includes both
industry and academic numbers. The low sample size is a problem, however.

Pascarelli, Emil and Deborah Quilter. Repetitive Strain Injury: A Complete
User's Guide. John Wiley and Sons, 1994. ISBN 0-471-59532-2.
A good introduction to RSI injuries and avoiding them.

Pastore, Robert R.  Stock Options: An Authoritative Guide to Incentive and
Nonqualified Stock Options, 2nd edition.  (printed Dec. 1999).  ISBN
0966889924.  PCM Capital Publishing.
I haven't read this but I have been told this is an excellent reference for
those of you fortunate enough to have a bundle of stock options.  Give me a
few options as a tip for finding this book, ok? :-)  The book covers tax and
legal issues and gives advice on when to keep or exercise your options.

Ralston, Anthony. The Demographics of Candidates for Faculty Positions in
Computer Science. Communications of the ACM 39, 3 (March 1996), 78-84.
A must read if you are looking for tenure track positions. The author is a
former CS professor who led a faculty search, so if you don't believe what I
say, then listen to him.

Weinstein, Bob. Résumés Don't Get Jobs: The Realities and Myths of Job
Hunting. McGraw-Hill, 1993. ISBN 0-07-069144-4.
Gritty, realistic job hunting guide for today's market.

White, Pepper. The Idea Factory: Learning to Think at MIT. Plume (Penguin
Books), 1992. ISBN 0-452-26841-9.
While this is not about C.S., it does dispel the notion of graduate school
as an ivory tower environment.

Yate, Martin. Knock 'Em Dead: The Ultimate Job Seeker's Handbook. Bob Adams,
Inc.
Good generic guide to job hunting and interviews, including a long section
on interview questions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Last updated: Fri January 3, 2003
Questions? Mail to [email]azuma@HRL.com[/email]

Return to Ron Azuma's page of guides on CS graduate school

Return to Ron Azuma's home page

Copyright 1997-2003, Ronald T. Azuma, except for portions excerpted from
elsewhere

Neway2flyUID: 130962

以前看过，已收藏

cacaotreeUID: 152514

TOO    LONG  AN   ARTICLE~~~~~~~~~~
谁看过的可否简单概括一下内容??????????????????????