1

As a PhD candidate, I finally got my first conference paper published in a good reputation conference. My professor said that, even though the paper contained good theory and analysis, the results were only of incremental improvement over the state of the art techniques. He told me that I need to come up with another idea that is big (i.e., has substantial improvement over competing techniques) to be able to graduate. Even though I felt disappointed, I tried to accepted his comment as a challenge to make myself feel better.

Do you think my professor is right? Don't you think that a PhD should be centered around well defining/formulating your problem and proposing/evaluating feasible solution(s), regardless wether incremental or not, as long as originality is preserved. I tend to -respectfully- disagree with my supervisor, and hope that someone else can convince me otherwise. Any thoughts?

rak
  • 11
  • 2
  • 2
    Your professor is correct. – GEdgar Sep 25 '15 at 01:29
  • @GEdgar thanks for your feedback, but can you explain why? – rak Sep 25 '15 at 01:35
  • 1
    Are you misinterpreting what your advisor meant? In my field, one conference paper doesn't make a dissertation regardless. – Austin Henley Sep 25 '15 at 01:47
  • @austin-henley no I'm not misinterpreting my professor. I already have at least two other "incremental" (but original) ideas which my advisor did not advise me to pursue. He wants me to find some other BIG idea with substantial improvement! Do you think this is a reasonable request? – rak Sep 25 '15 at 01:59
  • He knows your work far better than any of us do so I would trust him. This is why you have him after all. – Austin Henley Sep 25 '15 at 02:01
  • You and your professor are both saying the same thing: a Ph.D. needs to show a significant contribution to the state of human knowledge. You don't agree about whether your particular work is significant yet, and we strangers on the internet are not in any position to judge. – jakebeal Sep 25 '15 at 02:21
  • 1
    What do you want the PhD for? A dissertation with just incremental improvements using known techniques is never going to get you an academic job, or, indeed, any job that actually requires a PhD (though if you're after a job that wants a PhD simply because it looks good, it might work). – Alexander Woo Sep 25 '15 at 04:13
  • It is impossible for us to weigh in on this, with so little information to go on. And it is absurd for GEdgar and Austin to judge. I would recommend that you discreetly check in with another respected colleague. Perhaps a more advanced grad student, or a postdoc, or another professor. If you really do get the vibes that your advisor may be judging the situation unfairly, then you could make an appointment to speak with your department chair or the graduate advisor. – aparente001 Oct 02 '15 at 21:53

1 Answers1

0

AFAIK, to have a PhD you must make a significant original contribution to the field. Therefore, I'm inclined to agree with your advisor. Incidentally, your advisor has considerably more experience at this, trust him.

And yes, @jakebeal is right, likely duplicate of What makes someone deserving of a Ph D?

Community
  • 1
Fábio Dias
  • 8,732
  • 1
  • 31
  • 55