Mixing
Is it okay if a PhD student's work seems insignificant compared to others'?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical computer science student working on algorithms. I am doubting myself a bit, as I have spent the last 6-7 months working on one problem. Although I am not able to solve the desired problem, I have been able to solve some specific cases. I am currently writing a paper as my research supervisor advised, but when I look at the work of other researchers in my field, my own research works seems insignificant. To me it appears that my (one- or two-page-long) algorithm may seem trivial to an established researcher.
Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as compared to other researchers in the field?
phd academic-life
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical computer science student working on algorithms. I am doubting myself a bit, as I have spent the last 6-7 months working on one problem. Although I am not able to solve the desired problem, I have been able to solve some specific cases. I am currently writing a paper as my research supervisor advised, but when I look at the work of other researchers in my field, my own research works seems insignificant. To me it appears that my (one- or two-page-long) algorithm may seem trivial to an established researcher.
Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as compared to other researchers in the field?
phd academic-life
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
14
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
1
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I am a theoretical computer science student working on algorithms. I am doubting myself a bit, as I have spent the last 6-7 months working on one problem. Although I am not able to solve the desired problem, I have been able to solve some specific cases. I am currently writing a paper as my research supervisor advised, but when I look at the work of other researchers in my field, my own research works seems insignificant. To me it appears that my (one- or two-page-long) algorithm may seem trivial to an established researcher.
Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as compared to other researchers in the field?
phd academic-life
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
I am a theoretical computer science student working on algorithms. I am doubting myself a bit, as I have spent the last 6-7 months working on one problem. Although I am not able to solve the desired problem, I have been able to solve some specific cases. I am currently writing a paper as my research supervisor advised, but when I look at the work of other researchers in my field, my own research works seems insignificant. To me it appears that my (one- or two-page-long) algorithm may seem trivial to an established researcher.
Question: Is it okay if the work of PhD student seems insignificant as compared to other researchers in the field?
phd academic-life
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
edited Aug 26 at 7:56
cag51
7,24531638
7,24531638
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
asked Aug 26 at 6:39
lovw
37119
37119
14
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
1
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
14
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
1
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35
14
14
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
1
1
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.
That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.
My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.
Just publish it and see how it works out.
In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.
In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.
It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.
That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
add a comment |Â
up vote
30
down vote
It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.
That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
add a comment |Â
up vote
30
down vote
up vote
30
down vote
It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.
That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
It is entirely normal that beginning students would achieve incremental results that compare poorly to the best papers from the best researchers in the field. Sometimes researchers need time to mature, and sometimes research directions just don't pan out even for the best of us. Not every worthwhile paper is revolutionary.
That said, it's impossible for us to tell whether you should be concerned or not. It's possible you did everything exactly right and this is where the science led you; it's also possible that you did not. The person best suited to judge this is your advisor. Since your advisor wants you to publish, it would seem that they are not too concerned. Still, asking them for feedback is likely a good idea.
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
answered Aug 26 at 8:06
cag51
7,24531638
7,24531638
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.
My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.
Just publish it and see how it works out.
In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.
My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.
Just publish it and see how it works out.
In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.
My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.
Just publish it and see how it works out.
In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
It is actually very difficult to judge how significant your work is before you publish it and others try to use it or build something upon it. There are many examples of great scientists misjudging their work.
My favorite is John Nash's paper on equilibrium in games. Nash thought it wasn't a big deal so he allegedly didn't even bother wasting time to publish it. The story goes his adviser published it on his behalf. Now it is considered the most important paper in economics, if not all social sciences. He got a Nobel prize for it. Nobel committee usually features him on top of their economics website. 11 or now 12 more Nobel prizes were given for work directly based on this paper.
Just publish it and see how it works out.
In response to comments, this is just a story about Nash's initial attitude towards his discovery of equilibrium that I heard many times. Even if it is exaggerated, it is clear Nash couldn't have know the greatness of his discovery until much later. This documentary has some pieces of this story.
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
edited Aug 27 at 3:38
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
answered Aug 26 at 11:09
Arthur Tarasov
5,8271232
5,8271232
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
 |Â
show 7 more comments
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
2
2
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
This is a mind-blowing anecdote. I know of anecdotes along these lines, but none that come close to comparing to this.
– Stella Biderman
Aug 26 at 15:48
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
That header doesn't mean that. In the past, articles published in Proc. National Academy of Sciences had to either include an author who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, or be sponsored by a member, who selected reviewers themselves. "Communicated by" means that Nash's advisor sponsored it, because Nash wasn't a member himself. At one point, papers could bypass this process, like normal journals, and in 2010, communicating was abolished. If Nash wasn't connected, he couldn't have gotten the paper in PNAS. Today, a NAS member author still greatly improves your chance in PNAS.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 16:23
6
6
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
Strictly speaking the economics prize is not a Nobel prize. The dude never wanted economics to be part of the price when he was alive. It's the prize of a national bank to honor his memory.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 17:51
1
1
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
@ArthurTarasov You missed the point. You misinterpreted how PNAS articles are published. When a PNAS article says "Communicated by", it does not mean anybody "published it on his behalf". The name listed there is the NAS member, who acted as the editor and arranged for the peer review of the paper. In the past, if you weren't a member of the NAS, the only way to get in PNAS was to have a NAS member you know, in this case Nash's advisor, act as an editor for you. In normal journals this would be a blatant conflict of interest, but its how PNAS, and some other national academies, work.
– user71659
Aug 26 at 23:28
1
1
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
"His adviser published it on his behalf, as you can see in the header of the paper." The NAS member listed in the header is Lefschetz. Nash's advisor was Tucker. Nash wrote his PhD thesis on the topic, which "wasted" (obviously not!) more time than it takes to write a 2 page paper. Finally, Nash wrote three more papers on the topic in the next three years (he only wrote 21 papers in his entire career). In summary: your narrative about his attitude doesn't make much sense, except that he was also deeply interested in several pure mathematical topics.
– Pete L. Clark
Aug 27 at 3:06
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.
In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.
It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.
In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.
It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.
In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.
It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
I wouldn't be concerned at all. In fact, I ask "seems insignificant to who?" As you say, you doubt yourself, but your advisor (and others) may have no doubts at all.
In CS, as in mathematics, some problems are just harder (much harder) than others, so small results may actually be significant in search of a larger goal. I've worked on problems (in math) for which no progress could be made at all.
It is almost always good advice to follow your advisors direction in such things.
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
answered Aug 26 at 11:07
Buffy
15.5k55187
15.5k55187
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
Researchers always need some time to mature. In a few exceptional cases, that maturation may happen before officially starting the PhD. Don't compare yourself against those exceptions. From my experience, the typical researcher only starts producing good papers in the second half of their PhD, or only after becoming a postdoc.
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
answered Aug 26 at 14:07
kfx
637512
637512
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
add a comment |Â
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
2
2
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
I agree. PostDoc especially. Maybe it is something about these 10 000 hours.
– mathreadler
Aug 26 at 18:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
For many people, your own research will often seem insignificant compared to others for the simple reason that you've thought enough about the topic for things to feel obvious. This is especially the case in math and computer science. If you really do have such doubts, talk to your advisor. They should have more of an idea of how good your work is.
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
answered Aug 27 at 3:18
JoshuaZ
2262
2262
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115850%2fis-it-okay-if-a-phd-students-work-seems-insignificant-compared-to-others%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
14
Are you comparing yourself to other established researchers or to other PhD students?
– the L
Aug 26 at 7:12
Are you working alone on your topic? What about the others that you are comparing yourself to? Are they large teams?
– J-Kun
Aug 26 at 7:35
1
academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/…
– henning
Aug 26 at 8:35