Do I leave my PhD program?

October 28, 2011 6:04 PM

I might not be smart enough for my PhD program; it is obvious from my classes that I lack certain skills or aptitudes the average student in my field has. Do I quit now?

I'm in my second year in a highly ranked PhD program in my field. I like it and I've had moderate success in my research so far, but it's clear to me from my classes that I am painfully slow at some things that other students grasp quickly. I can not work as quickly as them and I score lower on tests, but not bad enough to fail. These are core parts of our work, this is not optional. I might be able to improve through remedial self-tutoring. I don't think my program will have anything to say about this as long as I keep meeting minimal benchmarks and not failing these classes, but maybe I should quit now before I get into worse trouble or I fail something bad enough to be kicked out? The fact that I am sort of mediocre at this skill set means I am probably destined to be mediocre in my field unless I can turn it around in the next year or so, and feelingly dumb all the time is killing my self esteem. They admitted me with clear indications that this area was not my strong suit and I thought (and I presume they thought as well) that my other areas of strength would compensate as long as I got the practice and got to learn it a different way, but I remain below average.

No one is clearly unhappy with me yet, but that's maybe just because I haven't screwed up anything major yet, but there's a chance I will, or I might just fail to thrive more subtly, my research won't get published, and I will waste my time because I didn't know when to admit I wasn't good enough. If I quit now I will have no job and no degree, but I will leave with my mental health mostly intact and I won't waste the next four years. I might be able to squeak out a Master's degree in another year and a half, but I will have to convince faculty to let me do that and no one will be happy with that option, and they might show me the door the minute they realize they're wasting resources on someone who doesn't plan to finish.

tl;dr I suck at parts of being a grad student. do I get out ASAP?

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (32 answers total)

The fact that I am sort of mediocre at this skill set means I am probably destined to be mediocre in my field unless I can turn it around in the next year or so

Does it?

It's impossible to tell from what you wrote, but there are certain skills that might take a while to learn, but no matter how long it takes you to learn them and how slow that process is, once you know them, you know them and you are on an equal footing to everyone else.

And then there are other skills where even if everyone understands them equally well, some people can just do work with them more quickly than other people can.

Is it closer to the first case or the second case here?

I might be able to improve through remedial self-tutoring.

Why does it have to be self-tutoring? Is there a reason you can't take a tutor or better yet, take a class that will teach you these skills that you aren't solid on yet? Can you take your required PhD courses at a slower rate (fewer courses per semester) while you do this, or even take a semester or two hiatus to get yourself up to speed?
posted by cairdeas at 6:13 PM on October 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

What do you plan to do with your grad degree? If you want to work in your field, it is absolutely true that being slower at some skills can be compensated for by other areas of strength. Some of the best people I know in my field are not very intuitive or fast-thinking when it comes to the sort of stuff they would have been tested on in coursework, but they are hard-working, confident, persevering, and creative, so they come up with interesting ideas, and publish good papers. They also tend to be better teachers than the people to whom all the coursework came easy, because they can empathise with the weaker students and know ways of getting through to them.

If you just want the piece of paper for some other reason, I would reconsider whether you can achieve your goals without a graduate degree.

Also, if you really think your self esteem is going to suffer a lot from this, that would be a reason to consider dropping out, because students' self esteem takes a huge battering in grad school anyway, and if you already finish your coursework in a bad place, that is a recipe for serious depression problems.
posted by lollusc at 6:14 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

The work you do in classes does not necessarily have much to do with how you do at research. You like it, you like the research, you do well at the research, then you stay in. Your grades in gradschool coursework really do not matter.

Keep in mind however that there is *always* a chance you won't get published, regardless of how awesome you are. If you are hoping to get an academic job, the market is terrible in most every field. It's not just capability at research but also luck, timing, ability to spread your work and market yourself, and many other factors that come into getting the rare jobs that are available. This is both good and bad; but you shouldn't be doing grad school for the eventual reward, because anyone telling you there's an eventual reward is probably wrong. Do it because you like where you are now. Do it because you enjoy the skills you are developing.

Also, more importantly than the above, you sound like you're suffering from a textbook case of impostor syndrome. Go look it up, read about it, and then look in the mirror.
posted by nat at 6:15 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Okay, so. Here's the deal: grad schools are in the business of keeping students in. The high rates of dropping out and non-graduating (I know there's a word for that, but it's Friday night) are one of the main issues in the graduate school. They want you there. The faculty and the grad school want you to stay and to finish. They do. You should have DGS. Go talk to her. Explain what the deal is. Figure out if you can take lower-level course work that will get you up to speed before you have to take the core courses (seems like you came in straight from undergrad?). Get a tutor. You'll figure it out eventually. Just because you are mediocre now doesn't mean you will stay there. That's what grad school is for: learning. This does not mean you will be a terrible researcher or a bad professional. You will get it. You will. School is only a waste of time if you don't want to do it -- this may be a question where you already know what to do, but you are looking for reassurance. If that's the case, then godspeed. If you really want this, though, you will get it.
posted by mrfuga0 at 6:15 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Being slow at thinking/grasping things does not necessarily mean you cannot do great work. I remember learning in grad school about how slow some famous mathematicians were in their thinking.
posted by Obscure Reference at 6:22 PM on October 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Don't compare your insides with everyone else's outsides.

I'm a post-secondary student too, although not at the tier that you are at. I'm one of the top students in my classes; I had a 92% average last year (which is crazy considering the marking standards for Canadian schools). And yet, I struggled, and still do struggle, with the exact same thing that you're describing. Everyone in my classes thinks I'm one of the top students who can get any concept and ace every test etc., but whenever I look at myself, all I can see is someone who struggles to comprehend even the most basic concepts.

Some of my classmates have described how inadequate they feel sometimes when compared to me - and then I just shake my head at how much I disagree with their statements. To me, they're the ones who seem to "get it" conceptually, even if they don't do as well academically as I do - I feel like I'm just sucking up information from textbooks and regurgitating it on the examination paper.

The skill-sets that you require for academics, and the skill-sets that you require for being an academic do not completely overlap. Perhaps my situation could be described as the opposite of yours: while I'm decent at pleasing the professors academically, even though I really want to do research, I am afraid that I don't have the creativity and innovation to generate anything beyond the routine.

What keeps me going? Plain and simple: even if I have weaknesses in the area, I still love my field. I can use my academic ability to prop myself up to give me the time I need to develop the skills that I don't have in comparison to everyone else.

In other words: don't assume that the students who do well academically have it made. Feeling too inadequate and stupid for your degree is a universal problem.
posted by Conspire at 6:27 PM on October 28, 2011 [6 favorites]

Is grading being done on a curve in your core courses?
posted by infini at 6:28 PM on October 28, 2011

Subject matter could matter here. Quickness in English doesn't matter much. Quickness in math might.
posted by J. Wilson at 6:28 PM on October 28, 2011

Also, more importantly than the above, you sound like you're suffering from a textbook case of impostor syndrome. Go look it up, read about it, and then look in the mirror.

I concur with this. It's possible that you aren't doing as badly as you think you are, that you are very good at some other important things that your peers stink at, or a number of other things.

Let me put it this way: Phd. programs don't work like undergrad courses in, say, organic chemistry. They don't want to weed you out; they want to admit and enroll a very limited number of students and then graduate those students in a reasonable time frame. They didn't admit you for the heck of it; they admitted you because in their expert opinions you were capable of doing the work and reflecting well on them. Don't be so sure they made a mistake.

Before you decide to leave- which is an okay thing to decide if that is what is right for you- get some objective opinions on how far you really might be behind and on how tough it would be to catch up.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 6:32 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

This sounds like imposter syndrome to me. Feeling dumb is the key attribute of the 2nd year of a PhD program. (First year is feeling confused and for the second half, dumb...)

But without knowing what you're sucking at, this is really hard to judge. Please memail me and I can give you more concrete advice.

I kind of get the sense that the 'skill set' is something like quantitative skills and that you're sucking at that part.

When you say that you don't think that your research will ever get published -- is this a problem with your topic? Your lack of skill set X? Maybe you need to be in a department working with people on your topic that doesn't require skill set X?

But I have to ask -- are you and your advisor getting along? Have you talked to your advisor about this? "Hey Dr. Whatever, I'm kinda worried about my stats skills..."

Can you take more classes in X in other departments?

But overall, ask yourself if being in a PhD program and this PhD program is what you really want. I am pro-leaving-with-an-MA though.
posted by k8t at 6:40 PM on October 28, 2011

The fact that I am sort of mediocre at this skill set means I am probably destined to be mediocre in my field unless I can turn it around in the next year or so

I know plenty of statisticians who aren't good at the math-stat things one learns first year but can do very thoughtful and insightful analysis. I mean, I'm not going to be the next Kolmogorov either. The bio grad students and post docs I know joke about how little relevance their classwork has to their function. Even if you are right, it might not matter.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:56 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

effort and preparation is worth more than natural skill.

you might have to work harder than others to be successful, but you can do it.
posted by Flood at 7:07 PM on October 28, 2011

Let's say you're right (which is not clear) and you're below average in your highly ranked graduate program. That means you would be competitive with the top students at many other graduate programs. Should they quit?

One difficult thing about academia, especially in the sciences (which is where I'm sensing you are from your description) is that there is always somebody better than you. Usually quite a few people. Do you take that to mean "I should quit?" or do you take it to mean "What good luck I have, to be around people whose skills are even stronger than mine, who can push me into being better at making new knowledge in this disicpline than I already am?" It's your choice.
posted by escabeche at 7:10 PM on October 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just remember this:

What do you call the person who graduates last in their med school class? Doctor.

If you have dreams of academia, or a very specialized career set, you may be shattering those right now, but for the global picture of all folks in your field... well... I'd bet there are a lot of roles you could still do post PhD.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:47 PM on October 28, 2011

Response by poster: Let me tell you about my parents.

They met in graduate school and both graduated with Ph.Ds in Biochemistry. My dad is absolutely brilliant. My mom is very average in intelligence. He took on the role of main breadwinner while she took care of the kids.

The thing is while he's smarter, he's not as great at the working world. He switched jobs about every 2-4 years and we moved all over the place. Their latest place they've stayed 7 years--is the longest they've been in one area since I've been alive. Part of this is because my mom got a job about six years ago.

See, though she's average in intelligence, my mom is a billion times more shrewd and driven. After all, despite being average she still graduated from a prestigious university with a doctorate in biochemistry during a time when there were no women in math and science.

My dad has gone through about three jobs in those 7-8 years. My mom returned to work at 54, and in those six years she's had umpteen promotions and accolades. A month before her 60th birthday the large, international company she worked for created a position specifically for her directly under the head of her very large division. She got this job and has succeeded despite the kind of patchy work experience you'd expect from someone who was mostly involved in childcare and moving with her husband every few years. And at an age when everyone else is retiring!

Don't sell yourself short. If you want to do what you're doing, if you really want it, superb effort and focus wins over just brainpower every time.
posted by Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 28, 2011

I like it and I've had moderate success in my research so far

This is probably 90% of being a graduate student. I would say the other 10% is communicating your research well, i.e., giving good talks and writing clear papers.

Probably a lot of people in your year are obsessing about classes, which can make it hard to keep perspective, but my advice would be to continue doing "well enough" in your classes and keep playing the long game. Nobody will look at your transcript when you apply for a postdoc.

The one grain of salt I'd add to this is that if you're pre-quals, you may need to know certain material for the exam -- it works differently in every department so I can't be more specific. Other than that, I'm not hearing much cause for concern.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:08 PM on October 28, 2011

I'm guessing that if you take "tests," you're not in any field close to mine.

That said, as nat noted above, impostor syndrome is a real thing. It affects almost everybody in grad school. And in an elite program, almost everybody feels dumb. What separates the successful from the unsuccessful is how much they love the field, and how hard they are willing to work (in terms of keeping up with recent scholarship and producing articles), and, to a lesser but still significant degree, how much effort they are willing to put into the social networking in their field (through conferences, talks, meetings, emails, and the numerous social occasions that develop at or through these events).

The cream, in the sense of the naturally gifted, does not always rise to the top in academe. This can be frustrating if you're the lazy dollop of cream, and quite inspiring if you're competent and disciplined.

Are there any senior grad students whom you trust enough to discuss your insecurities with? Certainly, if a first year approached me with your concerns, I'd be glad to talk with him or her. Alternatively, is there a counseling center on your campus? They might be able to help.
posted by artemisia at 10:34 PM on October 28, 2011

Sorry, one more thought: if you are fully funded (as I hope you are), my advice above stands. You have the time and space to work through this. (I'm guessing you're fully funded since you say you're at a prestigious program.)

If you are not fully funded -- if you are going into debt for this doctorate, as it seems more and more people are -- then my advice differs somewhat. Any chance of an update through the mods?
posted by artemisia at 10:39 PM on October 28, 2011

It varies from programme to programme, but I've known of quite a few that would happily toss funded students if they didn't think they would make the grade. If no one has expressed dissatisfaction with you, the odds are that they're quite happy (this is especially true if you're in a top tier programme). You might ask the grad adviser if you feel comfortable enough with them if there have been rumblings. Talking to other students might not help that much as they're not going to be able to tell what your teachers feel about you.

In my experience (as both student and professor) it's more common to encounter flashy students who are quick on the uptake than it is to encounter the ones that are willing to do the drudge work which is necessary in every discipline.

And, yes, everyone feels this way. And sadly it doesn't stop when you become a professor either.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:41 PM on October 28, 2011

Sometimes it really is for the best to leave. I did, as did several other math people I know. We still got MSs, which have helped us. A PhD program can be hell if your aptitudes and the program's aren't aligned, if you can't find a prof who wants to research the same stuff you do, you have a normal stress tolerance, or any number of other reasons.
posted by Sexy Question Bot at 11:40 PM on October 28, 2011

Being smart or quick is not what gets you a PhD. Having the work ethic to actually write up your research into a dissertation is what gets you a PhD. Staying in there for the long haul, writing a little bit every day, and staying open to criticism are ultimately what matters. If someone can't do those, then it doesn't matter how smart or quick they are. That person is not going to graduate.
posted by yeolcoatl at 12:01 AM on October 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Depends on your area.

But, think of it this way, a big part of research is learning. You're learning. Don't focus on your grades. You're there to learn. If you don't think you can keep learning - and all that learning involves (and learning involves failing sometimes) - then you should leave.
posted by mleigh at 2:11 AM on October 29, 2011

Imposter syndrome +1
posted by cromagnon at 3:30 AM on October 29, 2011

I went to a talk at my brother's graduation, by a Caltech professor who said that even years after he'd become a professor and discovered something really important about Pluto, he was always afraid they'd come in and be all, "Look, that Pluto thing was really good, but we've made a mistake ..."

Nobody really cares about grades in grad school. They're going to care about your research. Your research won't necessarily reflect your grades, and vice versa. The last thing you should be doing is telling yourself that bad grades mean bad research especially if you haven't done research yet because you're in a classes stage.

Here are two articles I'd suggest you take a look at :

Hamming, You and Your Research

I've told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn't produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail?

Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don't have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We're talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition.

The Importance to Stupidity in Scientific Research

Second, we don't do a good enough job of teaching our students how to be productively stupid – that is, if we don't feel stupid it means we're not really trying. I'm not talking about `relative stupidity', in which the other students in the class actually read the material, think about it and ace the exam, whereas you don't. I'm also not talking about bright people who might be working in areas that don't match their talents. Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity'. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown. Preliminary and thesis exams have the right idea when the faculty committee pushes until the student starts getting the answers wrong or gives up and says, `I don't know'. The point of the exam isn't to see if the student gets all the answers right. If they do, it's the faculty who failed the exam. The point is to identify the student's weaknesses, partly to see where they need to invest some effort and partly to see whether the student's knowledge fails at a sufficiently high level that they are ready to take on a research project.

Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. No doubt, this can be difficult for students who are accustomed to getting the answers right. No doubt, reasonable levels of confidence and emotional resilience help, but I think scientific education might do more to ease what is a very big transition: from learning what other people once discovered to making your own discoveries. The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:42 AM on October 29, 2011 [4 favorites]

Comrade_robot is making a good point. Imho it applies to any area where creativity and innovation, or rather original thought, maybe required. My experience includes managing all elements of student services from admissions through to graduation for masters and PhD in human centred design - this aspect is clear since there are fewer classes where sheer brainpower can help you with when what you need is curiosity, and in user observations and user research that 'absolute or productive' stupidity (also referred to as the 'beginner's brain) that makes the difference between true insight into what could solve a problem or identifying an opportunity space (think Steve Jobs) than rote reproduction of a rigorous process alone. Imagination and the ability to envision is what I'd add to the comment above.
posted by infini at 6:42 AM on October 29, 2011

Honestly I am not aware of ANY PhD program that could serve as a test for intelligence.

What to do with a PhD might be another question.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 8:39 AM on October 29, 2011

Being smart or quick is not what gets you a PhD. Having the work ethic to actually write up your research into a dissertation is what gets you a PhD.

I think this is it. I was told by my advisor, while doing my PhD (which I didn't finish because I stressed myself out so much that I developed a severe depression - but I am not you), that it's about getting the work done, not getting it done brilliantly. I also had an undergrad advisor who used to say "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly."
posted by kitcat at 9:47 AM on October 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, there were three of us students who would sit there and bemoan the fact that we weren't smart enough for our prestigious program and didn't belong there. The other two have successfully graduated.
posted by kitcat at 9:49 AM on October 29, 2011

I have more questions than answers.

1. What will the PhD help you achieve?
2. What jobs have recent PhD graduates in your area gone on to get? Is that something you want to do?

FWIW, I'm with the others who say to at least get the Master's, as that may open a few teaching jobs for you at community colleges, or research jobs in some areas — if that's one of your career goals.

They admitted you into a PhD program — they think you can do it. The question is, do you want to do it?
posted by wenat at 10:00 AM on October 29, 2011

Honestly, you sound like every single grad student I've ever met in my life. And a lot of them got their degrees and are now happy academics (or as happy as an academic can be...). In my experience, there were 3 kinds of people who were successful in my Ph.D. program:

1. Those who had a solid background in their subject before entering the program, and therefore the first couple years of the program were a breeze. It gave them time to get better at the research part for the next 3-4 years.
2. Those who were naturally gifted and brilliant regardless of background. They didn't need to get good at research -- everything they said was publish-worthy.
3. Those who worked their asses off. Mediocrity can be overcome by people willing to do the work. I don't just mean working hard; I mean doing the work that the rockstars don't want to do. There's a lot of research/publication-worthy stuff that comes from people who may not be at the vanguard of their field, but who are doing the very detail-oriented work that makes their field useful to people. Either by building tools or applying other people's amazing ideas to data and situations that people actually are interested in. (By the way, industry loves hiring such people).

People above have good advice about whether or not you should actually progress with your degree. But if you want a Ph.D. and are excited about the job prospects for a doctorate in your field, then don't let the other people in your program psych you out. Being good at classes isn't the same as being good at research. They often require different skills. Try to get in on a research project/team now (even if you are just doing undergraduate/lower level stuff), or attend seminar/journal club meetings, and see if it's something you think you could do.

Honestly, I'd talk to your advisor or program head about your misgivings as a student to see what they think. They are in the best position to gauge how likely you are to succeed in your field.
posted by bluefly at 2:37 PM on October 29, 2011

Oh dear, I missed the part where you said you're already doing research (at my school we didn't really start until we were done with classes) and had moderate success -- this is really what matters. I agree with everyone says that getting a Ph.D. and doing research is about getting things done. Although, you may have to pass preliminary exams to get there....
posted by bluefly at 2:47 PM on October 29, 2011

I quit post grad within months after starting... after YEARS of believing it was my destiny.... I had letters and a personal relationship with the top guy in my field... I was great on paper. But I could have posted something similar to your question, the differences would have been that I liked the IDEA of my subject and academia, but not the actual subject or academia (in retrospect)... my ability to take criticism was nil... add those 2 things to the fact that when I defended my dissertation thesis i was utterly bored... I just didn't go back. And flash forward 2 years, I am so happy now in a totally different job- but one that is perfect for me... and glad I got the chance to experience grad school and decide it wasn't for me.
posted by misspony at 12:35 PM on October 30, 2011