September 1, 2022
Arthur Spirling
I am, generally speaking, against advice. It is typically vague, unactionable or obvious. Sometimes all three. Especially when unsolicited, its purpose is mostly not to help anyone, except the advice giver. And for them, it is often narcissism parading as noblesse oblige. The other thing I am against is selecting on the dependent variable. And while it is certainly concerning that everyone who sees that Wald Bomber meme eventually dies, the risk of being ignorant of it is non-trivial too.
And yet, when combined, advice and selection bias can produce magical results. And so it is here, as I elucidate the characteristics that unite succesful (interpret how you will) graduate students. I write it from the perspective of a Political Science/Data Science professor in a research intensive institution in the United States, but I hope that the tips are more general. But obviously, what follows is an
- ...combine intellectual deference and initiative.
Here "deference" means being respectful of both the field and the people in it. You cannot make headway unless you understand what has come before, and work with the grain. This extends to your advisor and their work. While most students master deference, many never then learn to show initiative---by which we mean being entrepreneurial with their projects and resources. In my experience, advisors want to advise, not direct, not cajole, not hand-hold. Good advisees push intellectual boundaries (not professional ones), and are not afraid to innovate, try things and report back. Good advisees bring output for advisor input; they bring (potential) solutions, not problems. Something (anything!) in draft form---articles, proofs, code---is a million times better than nothing done. Drafts allow students to ask specific questions and to get specific responses. And those are the type you want.
- ...understand grad school is a job.
For good and bad. You have rights as a student and as an employee: be aware of them. You also have responsibilities. These may not be explicit, but we are talking basic things like being on time for meetings, emailing back when your advisor writes to you, doing your homework, writing your dissertation etc. You signed up for this position and though it is (too) poorly paid, it is paid. It is your job right now, and you should do it to the best of your ability. You should reach out immediately if you cannot do your job, for whatever reason---never be embarrassed or ashamed about that. Your advisor and your DGS want to help: help them help you.
- ...are optimally stubborn.
It is important to be somewhat stubborn---to have self-belief, and passion for seeing your projects through as you envision them. You must not get too swayed by others, including their criticisms (or more commonly, their negligent lack of interest). This is not simply a matter of developing a "thick skin" --- a term that puts the onus too much on the junior person to 'suck it up'. It is a matter of remembering that you are (becoming) an expert, and that questions/concerns imply engagement with your work. But don't be too stubborn: we all have students who simply do not listen; or worse, do listen, but don't put any of the lessons into action. Be ready to stick to your guns, but also ready to give up those particular guns if someone you trust advises it.
- ...understand that autonomy is much more rewarding and frightening than problem sets.
The number one resource you have in grad school is time. You have time in a way you will never have again in your career---including on sabbaticals. Use it. Many students think that once the core courses are done, and the problem sets are all turned in, they can finally relax. This is exactly wrong. When there are no constraints on your time, you can really get your research going. And you must. This does not mean working all hours (which is completely counterproductive), but it does mean taking responsibility for your time, and not procrastinating. If you learn that skill in grad school, it will serve you for the rest of your career.
- ...don't waste time worrying about whether they are "smart enough".
It is painful for everyone at the start: you are trying to get to the frontier of knowledge in a 2000 year old discipine in 2.5 years. It will take time for you to feel confident in your skills and instincts. So remember: you have been admitted to a top program. Top people in the discipline have decided you are smart enough. Trust their judgment. You didn't fool them, and it's not worth a single second of your time worrying about whether you are smart enough to be here, to get a PhD, to be an assistant professor etc. No good advisor is thinking about that. What they are thinking about is whether you will put the effort in, show initiative, be professional etc. Worry about that. A lot.
- ...listen, and learn "the game".
Academia is only partly about the work you do. This is unfortunate in a sense, but not a surprise for social scientists. A lot of what will determine your outcomes in the career are not directly related to your papers. They are things like: your networks, your salesmanship, your ability to get along with people etc. So listen carefully and understand how the discipline "works" as a system. This involves everything from understanding how conferences are organized, to what journal peer review involves, to how faculty make decisions after job talks, to what a "postdoc" is and what it is for etc etc. Ask questions about the discipline and the career---your advisor will clarify. And if they will not clarify, you deseve another advisor.