Thanks Andy!!! I really enjoyed this explanation 🙏❤️ It all makes sense as I worked across 4 Universities and recognise those levels in the work some of the Professors were involved in.
Mate, Convincing should be level 1. You have to convince the interview panel to chose you to do a PhD in the first place, if it's that type of PhD. The smooth, persuasive, convincing person who can make you feel like you're the centre of their world can slip up that pyramid plant their flag then, for example, do the same in business. I speak from experience as a big mentor of mine did just that. But....gotta keep the content consistent 🙂
Good video- and succinct too! I think that's a good summary of how scientific careers evolve. GIven that you've managed to fit a lot into a short space, it's picky to suggest you've left things out, but: I would argue that you failed to mention one important aspect, which arguably separates the good from the great, and that's a question which comes in at level 2/3 and also becomes important at level 5: being able to ask (and answer) the question: what's worth doing? You talk about "finding your niche" and that's arguably the problem. In academia you can do pretty well if you find a niche and mine it for all its worth, without ever doing anything really worthwhile (although part of the "convincing" skillset is to try and pitch your research papers at better journals than they deserve). One of the problems with academia is that when you find your niche you can also get stereotyped. This is still avoidable after your PhD but after one or two postdocs... you're doomed. What's worth doing? Another difficult issue is that "what's worth doing" and "what's best for playing the game" are not necessarily the same thing. As a side note: the best PhD students I have seen have managed to do good theses which have a diversity to them (depends on your field of course). And, at the same time (networking!) they've managed to land on a few papers which aren't part of their thesis because they spent a bit of time meaningfully helping someone else somewhere. One of the skills in networking and collaborating is contract negotiation: who will lead? who is first author? who will do the work? who will be on the paper? These contracts are nearly always verbal, and you may not even realise that you've just made one.... but, in effect, you have.
Sorry for this but TH-cam won't let me make comments unless I reply to a comment. My question is how do I write a proposal for systematic literature review.
Great presentation!! 😊What if you succeed in each level but the environment doesn’t allow for growth (basically wrong leadership). I think it is a very important factor to be able to move to the next level 🤔
Thanks Andy for great videos. I’m a Clinical Psychologist. I’m senior in industry and for many years I’ve also been an adjunct lecturer. For three years I’ve also been teaching extensively on the professional graduate school programme. I have 2 journal publications. I’m 49 - is it too old to move to fulltime academia? Would a university consider me too old, even though I have serious teaching experience as an adjunct?
Hi Andy! I’m wondering if there are any AI tools or other useful resources available to help analyze SPSS outputs. Additionally, I’m interested in finding out if there are similar tools for conducting quantitative analysis. Thank you!
Just my two cents, but I really think AI is going to take over a lot of management tasks. It'll probably be able to come up with answers to questions way faster than we can even check them. We'll probably need to test those answers, though, because even if it's super fast, it might still get things wrong.
And then you end up working for this level 6 professor who invents reasons why you shouldn't do this or that, why you should give away all ideas to him, and why your salary can never increase.
Reason I realized that research was not for me was you can't get rich in academia and you can't lone wolf it either. Imagine if we had 400 super star lone wolf researchers that rivals CEOs in 400 big corps, unfortunately humanity isn't fancying research/progress enough, only hope left is AGI.
It is the most abstract one indeed. You have to define how you and your team move as a group in order to address challenges. I'm trying to formulate our lab methodology in general terms by decomposition and listing the "research services" we can provide to other teams with our knowledge and structure. This effort has started functioning and was able to attract two real promising collaboration opportunities.
![[아일릿] 홍백가합전 첫 출연하는 아일릿 소감](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fvwK15dhxTI/mqdefault.jpg)
I miss doing. It was the most fun and least stress. Not much money but enjoyment was by far the highest.
a good description of project management that expands on strategy, tactics and risk management to enthuse a team
Thanks Andy!!! I really enjoyed this explanation 🙏❤️
It all makes sense as I worked across 4 Universities and recognise those levels in the work some of the Professors were involved in.
Mate, Convincing should be level 1. You have to convince the interview panel to chose you to do a PhD in the first place, if it's that type of PhD. The smooth, persuasive, convincing person who can make you feel like you're the centre of their world can slip up that pyramid plant their flag then, for example, do the same in business. I speak from experience as a big mentor of mine did just that. But....gotta keep the content consistent 🙂
Good video- and succinct too! I think that's a good summary of how scientific careers evolve. GIven that you've managed to fit a lot into a short space, it's picky to suggest you've left things out, but: I would argue that you failed to mention one important aspect, which arguably separates the good from the great, and that's a question which comes in at level 2/3 and also becomes important at level 5: being able to ask (and answer) the question: what's worth doing?
You talk about "finding your niche" and that's arguably the problem. In academia you can do pretty well if you find a niche and mine it for all its worth, without ever doing anything really worthwhile (although part of the "convincing" skillset is to try and pitch your research papers at better journals than they deserve). One of the problems with academia is that when you find your niche you can also get stereotyped. This is still avoidable after your PhD but after one or two postdocs... you're doomed. What's worth doing? Another difficult issue is that "what's worth doing" and "what's best for playing the game" are not necessarily the same thing.
As a side note: the best PhD students I have seen have managed to do good theses which have a diversity to them (depends on your field of course). And, at the same time (networking!) they've managed to land on a few papers which aren't part of their thesis because they spent a bit of time meaningfully helping someone else somewhere. One of the skills in networking and collaborating is contract negotiation: who will lead? who is first author? who will do the work? who will be on the paper? These contracts are nearly always verbal, and you may not even realise that you've just made one.... but, in effect, you have.
Sorry for this but TH-cam won't let me make comments unless I reply to a comment. My question is how do I write a proposal for systematic literature review.
The third level ‘Design’ was at the bottom of our programme. Every Master's student and then PhD student first had to write a proposal.
I admire the way you speak, your sense of humour is amaaaaazing.....
This is helpful. I reckon some of these also work alongside each other at certain levels.
I heard " there are Sick Skills for research" and I was hooked :)
Well said!
So, the end goal is to become a prestigious beggar
Great presentation!! 😊What if you succeed in each level but the environment doesn’t allow for growth (basically wrong leadership). I think it is a very important factor to be able to move to the next level 🤔
Such great advice thank you, i'm a big fan of your channel!
Thanks Andy for great videos. I’m a Clinical Psychologist. I’m senior in industry and for many years I’ve also been an adjunct lecturer. For three years I’ve also been teaching extensively on the professional graduate school programme. I have 2 journal publications. I’m 49 - is it too old to move to fulltime academia? Would a university consider me too old, even though I have serious teaching experience as an adjunct?
Really love this model!
Hi Andy! I’m wondering if there are any AI tools or other useful resources available to help analyze SPSS outputs. Additionally, I’m interested in finding out if there are similar tools for conducting quantitative analysis. Thank you!
Andy do a video on NotebookLM by Google - please
Mah.....where I did my PhD all of those steps started all the first day. I was immediatelly involved in do, design conceptualize, train, transfer etc.
Just my two cents, but I really think AI is going to take over a lot of management tasks. It'll probably be able to come up with answers to questions way faster than we can even check them. We'll probably need to test those answers, though, because even if it's super fast, it might still get things wrong.
I've never seen you turn red like that. It was FUNNY!
Second above, all are scarier
And then you end up working for this level 6 professor who invents reasons why you shouldn't do this or that, why you should give away all ideas to him, and why your salary can never increase.
Reason I realized that research was not for me was you can't get rich in academia and you can't lone wolf it either. Imagine if we had 400 super star lone wolf researchers that rivals CEOs in 400 big corps, unfortunately humanity isn't fancying research/progress enough, only hope left is AGI.
I don't understand the design level
It is the most abstract one indeed. You have to define how you and your team move as a group in order to address challenges. I'm trying to formulate our lab methodology in general terms by decomposition and listing the "research services" we can provide to other teams with our knowledge and structure. This effort has started functioning and was able to attract two real promising collaboration opportunities.
Six levels?
Source?
Citing sources is so level-1. Sorry I'm busy doing level 5.
you are fine example on why science is not to be trusted, thank you
??