PhD programs must be easy for some people, right?

I dunno. I had to read the above a few times because I thought you wrote that I sure as hell am not proficient in English. It’s been a long day. :slight_smile:

I work on texts in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit. I also need French and German. I’m only a second year Sanskrit student, but I know the other languages. Latin and French are my strongest, and thank fucking god, I passed my Latin exam before the summer.

I should spend some time with Italian and a lot of time with Kannada and Telugu. Bu that will only happen if I can add another seven or eight hours to my day.

I just want to point out something no one else seems to have: some people just deal with stress better. There are lots of physical reasons that one might deal with stress better. My GABAergic system is efficient as those of others, and so I find little things more stressful.

Cognitive therapy helps you learn to deal with what you have. It’s not necessarily true that people who deal with stress well have the best patterns of behavior–they have a working pattern of behavior for them. There’s no reason to think you have to do it the way they do.

Also, I am similar in that exercise does not make me feel better. Or, to be specific, strenuous aerobic exercise doesn’t–the feeling is similar to the start of a panic attack, and I have to work hard to keep it from becoming one. Back when I had to take PE classes, I just walked, and did all the strength exercises without taking a break, and I lost 50 pounds, despite being told that shouldn’t work. But never in all that time did it take my mind off of anything–I had to use other strategies for that.

You need to find what helps you relieve stress, and not assume that what works for one person will work for you. The only cognitive thing I can give you is what I already have: Try to get yourself to realize that, even if you can’t do this–even if you have to quit, that’s not the end of the world. And that’s the worst scenario possible–you’ll probably do much better than that. Worst case scenarios almost never happen.

There are a lot of reasons why some Ph.D. students might have an easier time than others. Some dopers have mentioned the value of having a supportive spouse and church involvement, so that definitely counts for a lot.

In addition, some doctoral work simply goes more smoothly than others. You never quite know what you’re getting into, so you don’t know in advance if everything will go easy-peasey or if there will be a lot dead ends.

Also, some projects may require a lot of additional work that doesn’t directly contribute to the dissertation. For example, my own doctoral work was funded by a Fortune 500 company. As a result, I had to do a lot of work that contributed to their company goals, but which was not integral to my dissertation. In addition, the funding was limited, and I could not be guaranteed an alternative source of funding once the project dried up. The whole experience was valuable, but it also meant that I had a tremendous amount of stress and virtually no free time.

It sounds like you might be feeling extra stress because you feel inadequate or like you don’t belong. I think most grad students feel this way at least for the first couple of years. But after you pass your prelims/comps, you should feel more secure within yourself. And if that’s not the case, then you may be feeling more stress than what’s usual.

Graduate school wasn’t a cake walk at all for me, but I don’t think the entire process was stressful. Actually, my undergrad work was probably more stressful, all things considered. The reasons why are simple for me to see. I felt very insecure when I was an undergrad. I’d hadn’t taken calculus in high school and my school only had a couple of AP courses to choose from. When I got to college, I was surrounded by kids who had taken all these advanced classes, had scored near-perfect SAT scores, and just seemed smarter than I was. The thought loop that would play in my head all the time was, “I just don’t belong here. I’m just not smart enough. I just don’t belong here!” Eventually I chilled out some, but I never got away from that feeling of “not being good enough.”

When I got to graduate school, though, I felt the complete opposite. I had just graduated from a very respectable undergraduate institution, I had top-notch GRE scores and great letters of recommendations. My grad advisor immediately took to me, and all the other graduate students perceived me as being smart (albeit in a geeky way). Professors liked having me in their classes because I would speak up and I had better writing skills than many. Plus, I was a novel entity–a black girl from the Dirty South who could rock ecology with the best of them. I had all kinds of confidence that I had lacked when I had first entered undergrad, and it stayed with me pretty much throughout my five years in the program.

It also helped that I did not have to teach. I could focus exclusively on my research and not worry about fitting it in between teaching sections like my classmates. In addition, although family/churchlife can help other people cope, in my case being “unhindered” by adult responsibilities also took the edge off. If I was having a bad day in the lab, I could just hop across the river and stroll the streets of Manhattan till late at night. I had full permission to be perfectly selfish and self-absorbed. I would constantly read–not just stuff for school but “pleasure reading”–play on my keyboard, eat junkfood, go for long walks, ride my bike all across NYC, let my apartment become a cluttered sty, and do anything else that would keep things “balanced” for me.

You know what also helped? I know this sounds strange, since I do not come from “money”, but I don’t think I spent a single minute worrying about what I was going to do for a living. I didn’t start thinking about that until I had pretty much wrapped up my studies. Now, maybe if I had worried a little bit about it, I wouldn’t have had that long summer of sending out dozens of CVs, crying about failed interviews, and playing the coulda-woulda-shoulda game. But in restrospect, it probably was good thing that I waited to worry. I was able to focus only on the here-and-now, instead of the here-and-now plus the future. My stress level has dropped tremenduously now that I taken to just living for the day instead of worrying about all the “what-ifs” waiting ahead.

You know what I really feel deep down? I don’t think it’s rational, but I “feel” it. I feel as if my advisor hasn’t had the heart to put me out of my misery for this reason:

He recruited me into the program the second semester of my master’s program. I was getting a master’s degree in the same thing I’m getting a PhD in now, and I had to take three of his classes. He barely knew me, and so he thought I was better than I was. Sort of a “Boy, did I bet on the wrong horse” idea.

Since he did recruit me, he wrote a letter of recommendation and went to bat for me in terms of getting me into the PhD program before even finishing the master’s. He’s a big deal, and he told me when I applied “My letter will be what gets you in.” So, if he cuts me off now, it’s like me made a mistake. And rather than admitting that he made a mistake to all the other faculty, he’s letting me limp along.

I know this is a crazy and grandiose scenario. I’ve been trying to shake this belief for a long time. On the one hand, I know that there are ways to get rid of students and save face, and that he probably would have had he really felt. On the other hand, I know how important reputations are in academia, and outside of the “hard” sciences, a reputation is pretty much all an academic has to show for all the work they do.

I’m not an expert or anything, but I imagine an advisor would gain more respectability points by pushing out low-performing students rather than just stringing them along. Just think about it. The longer a low-performing student is associated with a professor, the more that professor looks like a poor judge of competency. It’s in their best interest to get rid of them.

You admitted this already, but I really do think you’re suffering from imposter syndrome. I’ve suffered from it too, and I know how bad it can make you feel. It hit me once I was doing my post-doc, and I realized that my PI wasn’t so sure of my abilities after all (it’s a long, boring story…I will spare you the details). Throughout my three-year stint with him, I went above and beyond to prove to him and everyone else that I was “good enough.” I did physical feats of strength that grown men would whine about (I’m not exaggerating at all). I stayed up all night writing reports, reading papers that I didn’t care a single thing about, engaging in paper discussions about topics that went right over my head, and tried my damnedest to appear “smart” in front of the boss. I would get compliments from him, but I always had a nagging feeling that he could “see” through me. After three years, I was tired of trying so hard and went into the government sector without publishing a single thing from my work. I could still publish something if I wanted to, just to prove to my boss that I’m a “real” scientist, but I’m just ready to move on with my life.

One day, shortly after I left his lab, my old boss called me out of the blue and said, “You know what? I really want to tell you that I now know how much I took you for granted. Your replacement hasn’t been able to do a fraction of the things you did. I just wanted to let you know how much you are missed.” Finally! Vindication! And away went the imposter syndrome. Now when people tell me I’m smart, I don’t tell them they’re wrong, like I used to. I just say thank you and add that I also work very hard.

This is just a game, stats. Everything bad you’re feeling about right now is just a delusion; your frightened brain is just trying to psyche you out to protect what it thinks is a helpless, vunerable human being. But it’s wrong. You can do whatever you put your mind to, using all your talents and work ethic and everything else you can throw at it. The two of us have a lot more in common than you might think, so consider me the “you” on the other side–a few years down the line.

My experience:
Working on an Ed.D. in Britain (so very much like a Ph.D.), I had the idea for my dissertation fairly early on so anything that I studied for the 2 years that had anything to do with it was put in the review of lit.

I’m now starting a Ph.D. here in the states and I’m doing the same thing. It’s my intention to have the first draft done by the end of the third year (I’m only doing one class a semester the first year do to other committments).

Makes life a lot easier.

Hey man, let me assure you that unless your adviser is some rare gem bleeding heart, he will have no problem bouncing your ass to the curb if you’re not cutting the mustard. Academics have no problem distancing themselves from the rotting corpse of failure, even if they’re completely or partially at fault. So if you’re still there and you’re not avoiding your adviser, or vice-versa, I think this is likely in your head. Which, again, is pretty normal. We even had a name for this - the “Harvard flu,” meaning that you came to the realization that everyone is smarter than you, you were an admissions mistake, you’re only there because Professor X feels sorry or responsible for you. Everyone gets it. Not everyone gets over it, though.

monstro is right; there’s a touch of imposter syndrome going on here, and this process is a game. You have to learn to play it. I’ll also reiterate rules 1 and 2 of grad school:

  1. Follow directions. On applications, paper submissions, manuscripts, proposals, appeals, and dissertations.

  2. Don’t take 99% of this shit personally. And the corollary, don’t take 75% of this shit (that) seriously.

It’s an endurance race. Sure, it’s great to be leading the pack, but sometimes the best you can do is keep pace.

I’m having the same sort of thoughts regarding my current postgraduate Honours course. I’ve got the MA, and just after I finished it with the decent grades and everything, Honours seemed like the logical choice.

But since then I’ve found that there aren’t any jobs in my field at the moment and all Hons. is likely to do is make me even more overqualified for the (totally unrelated to my qualification) job I’m currently doing (which is, it must be said, actually a pretty good place to work).

So, assuming I did Hons. then my only career option at that point is going to be a Ph.D and then a job in Academia, and that’s going to be too much work, too much financial pressure, and basically not worth the hassle in the end. Once I’ve got an Academic job, then there’s going to be the constant issue of having to research, publish, teach, mentor, and all that other stuff- and if it’s stressful enough now in a generic retail job trying to find a relevant graduate job with an MA, then I’m going to have even less chance with a Ph.D in the job market. But at this point, I’ve invested a reasonable amount of time and money into the whole thing and it really sucks that walking away is rapidly looking to be a practical course of action, but I just don’t see the point in throwing more time and money at something that’s not likely to be worth the payoff at the end of it.

Or, to put it another way: I sympathise completely. :slight_smile:

You may be wanting to remember too much. Do you remember what it was about? You don’t need to remember the numbers and the formulas: those are why paper got invented; what you need to remember is only the gist, the little bit that you’d write on a PostIt to stick on the photocopies if you needed to get the article as a reference (well, now I use electronic versions, but back when I was in a PhD program, scanners were barely being invented). And no, I didn’t finish the PhD, but stress wasn’t my problem. If my advisor hadn’t thought he was She-lob when he was more akin to Boris the Spider, I would have had a PhD in 3.5 years and he would still have a Capital-C Career.

Two things: all academic jobs aren’t the same. In the U.S., there are around 4,000 institutions of higher learning, from cosmetology schools to the Princetons and Yales. Only a small percentage are what the Carnegie Foundation classifies as “research intensive,” where research is the bread and butter of the school. There are many schools where the most important thing is undergraduate teaching… they’re the ones that brag about the professor-to-student ratio, study abroad with the excellent faculty… wait, they all do that. :frowning:

Seriously, here in my city we have Southwestern University, a small liberal arts college. I’ve guest lectured there and I know some faculty. Their research and publication load is very modest, but they have to be kick-ass teachers. They teach a lot more than I do, so you’d better like student interaction at a school like that.

At my commencement the majority of my cohortmates were headed to large state schools (research intensive). But one of my colleagues was heading back to Oregon to teach at a SLAC (small liberal arts college). It was the perfect match for her, as she really wanted to teach. At the interview they more or less told her she needed to publish “something” to satisfy the tenure requirement, but they were far more concerned about the quality of her teaching. Knowing her, I think she’ll do exceptionally well there.

You also have to pick a school that knows its identity and is happy with it. Too many presidents are charged with turning their school into the Harvard of the [insert region/speciality here]. Which is about gaining prestige and notoriety. Well, there’s already a Harvard, and several competitors. Why not be something different? Chances are the students came to your school expressly because it was not Harvard. Try telling that to a trustee, though.

Second, you won’t remember those articles until you start writing your own work. I knew a prof who could spout off names and cites (including year and publisher). Neat party trick. Most of us can’t do that, but you can be assured I know Kram and Thomas and Johnson and all the big names in my speciality… because I cited them about a million times in my dissertation. That will come, don’t worry. :slight_smile:

People should also remember that teaching and research aren’t the only options out there for people with Ph.Ds. The government sector will also hire you with a Ph.D, and you won’t necessarily be shoved in management or any other high-profile position. However, having the Ph.D will help you with salary increases, promotions, etc.

In my experience, the stress of finding the “dream” job is not worth finding a “good job.” What I mean to say is, don’t think that just because teaching is the one thing you excel in, that if you can’t get a teaching position then you’re a failure. The higher up the educational totem pole you go, the more limited your choices become, unfortunately. Sometimes you have to “settle” for what you get and transform that position into something that is better suited for your job skills. That’s essentially what I did with my current job. It’s not the conventional job for someone with a Ph.D, but I like what I do. That’s really all that matters.

Just have a backup plan just in case all you can find are poorly paid adjunct positions, and don’t feel that you’ve failed if you don’t end up become a professor right after graduation. That’s why I think diversifying your knowledge base is essential. It’s entirely too easy to become so specialized in your area of study that you block out the other things you could learn to do as “backup.” For instance, my area of study was marine biology. I was all about marine biology, but I after taking a taxanomy class realized I had a passion for tree identification. I took it up as a hobby to get me through the stressful period of dissertation writing, and ending up landing a short-term contract after graduation working for a forestry firm. I think people get so hung up on building a career on what they’re studying right now that they forget that the world is full of so many other possibilities.