Q. When did you decide to pursue a PhD, and what incentivised you to act upon this decision?
I had always been curious about learning things. I did a research internship in my 2nd year at IISC Bangalore, so the professor gave an exemplary concrete abstract problem. My research project was on theoretical computer science. It was a mathematical problem, and working on it for a month was quite the joyride. Moreover, this concept hadn’t been tapped into fully, so it was like solving a particular unsolved problem that bolstered my confidence. The process involves reading and brainstorming. It took quite a while to convince my parents that I won’t be sitting for CDC; consequently, I did my FT at Georgia Tech. My professor recommended me to two other professors, although it couldn’t materialise because of COVID last year.
Q. Are you still working on that particular problem or doing other things?
It’s a work in progress; I repeatedly return to the problem. We even got published at a huge conference which was great.
Q. Choosing colleges to apply to is an integral part of the research. What did you do regarding looking at the QR rankings and consulting the professors?
QS rankings are a pretty shaky metric to base a college’s worth because it considers many factors, such as the number of international students, placements etc. Consequently, many acclaimed Indian colleges don’t do well in QS rankings because we don’t have international students. You look at how it is doing in your area, what kind of people are there, and then decide. In my domain, mostly theory, I just wanted to get into IISc in India. The professor I was working with and the two guys he recommended, I worked with them for six months. Hence, I had three strong recommendation letters, one publication and confidence. Also, I worked with my BTP advisor at KGP for a recommendation letter because they’re supremely important. My mentor advised me to attempt to get into the top 5 colleges in the world: MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, CMU, Georgia Tech, and UIUC. I applied to the top 7 and got into 3, so I chose the best.
Q. Do you prioritise PI (Principle Investigator for your PhD) more or the university?
You have to look at both. See your area of interest and if you can find a peer group whose interests align with yours.
Q. So once you have decided and are clear about it, what are the technicalities of the process?
Any graduate program requires you to have TOEFL and GRE; you should clear those by September, October, or even earlier. This year they are waiving GRE for a PhD. Following this, go through the website of, say, Stanford or MIT and type PhD admissions; you should be able to see the application form. Additionally, you must start writing SoPs, making illustrative CVs, and gathering recommendation letters. Then rest assured, await a response, and you will probably receive one by February: either rejection emails or calls from professors congratulating you on bagging the offer. This phase encompasses a lot of stress. Duly note that a strong SoP is very important.
Q. How did you differentiate between US universities and UK universities while applying?
I didn’t consider Europe, although there are some excellent European universities. PhDs in the US and Europe look different. In Europe, you get your PhD earlier; in the US, p.hd is very demanding in terms of more time investment (5 or 6 years).
Q. Is it correct to assert that if you want to pursue something for a long time because you’re interested in it, you should aim for the US for PhDs?
I can’t make a general statement about PhD in Europe and US, and it is definite to the area. You have to do your research and ask your professors about various universities. This can’t be concretely stated.
Q. At what time did you start preparing your application? What is a suitable time to do so, in your opinion?
I did it extremely late compared to my friends, who had their applications done and dusted by August. I wrote my TOEFL in November (the deadlines usually fall around 1st December, which is substantially late). You should start in or before September to tread on the safer side.
Q. How did you manage it simultaneously with KGP happening?
Fortunately, we didn’t have to deal with mid-sems or end-sems; it would be great to start early because if you begin in November, you will have end-sems to sort out, which will be incredibly hectic.
Q. So now, comparing this CGPA, the SoPs, TOEFL and GRE scores, and your LoRs, what do you think is relatively more important and what do the professors seek when applying?
What they want from you when they’re selecting you, they’ll sit and look at all your SOPs and applications and determine your passion and competency. There are people out there who pursue their undergrads from Stanford and UC Berkeley to start with. IIT Kharagpur gets you off to a great start, but pragmatically speaking, it’s not comparable to Stanford or UC Berkeley — the difference you can make — your work and your LoRs (extremely important). Your researcher should say all things nice about you (except punctuality and other mainstream things) because being punctual doesn’t determine your penchant for research. You show your actual publications; they speak. The key is to show and impress. Secondary things such as good CG, your department rank and then the awards and achievements section in your CV exist just to varnish, but what they judge you by are your research capabilities, what your LoRs say about you, what publications you have, LoR’s, publications, SoP’s and then the rest.
Q. There’s a personal statement and an SoP; how do you differentiate between these two?
There’s ambiguity; sometimes, they frame it as a personal statement, but they ask for your Research Statement, which is SoP. They’ll essentially ask you to describe your past research experience briefly. Suppose that in your UCB application, apart from your publications and research experience, they also want a Personal statement. For that, you basically have to recount the hurdles that you have faced as a person. Maybe someone can write- I am from so and so community, I encountered these problems, I am the only one who has come this far from my community, as long as it’s true since they do want to give a chance to people who didn’t have the opportunity. So, that’s there. Some universities ask for that, and that’s what they call a Personal Statement, but some universities call the SoP the personal statement. They’ll mention what they expect, they’ll write a paragraph about what they want from you, and so from that, you should know whether you have to talk about your research experience and interests or you just speak about your life experiences.
Q. So usually, there’s usually no place for difficulties or challenges, right? SoP is supposed to be very, very technical, based on your research.
So yeah, in most cases, they ask for your SoP, which is the research statement, but they might call it a personal statement; you just have to read the paragraph for what they want and then write accordingly. But 90% of the time, at least from what I saw, it’s just: You elucidate your personal experiences, tell a short story and speak about your research experience and then why you want to do a PhD and why that place. You know, you have to justify why you are applying there and then why you are a good candidate. So you have to cover all of that.
Q. How did you choose a professor as your advisor or the mentor you spoke about? Do you have contacts already? To apply for the PhD, during the whole process, how did you choose your advisor?
There was some sort of rotation of labs, which we’ve noticed in some programmes. I’ll tell you how it goes here: They’ll send you a form, and then you just have to mention three names you’d like to work with. They’ll ask if you’ve already started working. They’ll ask you to mention the names and if you’ve talked with them, and then if you’ve already started working, they ask whether they want to work with you. So, it will happen both ways; even the professor will fill in 3 names. Then there’s a matching. I don’t know if they apply an algorithm, but it’s not that big of a thing to process; it’s pretty simple, probably something a human can do. There are only a few students. You’ll most likely be matched with your 1st choice. Like, it will be a perfect match; it will likely be the person you want to work with, the 1st choice. Rarely, you get someone else, and then there’s a 2nd round, you know, say, if you want to change or there is this co-advising situation as well. Your first and second choices can co-advise you. It’ll be taken care of properly until you’re satisfied. So in the initial phase, they match you with your advisor, and if you are okay, then you say, I want to work with so and so only, and they’ll see what they can do.
Q. So, you are allotted that person only throughout your 5-year tenure, right?
Yes, here it’s pretty quick, you know. I came here, and then by the end of September, I got matched with someone. In general, you might have heard that you can explore for a year or so, but at Carnegie Mellon, they believe in starting immediately. They think you can carry on with exploration while working. So, they assign you to someone in your 1st year, and then it’s expected that that’s your advisor for the rest of your PhD. But rarely, if you feel like you want to switch areas or find out that you like something better, you can change your advisors. That happens rarely, but it does happen. You can get co-advised, and you can get your advisor changed; that’s flexible.
Q. How do you acquire the funding for your PhD? Does the institution advisor provide it, or is there some fellowship or scholarship for Indian students?
Your funding comes from your advisor. Your advisor has money; if your advisor has grants, then you’ll be paid out of that. Sometimes, you apply to a person just so they can pay you. Some just say sorry, right now I just don’t have money to pay students. That stuff happens; it’s not a problem at all the top universities. At least here, the department takes care of the funding. It’s black-boxed; you need to know if your money comes from the advisor. It’s black-boxed, and then they’ll take care of it; you’ll get your money. You can work with anyone you want, and all monetary issues are handled. For universities where money is not an issue, this kind of problem won’t come up. Money is hard to squeeze out, but if you are working in trending areas like Machine Learning, there’s loads of money. You get sponsored by Google and money for projects from big companies. Yeah, so sometimes it depends on your field. Your field might have money, and it might be fine. If your domain doesn’t have money, it might create some issues. Regarding fellowships and scholarships, at least in my 1st year, I cannot apply for any of those, and most of them are for US citizens. A small fraction of fellowships are for International students. And those are probably sponsored by Microsoft Fellowship, Google Fellowship, PhD fellows. So, you can only apply to those. There are these other grants, many nice grants that you cannot access. If you are getting into a good university, then it shouldn’t be a problem, but you have to figure that out as well. When you apply and talk to a professor and ask questions, he’ll tell you about the whole situation: whether he has money when he’s taking students, etc. It’s not like you go there and realise he’s not taking students; you should know stuff beforehand. So that way, you can minimise your risk. You should know beforehand, before going there, what’s going to be the situation. You research the money situation; the professor will take you and stuff.
Q. Many times, it happens that students want to pursue a PhD in a domain which is not their major in their UG. So, is it possible in most cases, and if it is, how do you compensate for the previous coursework required for your PhD?
Generally, you do your BTech, then your Masters, and then you do a PhD; that’s how it usually goes. So, if you want to do a PhD in something that’s not your Major, you might want to do a Masters in that domain first. It makes sense, but if you want to do a direct PhD, which is already hard even if your Major is the same and you expect them to take you, even though your Major is something else, that probably won’t happen. So, it’s better to transition with a Masters. Getting into Masters is easy because you pay money, and they’ll take you. You spend loads of money, and so it’s easier to get into a Masters for that reason. You have to show that you worked on it, and then it will be easier to get in. But for PhD, it’s so competitive because they pay you, they spend money on you, they spend 1000s and 1000s of dollars on you over a span of 5 years. You do a lot of work. You work on something, you do lots of research, which is cheap for what they pay but anyway, you are of a lot of cost to them so, they’ll make their choice very carefully. You cannot expect that you’ll get into a very good PhD programme if you are majoring in something else. Maybe it’s possible, but it makes sense to do a Master’s in that field first and then go for a PhD.
Q. On these lines itself, what are the benefits of a Master’s viz a vis Phd and vice-versa?
It’s really about what you want. I’ll tell you something — a few decades back, say 50 years ago, a BTech was not necessary to get a job; even if you just studied till 10th grade or something, you’d land a job. Later on, education gained importance and being a graduate became the norm for landing a job. Now, what’s happening is that even that is not enough; everyone has a BTech. Like, unless you are from a top-tier college, from IITs or IIITs, you might not get what you want. So what’s happening is that in a few years, you might need more than a BTech even to guarantee a job; it will just keep going forward till people keep studying until their mid-twenties. So what I am saying is that some people do Master’s so that they can get better jobs, they can get better exposure. They think maybe they can go abroad, go to Europe or the US, and have a better network; they just do a Masters for the sake of that. Some want to do a PhD but start with a Master’s because they are not sure if they are ready for that kind of commitment. They think they’ll start with a Master’s, then decide after two years whether they want to go into the industry or do a Master’s as a safe step. It’s a win-win situation. If they decide that they don’t want to do a PhD, they’ll get a good job; if they decide in favour of a PhD, they have a high chance of getting into a good PhD program, having done their Master’s from a good place. Some just do it because they think they aren’t ready to work. So, the group of people that do Master’s, there are a lot of personalities, lots of reasons. There’s no single reason why someone is doing a Master’s, but there’s a single reason why anyone is doing a PhD: they want to do research and are ready for it, that’s it. Talking about Masters is very complicated, I’ve seen, so, it’s hard to argue about why someone is doing a Master’s. We don’t know what’s happening in their head, whether they are confused or what. As I just said, there are many reasons why someone does a Master’s.
Q. What do you mean when you say advantage? Are you looking at potential career (and future career aspects) as a metric?
I will say PhD is good, as you get a better job offer. Some professions are just inaccessible to B.Tech people. You know, there is this line of thought: First, I will do a job for so and so and gain experience, and then I will do MBA. Everyone is looking at ways to join the corporate race. You can stay in the company and climb the ladder slowly. People realise that a Software profile needs to be improved and there is more money in management, so they try to get into management roles and hence the thinking: I’ll do an MBA. People look at all sorts of ways to proliferate. They think that: Maybe I will work in a startup. If I worked in a startup, my growth would be fast. Then, after moving to the top of the company, I can jump to more prominent positions in better companies. People have all sorts of strategies. Consider this, if you are doing a PhD, you end up in a research role in an industry; you stop there. It is about what you want, and I do not want to be a manager of some company; I’m not interested in all that. I want to solve problems. So, if someone else wants to do something, say they want to grow and earn more money, they like management, managerial positions, all about what you want. You cannot compare two people and say this guy’s doing better and this one is not; he did not wish for all that. I could have gone on a similar path and could have done an MBA or Masters. It’s all about what you wish to do in the end. Say, you’ve done a Masters to get a better job. But you’re pursuing a PhD for the same reason? You might have achieved the same by doing a Master’s, but alright, you’ll get a research work-based job. Is it the right way to get a better job? I don’t think so. Doing a PhD is not for landing a better job. That’s not why you do a PhD. You pursue a PhD because you’re curious about something and want to solve problems. Otherwise, don’t go for a PhD. It isn’t a way to boost your career, and it is your career. It is already the final step. You’re a problem solver, and you stop there. Some people went to the academy, had an idea, and then just started up. Many companies have been founded by graduate students or people from academies; they just had an idea at some point and started a company. That can be done as well. It’s not that a PhD only means you’re in academia or a research position. You can still startup; there are a lot of possibilities. But again, a PhD is not something you do to boost your career. You have chosen your career path, and this is how you do it. The other strategies I mentioned are acceptable, and they do make sense. If you wish to boost your career and find a better job, you’ll achieve that.
Q. Do people do a Master’s here even if they have a dual degree (for instance, BTech + MTech degree in KGP)? Is that recommended? Also, can they directly move to a PhD as they already have a Master’s degree? Can a student with only a BTech degree apply for a PhD?
So, I was a BTech myself, so it does not matter (to have an MTech degree to apply for a PhD). But the same doesn’t go for all universities. Some don’t care about an MTech degree, and some consider it mandatory. Also, Dual Degree students can still do a Master’s degree. Sometimes, they do not count your dual degree; they don’t accept your Master’s. They disagree that it is a Master’s degree and ask you to do a Master’s again.
Q. This one’s a pretty off-tangent question. So, you mentioned that a student doing MS would want to problem-solve. So, when you look at people in your branch or the people who were with you earning more than you, is money a parameter, and what do you think about it when your family and friends are expecting stuff from you?
Consider this, there’s a race, and people are running. You’re forced not to start before 1 min, even though everyone has started running. The rule imposed on you is that you cannot start running, so you’re lagging by a minute compared to others. When you try looking forward, you observe that your friends are already metres ahead of you. Now, as you begin after a minute, you see that the gap is large, but if you look at the gap after a few minutes (say, it is a marathon), you might be able to catch up, and you will catch up. So, at this point, the difference might seem significant. But, in the long run, it doesn’t even matter. You might even overtake them. Most of us are making a greedy move, doing a BTech in an IIT, taking a good branch, and getting placed with a high salary. You might end up well-off, but you should know what you are trading off. You’ll earn money anyway. It’s not an issue when looking at the big picture. After your PhD, you have the option to either move to academia or get a research position. You’ll get paid well enough in the research position, probably even more than the SDE. So, you’ll get paid back for the effort you put in, not immediately, but eventually, you will. Also, people catch up even if the other person has always had the upper hand. Imagine a situation where a guy graduates from IIT Bombay CSE, lands a job at an XYZ company and earns lakhs. Also, here’s another guy who graduates from a small college and gets placed at TCS, and after gaining a good amount of experience, he moves to Google. Now, both are in the same company and earning the same. So, why did this guy go through all this struggle of studying for JEE and going to IIT Bombay, only to make a similar amount of money as the other guy.? Why did he do all this, and where did the work go? This is what happens, and people catch up. So, it eventually boils down to what you want to do. You might think about money because you need to support your family, but it will settle down finally. The money wouldn’t be the issue anymore. It all comes down to “Are you happy with your job?” That is something hard to change. I’ll say that if you decide you want to earn more money, you can do that at any point. You quit academia and say I want to get a job; you’ll get wonderful jobs. So, it’s more of a choice. IT SHOULD BE MORE OF A CHOICE. YOU SHOULD BE IN CONTROL OF WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Sometimes, you’re not in control, though. You do a job for years and suddenly realise, “No, I don’t want to do this; I wish to do research” it’s too late. So, make decisions so you can make a choice- If you decide to earn money, you should be able to do that. If you choose “I want to do research”, you should be able to do that. Just be sure of what you want and go in and move on that path. Don’t think about money. The difference is not too much, and what are you planning to do with that extra money anyway. It doesn’t matter. The difference matters only when it is super significant and extensive. If not, it doesn’t matter.
Q. Do you have any parting advice for UGs, Wannabe P.hDs? Some guidelines or suggestions?
I don’t know if you can take much from my story, but I got fortunate. You can always explore but do not take up something just because of peer pressure. Everyone is doing something, be it CP or ML. Everyone is doing coding regardless of their departments. People say that they want to do core jobs. But let’s say you ask your friend about his rationale behind choosing his department. He’ll say, “Dude, I’m so passionate about this.” Please have a look at him after four years. You’ll see him coding at LeetCode, looking at interviews, and googling interview questions. So it’s hard when there’s so much peer pressure and expectations from your family members. Don’t worry about all that; just think about what you want. See what you can do, if you wish to explore research, mail someone and try to get an internship or a project. If you’re genuinely interested in CP, form a team and try for CPC. If you’re not good enough yet, then practice. You may be into ML; take up a project and something to read. You might be into something from your department; explore it. Figure out what you want and then decide. Also, don’t be afraid of making non-greedy choices. There’s always a standard predefined path for you. You can either take it or avoid it. People sit for CDCs; people sit for placements; this is the typical trajectory of an IITian. As a KGPian, there is a so-called template of an IITian, things you’re expected to do. As a KGPian, you want to be in societies in the first year and chill, be a coder in the second year and do all the CP, ML etc. You want to get an excellent CDC placement in the third year. Maybe, in your second year, you are expected to do a good internship in your summer. Then, in the third year, do a good CDC in a good company and get a PPO. So, there is a standard trajectory, and it’s up to you if you want to go for that. Some people don’t know what they want; they are like, “I’ll go with the wind”. Also, don’t be disappointed if you don’t do well. In the long run, everyone will catch up. You might be in an excellent position in the present. Some other guy who is lying behind, he will catch up to you in a few years. It’s just a matter of time. It’s only a matter of time. People will catch up to you if you sit down, just like the rabbit and hare story. You might be in the lead; you had an excellent start; you sit down and cannot expect yourself to be better than everyone behind you; they are also running. So, you can only expect to stay the same if you keep moving. So, feel free to make a different choice, explore, and think about money. I won’t say money doesn’t matter; just have it in your mind. Money is necessary; just don’t think about it too much. It would help if you weren’t somewhere only because it’s paying more; that doesn’t make sense. So, that’s the high-level funda that I would like to give.