perhaps 6–12 months, in which the theory and models underlying the problem
area are developed. (Jennifer says that
this step—making the students part of
the planning and modeling—is what
distinguishes her approach.)
3. Then, start an implementation
project. Get the students working on
pieces. The goal of each project is a
robust, distributable prototype, not
something that can be carried intact to
commercialization.
4. Allow students to identify their
own aspect of the broader problem
area on whose difficulties they will focus. Students develop their own ideas,
which form the core of their thesis, and
are able to validate the ideas by installing them in the larger system.
It is sad that many research-funding
agencies, such as DARPA, have become
so “mission-oriented” recently. While
it may be possible to support a Ph.D.
student doing part of a project implementation, Step 4 is left out; there is
no room on the project for a student
to explore original work outside the
boundaries of the project. For example, I have heard from several independent sources that while the European
Union has been supporting “research”
generously, the support is sufficiently
constrained by concrete deliverables
that there is no way to support Step 4 on
the projects. In countries where Ph.D.
support comes from a state source,
this arrangement presents no serious
impediment. However, in countries
where Ph.D. students are dependent
on project support, it becomes hard to
train first-rate researchers.
students and startups
One of the trickiest decisions an advisor has to make is how to deal with the
student who wants to found a startup
while they are working on their doctorate. Few people agree with me on
this point, but I believe that, unless
the startup idea is insane, they should
go out and do the startup. My theory
is that, while getting a doctorate and
entering the research arena is a high
calling, it is not the highest possible
calling. A startup can have more impact on our lives than a thesis. Moreover, if they miss the opportunity to
do a successful startup, then they
have lost a great deal. If the startup
flops, as many do, they have lost only
a few years, and can resume work on a
doctorate if they wish.
Sergey Brin never asked me whether
or not he should quit the Ph.D. program and found Google, but I would
have told him to do so had he asked.
Another student, Anand Rajaraman,
did ask my advice on this matter when
he was about half a year from finishing.
I told him to leave and be a founder
of Junglee. The venture was quite successful. A few years later he returned to
Stanford, started an entirely new thesis
topic that abstracted some of what he
had learned at Junglee, and is now Dr.
Rajaraman.
You don’t have to be in Silicon Valley to think about startups. Great ideas
can develop anywhere, and a responsible advisor will, when appropriate,
present to their students the option
that their work might form the basis of
a commercial venture. I recall an email
message from a student at another
school asking the question: “can a
piece of work be both a thesis and useful?” When I replied in the affirmative,
I was then asked to explain this point
to their advisor. That advisor was serving the student poorly, although their
attitude seems fairly common. Even in
the course of reviewing this Viewpoint,
I encountered the view that a piece of
technical work is more to be admired if
it cannot be commercialized.
afterword
Of the various things I’ve done in my career, I am most proud of my 53 Ph.D. students and their academic descendants
(see infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/
pub/jdutree.txt; also see the photo appearing on the first page of this Viewpoint). Many have done things I could
never do myself, and done so remarkably well. Each has brought unique talents to their work, and it has, for me,
been an education just to watch them.
I’d like to imagine that I contributed to
their success, although I’m pretty sure
that the only thing I really did was stay
out of their way so they could realize
their own potential.
Jeffrey D. Ullman ( ullman@cs.stanford.edu) is the
stanford W. ascherman Professor of computer science
(emeritus) at stanford university.
for this Viewpoint, i have repurposed some of the ideas of
hector garcia-molina, John mitchell, Jennifer Widom, and
gio Wiederhold, for which i thank them. additional thanks
go to mark hill for suggesting developing this Viewpoint
about Ph.d. advising.
Calendar
of Events
March 15–19
the 2009 aCM Symposium
on applied Computing,
honolulu, hi,
Sponsored: SiGapp,
Contact: Sung Y. Shin,
phone: 605-688-6235,
email: sung.shin@sdstate.edu
March 16–18
10th international Symposium
on Quality electronic Design,
San Jose, Ca,
Contact: tanay Karnik,
phone: 503-712-4179,
email: tanay.karnik@intel.com
March 19–22
Fourth international
Conference on intelligent
Computing and information
Systems,
Cairo, egypt,
Contact: Mohamed essam
Khalifa,
phone: 20127937560,
email: esskhlalifa@yahoo.com
March 22–25
7th annual ieee/aCM
international Symposium
on Code Generation and
optimization,
Seattle, Wa,
Sponsored: SiGMiCRo,
SiGplan,
Contact: David R. tarditi, Jr.,
email: dtarditi@microsoft.com
March 22–27
2009 Spring Simulation
Conference,
San Diego, Ca,
Contact: Gabriel a. Wainer,
email: gwainer@cse.carleton.ca
March 23–26
international Conference
on Web information Systems
and technologies,
lisbon, portugal,
Contact: Joaquim B. Filipe,
phone: 351-91-983-3996,
email: jfilipe@insticc.org
March 31–april 1
Second international
Workshop on Social
Computing, Behavioral
Modeling and prediction,
phoenix, aZ,
Contact: huan liu,
phone: 480-727-7349,
email: hliu@asu.edu