What a PhD student can do

We sometimes talk of "interdisciplinary research" but more often talk of "how the system is bad" or of the numerous reasons why we CANNOT do things.

Here is a very visual example of what a PhD student CAN do.
Fellow geeks will find this truly awe-inspiring :P
Even if you are not a geek, I hope this will at least make your day for one day and make you wonder about what a PhD student CAN do :)

Entrepreneurs,Superheroes and Supervillains

Very interesting blog.

So yes, I agree that they are like superheroes.

Might I also add, that their intense internal desire to be the one to "save the day" is often quite irritating to others (especially super-villains and/or evil masterminds)

Which brings me to a whole separate piece of my ramble :
How entrepreneurs = superheroes = supervillains

It's all in the eye of the beholder, whether you are a hero or a villain. Truth is the opinion of the majority. It is, as my PhD colleagues would no doubt argue (with subtlety and yet, conviction) "embedded in social, cultural, economic and political context". Truth is only defined, reality is only internalized, within this context. So whether you are a superhero or a supervillain, depends not so much on what you do (or even if you prefer wearing your briefs inside or outside your trousers), not even on who you are, but on where you are and where you were. The context. Your past and present social , cultural , econonomic and political neighborhood. See where I am coming from?

Terrorist and Freedom-Fighters. Opportunists and Entrepreneurs. Cowards and Pragmatists. I am obstinate, refuse to see reason, or perhaps I am determined, stick to my ideals . I am not what I am, but where I come from.

Total World Domination, yes. Thats what Entrepreneurs, superheroes and supervillains do for a living. But the question is Which World?

Why FPM

Based on the number of requests for information about the FPM at IIM-C that I have ben getting, I gather interest is high this year. I usually ask people to think hard - to introspect - before taking any career decision. I am just posting a set of QnAs, a sort of FAQs. These are based on an email conversation with an applicant, but I hope some of the queries are general enough for other applicants as well.

QnA:

I'm more interested in a corporate job rather than a teaching position. How do you think I can manoeuvre to this end.

I would recommend you think carefully about "WHY FPM?" This is of course what the interview panel will ask you. Most importantly, it is what you should ask yourself right now. From what I have learnt, I would say there are many easier entries to a good corporate job than an FPM - 4 or 5 years of your life at this stage are too precious to be spent trying to 'get somewhere else'. The FPM is a program primarily for training ppl to be academicians and researchers. If you have an inclination and genuine liking towards research then those 4-5 years spent as a fellow wont just be a means to get somewhere else but an enjoyable process by itself. If ur ultimate aim is a career in industry, then I would seriously recommend against accepting an FPM offer - it would only lead to frustration, purely because of the time taken to get to that goal. Just a regular 2 year MBA now or Working in industry for 3 years or so then doing an executive one year MBA from a good school (IIM or a good foreign B-School) would be a much easier and probably economically sounder option overall for a very good corporate placement.

What if I get bored and wish to quit the FPM midway, what are the possible safe exits.

As such one gets no degree if one leaves midway. However, one does have the marksheets, and records of courses cleared at IIM. I have seen people exit and get a good job in the corporate world after jumping ship midway - either because of personal reasons or because they realized that they couldnt carry through with the research. So as such , industry will absorb you if you leave midway, no problems about that. But it is not recommended to join with the express intention of leaving midway.

What are the chances of doing some consulting work during the FPM itself?

This is very much possible. Especially if you already have contacts in industry or if you associate closely with a prof on campus and assist in his/her industry assignments. High value projects are only probable though, if you already have contacts in industry or government from your career before joining FPM. FPM by itself is unlikely to generate those contacts or establish your credentials overnight with those contacts.

FPM is a great opportunity however to "do your own thing". You get a great deal of freedom to explore, to find avenues. You have time, and resources, and what you do with these is in your hands :)

How is a doctorate degree in management viewed by the industry? What are the typical positions occupied by PhD holders in the industry? What is the range of compensation - is it at par with the MBA?

As far as Industry is concerned, there is no difference at all between an MBA and a Fellow. Some Fellows join industry along with MBAs during the placement process. The role offered is exactly the same as for a general MBA.
However, some FPs do not want the type of jobs that are usually offered through the placement process - but want to work in specialized positions in research organizations, academia and government in jobs related to their doctoral work.

Does the IIM provide placement support to doctoral students?

One is allowed to sit for placements with the MBA students as soon as the thesis guide certifies that sufficient work on the thesis has been done - this is generally in the 4th year. Once in the placement process, there is no distinction between MBA and FP students.

How successful can one be at independent consulting with an FPM?

As such an FPM alone will not determine success as an independent consultant. It is after all one's ability to market one's own skills - almost nothing to do with a paper degree. FPM DOES give you some of the skills, some of the confidence, and possibly some of the contacts. However, to be a successful independent consultant, I would say the bulk of the work is on the shoulders of the individual.

From my own personal experience I would recommend against doing an FPM if you are unsure about what to do - and especially if your ambition is primarily a great corporate career. Do not be swayed by the brand name of the IIMs. Rather, take a while to introspect and figure out what kind of work will give you most satisfaction. Where do you see yourself in 10 years time?
In anything you do, if you really enjoy it, then you will do it well, and if you do it well, then MONEY AND SUCCESS will come automatically. So try and get those aspects out of the equation - and just try to arrive at the Essence - the most important thing - What it is that you really really enjoy doing. A question like "What is it in the world that I would do for FREE?" helps a lot , I have found.

I currently love the research topic I am working on. But to discover this topic, I had to take a couple of wrong turns and bump into deadends. Its not a nice neat linear process, unlike the MBA program. In the MBA program, you enter, you pass the exams, and you get out. The problem you are likely to face as a FP student is that for the first 2 years you are with the MBA students , you "think like a MBA" and then suddenly, after 2 years, you have to change tracks. You see all your MBA batchmates placed in industry and move away. Its not necessarily the money - but rather the "sure-ness" - the certainty of their life that you suddenly realize the FP lacks - At the end of the next 2 years (or more!) of the research phase, you are expected to make a significant and original contribution to Theory in your field of specialization. This process is non-linear, unstructured, and often painful. It has its high points of course- moments you really enjoy. But at the outset itself it should be clear that the Fellow programme is not the same as the MBA.

It is difficult to be sure what one wants to do...especially in the case of something like "teaching and research" - I would say if you enjoy intellectual challenges, if you generally like puzzles, or enjoy analyzing issues 'to the death', and often come up with original ways to look at a situation or problem, then thats 'research aptitude'. Sorry if that sounds a bit vague :)

In case I sounded too negative about the Fellow programme, let me clarify that I dont mean to denigrate it - The FPM a great opportunity to learn, and to discover new things, and to make something of life (in research, academia or elsewhere) - but its important to be sure which opportunities one can make the most out of, and which outcomes will make one the happiest in life. (aaaArgh, the agony of choice! :P).
Just to re-iterate: The right reason to do an FPM is if one is interested in Research and Academia. You are given a fair amount of freedom and any resources you might reasonably need. It is a great opportunity to learn, discover, and find intrinsic satisfaction. If you take the opportunity in the right spirit, then in my opinion, you can get the best out of the IIM experience. Perhaps even more so than doing just an MBA.

Results Season about to open

It's that time of the year.

Perhaps this year, more people would apply to the FPM than years before.
Here's some (un!) funny rationale on why:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1078

The Disadvantages of An Elite Education

Was referred to a great article by a friend at IIFT:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html

Very easy to draw an analogy with the IIMs...

Where did u go to College?

Just sometimes, you come across a word, a sound, a post, a whole article that just resonates what you have been thinking about at some subconscious level for a while.
Here is my "resonating" article.

Paul Graham, of Y-Combinator fame, speaks.

http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html



September 2007

A few weeks ago I had a thought so heretical that it really surprised me. It may not matter all that much where you go to college.

For me, as for a lot of middle class kids, getting into a good college was more or less the meaning of life when I was growing up. What was I? A student. To do that well meant to get good grades. Why did one have to get good grades? To get into a good college. And why did one want to do that? There seemed to be several reasons: you'd learn more, get better jobs, make more money. But it didn't matter exactly what the benefits would be. College was a bottleneck through which all your future prospects passed; everything would be better if you went to a better college.

A few weeks ago I realized that somewhere along the line I had stopped believing that.

What first set me thinking about this was the new trend of worrying obsessively about what kindergarten your kids go to. It seemed to me this couldn't possibly matter. Either it won't help your kid get into Harvard, or if it does, getting into Harvard won't mean much anymore. And then I thought: how much does it mean even now?

It turns out I have a lot of data about that. My three partners and I run a seed stage investment firm called Y Combinator. We invest when the company is just a couple guys and an idea. The idea doesn't matter much; it will change anyway. Most of our decision is based on the founders. The average founder is three years out of college. Many have just graduated; a few are still in school. So we're in much the same position as a graduate program, or a company hiring people right out of college. Except our choices are immediately and visibly tested. There are two possible outcomes for a startup: success or failure—and usually you know within a year which it will be.

The test applied to a startup is among the purest of real world tests. A startup succeeds or fails depending almost entirely on the efforts of the founders. Success is decided by the market: you only succeed if users like what you've built. And users don't care where you went to college.

As well as having precisely measurable results, we have a lot of them. Instead of doing a small number of large deals like a traditional venture capital fund, we do a large number of small ones. We currently fund about 40 companies a year, selected from about 900 applications representing a total of about 2000 people. [1]

Between the volume of people we judge and the rapid, unequivocal test that's applied to our choices, Y Combinator has been an unprecedented opportunity for learning how to pick winners. One of the most surprising things we've learned is how little it matters where people went to college.

I thought I'd already been cured of caring about that. There's nothing like going to grad school at Harvard to cure you of any illusions you might have about the average Harvard undergrad. And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges. We'd interview people from MIT or Harvard or Stanford and sometimes find ourselves thinking: they must be smarter than they seem. It took us a few iterations to learn to trust our senses.

Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.

But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers—basically, HR people—based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?

And yet a lot of companies do. A lot of companies are very much influenced by where applicants went to college. How could they be? I think I know the answer to that.

There used to be a saying in the corporate world: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." You no longer hear this about IBM specifically, but the idea is very much alive; there is a whole category of "enterprise" software companies that exist to take advantage of it. People buying technology for large organizations don't care if they pay a fortune for mediocre software. It's not their money. They just want to buy from a supplier who seems safe—a company with an established name, confident salesmen, impressive offices, and software that conforms to all the current fashions. Not necessarily a company that will deliver so much as one that, if they do let you down, will still seem to have been a prudent choice. So companies have evolved to fill that niche.

A recruiter at a big company is in much the same position as someone buying technology for one. If someone went to Stanford and is not obviously insane, they're probably a safe bet. And a safe bet is enough. No one ever measures recruiters by the later performance of people they turn down. [2]

I'm not saying, of course, that elite colleges have evolved to prey upon the weaknesses of large organizations the way enterprise software companies have. But they work as if they had. In addition to the power of the brand name, graduates of elite colleges have two critical qualities that plug right into the way large organizations work. They're good at doing what they're asked, since that's what it takes to please the adults who judge you at seventeen. And having been to an elite college makes them more confident.

Back in the days when people might spend their whole career at one big company, these qualities must have been very valuable. Graduates of elite colleges would have been capable, yet amenable to authority. And since individual performance is so hard to measure in large organizations, their own confidence would have been the starting point for their reputation.

Things are very different in the new world of startups. We couldn't save someone from the market's judgement even if we wanted to. And being charming and confident counts for nothing with users. All users care about is whether you make something they like. If you don't, you're dead.

Knowing that test is coming makes us work a lot harder to get the right answers than anyone would if they were merely hiring people. We can't afford to have any illusions about the predictors of success. And what we've found is that the variation between schools is so much smaller than the variation between individuals that it's negligible by comparison. We can learn more about someone in the first minute of talking to them than by knowing where they went to school.

It seems obvious when you put it that way. Look at the individual, not where they went to college. But that's a weaker statement than the idea I began with, that it doesn't matter much where a given individual goes to college. Don't you learn things at the best schools that you wouldn't learn at lesser places?

Apparently not. Obviously you can't prove this in the case of a single individual, but you can tell from aggregate evidence: you can't, without asking them, distinguish people who went to one school from those who went to another three times as far down the US News list. [3] Try it and see.

How can this be? Because how much you learn in college depends a lot more on you than the college. A determined party animal can get through the best school without learning anything. And someone with a real thirst for knowledge will be able to find a few smart people to learn from at a school that isn't prestigious at all.

The other students are the biggest advantage of going to an elite college; you learn more from them than the professors. But you should be able to reproduce this at most colleges if you make a conscious effort to find smart friends. At most colleges you can find at least a handful of other smart students, and most people have only a handful of close friends in college anyway. [4] The odds of finding smart professors are even better. The curve for faculty is a lot flatter than for students, especially in math and the hard sciences; you have to go pretty far down the list of colleges before you stop finding smart professors in the math department.

So it's not surprising that we've found the relative prestige of different colleges useless in judging individuals. There's a lot of randomness in how colleges select people, and what they learn there depends much more on them than the college. Between these two sources of variation, the college someone went to doesn't mean a lot. It is to some degree a predictor of ability, but so weak that we regard it mainly as a source of error and try consciously to ignore it.

I doubt what we've discovered is an anomaly specific to startups. Probably people have always overestimated the importance of where one goes to college. We're just finally able to measure it.

The unfortunate thing is not just that people are judged by such a superficial test, but that so many judge themselves by it. A lot of people, probably the majority of people in America, have some amount of insecurity about where, or whether, they went to college. The tragedy of the situation is that by far the greatest liability of not having gone to the college you'd have liked is your own feeling that you're thereby lacking something. Colleges are a bit like exclusive clubs in this respect. There is only one real advantage to being a member of most exclusive clubs: you know you wouldn't be missing much if you weren't. When you're excluded, you can only imagine the advantages of being an insider. But invariably they're larger in your imagination than in real life.

So it is with colleges. Colleges differ, but they're nothing like the stamp of destiny so many imagine them to be. People aren't what some admissions officer decides about them at seventeen. They're what they make themselves.

Indeed, the great advantage of not caring where people went to college is not just that you can stop judging them (and yourself) by superficial measures, but that you can focus instead on what really matters. What matters is what you make of yourself. I think that's what we should tell kids. Their job isn't to get good grades so they can get into a good college, but to learn and do. And not just because that's more rewarding than worldly success. That will increasingly be the route to worldly success.

7 Rules for Startups

Now that we have established there is no connection between "MBA" and "get rich quick", let's look at some other ways to ..er....."get rich quick" - or at least, become bankrupt trying!
Entrepreneurship !

Ajit Nazre, a partner at Kleiner Perkins said KPCB has 7 rules for startups they invest in. They are

1. Instant Value to customers - solve a problem or create value with the first use
2. Viral adoption - Pull, not push. No direct sales force required
3. Minimum IT footprint, preferably none. Hosted SaaS is best.
4. Simple, intuitive user experience - no training required.
5. Personalized user experience - customizable
6. Easy configuration based on application or usage templates
7. Context aware - adjust to location, groups, preferences, devices, etc

Do you have an internet idea that fits this criteria?