Dave's Data

  A few days ago, I posted about getting the Ph.D. in computer science .  As part of that post, I mentioned that I'd publish & discuss some of the reviews my papers have received.  These aren't so nasty that they're funny, but I decided to post the full submission/review/submission/review/final as a way to also help show what the publication and revision process looks like.  I probably owe a better explanation of the delta between the papers, but - hey, the SIGCOMM, USENIX ATC, and SEA (algorithms) deadlines are all this week. :) I've deliberately picked two papers with very different initial reviews.  Both were eventually accepted, and neither was accepted upon first submission.  One received a best paper award.  Both have over 100 citations.  I've picked these not because they're representative -- I've written papers with low citation counts also -- but because they illustrate the wide disparity in review constructiveness and tone that even decent, p

There's been an article going around about why not to get a Ph.D. (h/t John Regehr for the link). I'm using it as an excuse to toss out a bit of unsolicited advice about the Ph.D., and some anecdotes that perhaps some fresh entrants may find comforting. Or not. For context, I loved my Ph.D. experience (after the first semester of hell when I was convinced I'd get kicked out for being too stupid. I'll return to this in a few days.). But I also have a very smart, competent friend who had an absolutely miserable, manipulative-evil-advisor kind of experience in a different program, and, while completing the Ph.D., ended up leaving the field entirely as a result of it. Both of us were at top programs in our respective areas. I was fortunate enough to have an incredible advisor and be in a program that generally supported its grad students pretty well. It matters. I'm also a ridiculous optimist, which I think helps a lot in research. (It doesn't make your