1- This task force will eventually result in a short report, and we would like to pass it by you (not the entire early career community, just the representatives) before passing it to Beate. This has multiple benefits, including of course you having influence in the outcome and the advice being representative of the wider group of stake holders in the graduate student experience. I hope you are willing to do so? Report draft will likely be ready before the summer.
We are certainly happy to give feedback on the final report and are available for discussion during some intermediate meetings leading to it.
2- In our discussions we generally came to the conclusion that the 'scientific quality/research potential' of the PhD students at DESY is generally good, but that the recruitment of PhD students changes a lot per field. Do you have suggestions on how methods as far as recruitment that you think DESY can still exploit more?
Outreach activities aimed at younger students are a helpful way of garnering interest early. Summer student projects, internships, HiWi, and other activities where young students can already be involved in local activities are excellent for finding good candidates. Furthermore advertising the working conditions (proper salary instead of a stipend) can take advantage of some of the strengths of DESY. The fact that it is a 67% contract should be adequately explained to avoid confusion, while the possibilities of flexible working hours or remote working can be a plus. Advertising the relocation bonus, the presence of a DESY housing service, and other perks of working at DESY can also help.
3- Are the needs of doctoral students different between the large LHC experiments vs smaller (potentially local) groups such as the axion detectors and generic detector R&D? It is clear that there are also differences between theory and experiment, but we are aware of that.
Most definitely yes:
- EPR and OTP tasks in CMS and ATLAS occupy a large fraction of a student's time if not the entire first year;
- for generic R&D lack of resources (personpower, money, beamtime availability, ...) can leave a project stuck for a long time;
- the larger structures and hierarchies can make work proceed slower and add roadblocks for larger experiments absent in smaller ones;
- while not limited to large experiments, delays due to external collaborators can also hinder bringing a project to a conclusion.
Fundamentally, the roadblocks encountered differ considerably between smaller and larger experiments, and between data analysis and detector R&D.
4- We think it is key that the 'room to fail' aspect of basic research should be preserved also for doctoral research. Do you think this should be included in the PhD projects, so have a "plan B" from the start? Other ideas?
Room to fail is important for a research project but we think that a "plan B" might not be always the best option. More specifically, failure can arise as:
- lack of time (delays) or resources (components, beamtime, personpower)
- inability to complete the project (problems in the planning, incompetence)
- the project is completed but scientifically lacking in relevance (non-competitive results, unforeseen difficulties)
The first item is the one where contract extensions can be the most beneficial, it also partially covers the lack of resources provided they can be obtained at the cost of a delay. A plan B is the last resource to use and should be triggered in extraordinary cases. Moving to a different project can be challenging and prone to failure due to lack of time. Identifying possible roadblocks and bottlenecks early in the "plan A", if not even before the start of the project, can be more beneficial, one could then have either set milestones to redirect the project or have contingency plans around roadblocks. This could be achieved by emphasizing the importance of good planning for the PhD project and good tracking of the project progress from the PhD supervisor, with help from the mentor or other advisors. The last case is where a plan B might be unavoidable, or rather, the presence of a side project would help guarantee a decent conclusion of the PhD project.
5- Is DESY realistically conveying what is needed/required to successfully complete a PhD to starting/potential doctoral students (and should DESY even consider that as a responsibility?)
In general, no, though the successful completion of a PhD is highly project-dependent. We think the best people able to provide clear guidance could be the supervisors/mentors (from PIER/QU graduate school). We think it best to avoid generalized guidelines, especially if designed by people from different fields.
6- What is your view as far as a fellow-like recruitment procedure for PhD students, pros/cons?
A formal application is a good idea to ensure the quality of applications: obtaining a position after a more open call can be seen as an achievement in itself and improves motivation at the start of the project.
Allowing some freedom in recruitment (e.g. to former interns or summer students) can simplify the recruitment process when wanting to ensure the hiring of a good candidate before they are hired elsewhere.
We in general are in favor of having both approaches available as they have noticeable pros.
7- PhD reports are intended to ensure that the PhD project is on track. Are the current PIER reports useful for that? Some background info: there are many different formats used at doctoral schools around Europe and it does not look like there is a 'perfect' solution. But ideas particularly simple/minor changes are extremely welcome.
Yes and no, it is very situational. The reports should be a good tracking tool for the project's progress and would help steer the project if followed by a functioning feedback loop between the doctoral candidate and their supervisors.
In their current implementation, it is questionable whether the reports have merits in themselves or if their proper implementation directly correlates with the PhD supervisor providing help to ensure good progress independent of the report.
We are not sure of the benefits of the reports in themselves as their implementation varies wildly between different supervisors.
We observe strong reactions only to cover for particularly bad cases while the feedback loop for good reports is often absent. The supervisor reports are shown to the students in some cases (and therefore can be used as a base of criticism to guide the student) while in others they are sent directly without a discussion taking place. In general, we do not have a strong opinion due to the inconsistent implementation of these intermediate reports.
8- Are the soft-skill tools needed to complete a PhD (things like programming, writing courses, managing your project) provided at the right time in the PhD? Is there something missing in the PIER offers in that scope?
We are generally happy with the courses offered. The people interested generally try to get into the courses, though the number of places available is often too small to cover all the people interested. A negative note is that several courses have not gone back to an in-person format after the Pandemic.
9- Are there easy changes that you think would help people complete their PhD within the allocated time (assuming 36 to max 42 month PhDs)?
Mostly discussed in Q4. An additional point would be the management of contract extensions: an earlier approval of the contract extension – if not longer extensions altogether – could help save time, especially for non-EU citizens who need to renew their visa/residence permit which can be quite time-consuming depending on the country of origin.
10- Are there more structural (potentially also more costly) changes that you think would help people complete their PhD within the allocated time (assuming 36 to max 42 month PhDs)?
Clear allocation of resources for the completion of a PhD project + contingency plans to bypass bottlenecks in the projects. General allocation of more resources to expedite or smoothen the candidate's arrival to Hamburg (relocation bonus, help in finding an apartment) could also help.
While not among the topics covered in the questions we can raise two more items worth considering to attract excellent PhD candidates: better instruments allocated as part of the package for working in DESY (laptop, monitor, etc.), and higher salary overall.
