Discussion Solved

Is a PhD still worth it in India in 2025? Let's have an honest conversation.

Back to Forum
Growing 170 pts 0 followers
Alva's Institute of Engineering and Technology · Posted
Photonics & Optics Environmental Science Financial Engineering

I just finished my PhD defense last week (Computer Science, IIT Madras) and wanted to share some honest reflections while everything is still fresh.

What went well:

  • My advisor was supportive and gave me genuine intellectual freedom
  • The collaborative atmosphere in the lab made the isolation of research more bearable
  • The depth of knowledge I built in my area is something I am genuinely proud of

What was hard:

  • Years 2–3 were brutal. Two major paper rejections triggered serious self-doubt.
  • The PMRF stipend still does not cover Bangalore costs comfortably
  • The academic job market is brutal.I applied to 22 positions and got 3 interviews

Where I am now: Joining a research lab at Microsoft India. Not the faculty position I originally wanted, but I am honestly excited.

Happy to answer questions from PhD students or people considering the PhD path in India.

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

20 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Neha Agarwal Growing 90 pts · Accepted answer

Strongly agree with the point about choosing venues carefully. One paper in NeurIPS > five papers in obscure workshops.

0
Royal Dsouza Starting 30 pts · Accepted answer

The IEEE TPAMI turnaround in my case was 7 months for the first review. Plan accordingly.

0
Xena D'Souza Starting 25 pts · Accepted answer

Just to make sure I understand the Zotero workflow correctly.is the .bib file synced to Overleaf automatically every time you add a new paper, or do you need to trigger an export manually?

0
Sanjay Kumar Growing 145 pts · Accepted answer

The IEEE TPAMI turnaround in my case was 7 months for the first review. Plan accordingly.

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Wajid Khan Growing 110 pts · Accepted answer

CSIR-UGC NET preparation: past papers are the most important resource. Everything else is secondary.

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Bindiya Thomas Growing 65 pts · Accepted answer

Strongly agree with the point about choosing venues carefully. One paper in NeurIPS > five papers in obscure workshops.

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Sanjay Kumar Growing 145 pts · Accepted answer

The Fulbright SoP is very different from a typical PhD SoP. It needs to focus on cultural exchange and diplomacy, not just research.

0
Sowmya Narayanan Active 310 pts · Accepted answer

For Zotero vs BibTeX management, I moved to Zotero + Better BibTeX 3 years ago and have not looked back.

My workflow:

  1. Zotero browser connector captures papers instantly from ArXiv, Google Scholar, ACM DL, IEEE Xplore
  2. Better BibTeX generates a clean .bib file that auto-updates whenever I add a paper
  3. Overleaf directly pulls from the .bib file via Dropbox sync

One tip: create a Zotero collection per paper/project. When you export the .bib, export only that collection to keep it clean.

0
Jaya Lakshmanan Growing 50 pts · Accepted answer

Seconding the recommendation for Zotero. Game changer for managing references across multiple projects.

0
Replying to Jaya Lakshmanan
test tester Growing 165 pts · Accepted answer

This is really helpful context. One more question: for the ethics committee approval, does the institution where the data is collected or the institution where the analysis is performed need to be the primary ethics approver?

0
Replying to Jaya Lakshmanan
Jaya Lakshmanan Growing 50 pts · Accepted answer

Seconding the recommendation for Zotero. Game changer for managing references across multiple projects.

0
Replying to Jaya Lakshmanan
Gopal Naidu · Accepted answer

For longitudinal data with missing values, mixed-effects models handle this more gracefully than imputation in most cases.

0
Farhan Mirza · Accepted answer

I have successfully received PMRF (lateral entry, second year). Happy to share what worked in my proposal.

On the research proposal:

  • 60–70% technical approach, 30% context and impact
  • Preliminary results absolutely help. Coursework projects are fine if genuinely relevant
  • The societal impact section should be substantive.PMRF is a national initiative; reviewers want to see why this matters

On citations: Yes, cite your MTech thesis. Framing your PhD as an extension of prior work you did shows continuity of thought.

0
Replying to Farhan Mirza
Aditya Sharma Starting 45 pts · Accepted answer

The IEEE TPAMI turnaround in my case was 7 months for the first review. Plan accordingly.

0
Replying to Farhan Mirza
Vikram Bhatia Active 420 pts · Accepted answer

When you say 'multiple runs with confidence intervals', do you mean running the full training pipeline multiple times with different random seeds and reporting mean ± std? Or something more statistically rigorous?

0
Fatima Sheikh Growing 95 pts · Accepted answer

The Fulbright SoP is very different from a typical PhD SoP. It needs to focus on cultural exchange and diplomacy, not just research.

0
Lalitha Mohan Active 230 pts · Accepted answer

I am in a very similar situation. Would you be willing to share the outline of your PMRF proposal? Not the content.just the section headings and approximate word allocation.

0
Replying to Lalitha Mohan
Disha Malhotra Starting 8 pts · Accepted answer

Just to make sure I understand the Zotero workflow correctly.is the .bib file synced to Overleaf automatically every time you add a new paper, or do you need to trigger an export manually?

0
Replying to Lalitha Mohan
Prakash Iyer Distinguished 640 pts · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.

0
Eshan Patil Growing 70 pts · Accepted answer

The short answer: it depends heavily on the journal and field, but here is a general framework.

If your null result is well-powered and the hypothesis was reasonable: Absolutely publish it. Null results in well-designed studies are as valuable as positive results. Journals like PLOS ONE explicitly welcome them.

If your study is underpowered: Be transparent about it. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values. A small, underpowered study with honest reporting is still a contribution.

What kills papers is when limitations are obvious but the authors have not addressed them.