The Unofficial SMART Scholarship Forum

[quote="guest 314"]I'm an applied mathematics PhD student who has been offered the SMART scholarship to work in one of the AFRL sites. I have very slim chances of getting anything better than a 17k/year teaching stipend (and the teaching eats up a lot of time) so I am attracted to the stipend pay (I have a family) with no teaching requirements. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the research at my SF looks interesting but is slightly divergent from my graduate research. Given all these positives that I see, I have had multiple people caution me about taking the position (my advisor included). My question to you all is:

Could those of you who have worked in one of the research labs tell me what it's like? Are you code monkeys just running code other people wrote? How much independent thinking are you being allowed to do? Are you publishing? Do you feel like you could jump from your SF to a better job or this turning out to be a resume killer? Should I focus more on the "research lab" part or the "DoD" part?

I feel like a lot of these questions will be answered when I finally visit my SF but I'd like to go into that with some things to watch out for. Thanks to everyone who responds.[/quote]

Couple things: I assume you're a programmer but a code monkey is just an inexperienced programmer. They don't "run code other people wrote." Every programmer uses libraries that other people wrote. It's not like a script kiddie that doesn't have any knowledge about what they're doing but just pushes buttons indiscriminately. People who simply run code aren't programmers. They're users. But more to the point, accepting the SMART scholarship won't hurt your resume, and working for any government agency won't hurt you in that respect either. You might not learn much while you're there, but it looks good on a resume. You might hate your life while you're there, but it looks good on your resume. You might develop more programming knowledge by playing with Legos, but, you get the picture. I'm not a fan of SMART or the public sector when it comes to actual workload, advancement, or individual development, but having it on my resume has always helped me. That's all I can say about that.

Can you join the reserves while working off the smart commitment?

I think this is a good conversation for people considering SMART to read, so I will add some more observations. I did talk to multiple DoD civillians during my site visit and ran into the whole spectrum of situations. I'll describe two extremes and then give my extrapolation. LOL_DOD_Quizzes, I am very thankful for you pointing this out to us because I would have walked in completely blind otherwise.

[b]Two [/b]people I met regularly apply for grants (e.g. from AFOSR) to fund themselves for doing basic research (and they do the basic research). These people seemed like they were on the ball and worked harder than other people (e.g. one person told me that she typically brought work home, "because she enjoyed it"). One of them also mentioned that she also typically oversaw some mini-grants that had 1 or 2 contractors doing work she didn't have time to do. The other guy spends all of his time doing actual 6.1 and 6.2 work splitting his time between running code and experiments. Both of these people regularly go to academic conferences and present their work.

Two guys I met were much more into talking about the perks of being a DoD employee: the leave, the easy work life balance, the job security, etc. They said they both started by actually doing the work when they showed up but then there was a need for program managers and they were asked to fulfill that need. They didn't seem as.... well nerdy/academic.... as the other two, but they were jacked and seemed to be living very enjoyable lives.

From these conversations and other ones that fell in between I got the impression that (at least for the specific SF I was looking at) you could come in and do research for a while, BUT the less your research produces the more likely you are to be transitioned into a position of managing contractors who do the work. I think part of this comes from the fact that when you are payed on the DR scaled you are regularly assessed based on your contribution level to the mission. Hence, those people producing less research results boost their contribution level by overseeing contractors who produce results.

Yes, it does look like contractors do the bulk of the work. BUT, I was also told (in hushed voices in one on one meetings with individual employees) that a fair amount of people who go through my SF go onto a lot of the big name national labs so i think that the sample was skewed: I was only seeing the people who didn't go onto national labs.

My impression is that everyone who comes to my SF, gets about a year to try their hand at research and a good amount of them aren't really into the academic lifestyle and then they transition into management positions. Those that are into the research and pursue it like a research professor, get to do the research. Hence, I think (for my specific SF) that I see a lot of the similar opportunities of an academic position, but there is a fall back plan if that ends up not working out or not being your real passion. Considering the fact that academic positions are hard to find and national labs aren't as easy to get into, I think this SF will be a good stepping stone for me given my financial situation and academic pedigree. However, I can definitely see the huge potential for the situation LOL_DOD_Quizzes is describing and I think a lot of this depends on the specific group you are working with and the management. So make sure to ask plenty of questions to the people you meet and try and get as many of the exact details as you can!!

[quote="guest314"]I recently did my site visit with my SF which is a DoD research lab and gathered the following information which future/current scholars might find useful for figuring out whether or not they will be doing "real" research at their SF:

1. There is a way of characterizing the work a facility does by a numbering system that goes like 6.* and knowing the * number will greatly help you anticipate what kind of work they do. I was told that 6.1 is "basic" research in the sense that it is like academic research. 6.2 is "applied" research or tech. development (my SF said they do most of their work between 6.1 and 6.2). The numbers get higher and the higher they get the closer they get to technology that is being used. Asking your SF where there work falls on this numbering system could be very insightful for you as it was for me.

2. I asked in different post whether anyone knew of a place where the AFRL posts technical documents/papers. I found out that a good site to look at is http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/. Hence, if you want to evaluate your potential SF based on the actual work they are doing, you could get a list of names from the group and look them up here (the ARL has it's own website that seems much better, so go there if you are working with them). Be sure to ask them for the government civillian names not the name of contractors.[/quote]

So first you are talking about the "Technology Readiness Level" or TRL. The 6 number code tells you that the project is funded using RDT&E dollars so a 6.1 project is a project that is funded using RDT&E for technology that is at TRL 1. Usually your goal in DOD research is to advance the project to the goal TRL level and then transition the technology ideally all the way to a "program of record".

Any DOD lab is supposed to handle technology that is at the TRL 1-3 level and 4-7 is usually managed by Program Offices. Just because your organization does TRL 1-3 work [b] does not mean that you get to do it [/b]. When you are at your site visit go look at the facilities and labs. Go ask the people doing work if they are a contractor or if they are government. When you talk to the government employee ask them their specific responsibilities.

DTIC is also the public repository for most reports and technical papers. I am listed as an author on several. I did no traditional research on them except review the primary authors reports, monitor their funding, attend meetings, and observe tests. I am not happy about this, but it is what my job duties call for.

I wish I had the capability to do the actual research, but my research lab organization is not capable of providing to a government employee software or hardware capabilities to perform basic research. The portal to even access papers in the scientific community is routinely blocked by our network administrators! I have to request to get it unblocked often.

Again I'm not trying to disparage anyone's opportunity with the SMART scholarship. I do want you to know more than I did when I signed up. I was promised many things, but mostly they were half truths. My experience working with the DOD has been unfulfilling technically, but I have learned a great deal about how DOD science and technology programs work.

I recently did my site visit with my SF which is a DoD research lab and gathered the following information which future/current scholars might find useful for figuring out whether or not they will be doing "real" research at their SF:

1. There is a way of characterizing the work a facility does by a numbering system that goes like 6.* and knowing the * number will greatly help you anticipate what kind of work they do. I was told that 6.1 is "basic" research in the sense that it is like academic research. 6.2 is "applied" research or tech. development (my SF said they do most of their work between 6.1 and 6.2). The numbers get higher and the higher they get the closer they get to technology that is being used. Asking your SF where there work falls on this numbering system could be very insightful for you as it was for me.

2. I asked in different post whether anyone knew of a place where the AFRL posts technical documents/papers. I found out that a good site to look at is http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/. Hence, if you want to evaluate your potential SF based on the actual work they are doing, you could get a list of names from the group and look them up here (the ARL has it's own website that seems much better, so go there if you are working with them). Be sure to ask them for the government civillian names not the name of contractors.

[quote="LOL_DOD_Quizzes"]I don't think any DOD job will ever be a resume killer. You may be very unhappy while you work there, but I do think that it opens up a number of opportunities later. You will learn a great deal about the insight into how the DOD picks research topics/projects and how what the DOD expects from their contractors. This is actually quite valuable to contractors if you already understand the process and the deliverables.

From a purely academia point of view I would say this is not a good decision. You would be better off teaching and developing those skills while searching for a Post-Doc when you finish your PhD. As a PhD that worked at a research lab I can tell you that it was not pleasant or technically challenging.

If your commitment is over 2 years as a PhD I would recommend not to take it. You will be too valuable after you finish. There are other avenues for funding that you can go after. Your advisor will help you (assuming a good advisor).[/quote]

I really appreciate all of your posts and am writing things down to ask my facility during my site visit. I want to go into this with a sober mindset knowing what to expect. One question I have is if they are most likely planning to use me as an overseer/paper pusher, then why were all of the interview questions about which programming languages have I used, what programs have I coded, would I rather develop code or run code, what am I doing in my research, etc. I guess you'll probably say that they need people with enough technical understanding to do the paperwork, but wow were they misleading if this is what they are looking for out of me.

I don't think any DOD job will ever be a resume killer. You may be very unhappy while you work there, but I do think that it opens up a number of opportunities later. You will learn a great deal about the insight into how the DOD picks research topics/projects and how what the DOD expects from their contractors. This is actually quite valuable to contractors if you already understand the process and the deliverables.

From a purely academia point of view I would say this is not a good decision. You would be better off teaching and developing those skills while searching for a Post-Doc when you finish your PhD. As a PhD that worked at a research lab I can tell you that it was not pleasant or technically challenging.

If your commitment is over 2 years as a PhD I would recommend not to take it. You will be too valuable after you finish. There are other avenues for funding that you can go after. Your advisor will help you (assuming a good advisor).

I'm an applied mathematics PhD student who has been offered the SMART scholarship to work in one of the AFRL sites. I have very slim chances of getting anything better than a 17k/year teaching stipend (and the teaching eats up a lot of time) so I am attracted to the stipend pay (I have a family) with no teaching requirements. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the research at my SF looks interesting but is slightly divergent from my graduate research. Given all these positives that I see, I have had multiple people caution me about taking the position (my advisor included). My question to you all is:

Could those of you who have worked in one of the research labs tell me what it's like? Are you code monkeys just running code other people wrote? How much independent thinking are you being allowed to do? Are you publishing? Do you feel like you could jump from your SF to a better job or this turning out to be a resume killer? Should I focus more on the "research lab" part or the "DoD" part?

I feel like a lot of these questions will be answered when I finally visit my SF but I'd like to go into that with some things to watch out for. Thanks to everyone who responds.