The 6 Qualities That Actually Predict PhD Success (Grades Aren't One of Them)

I recently reconnected with one of my former PhD students. We reminisced about his time at the university as well as how his time away provided some perspective into the whole graduate school process, student-advisor interactions, and factors that help students be successful. This conversation and conversations with my current PhD students underline the concept that the skills that make someone successful as an undergraduate do not necessarily translate into PhD success.

Basically, a PhD is a different kind of endeavor, and it rewards a different kind of person. Before you apply, it's worth asking yourself, “Is a PhD right for me?” and honestly consider whether you have or are able to develop the qualities that actually ensure your success. Something to note – these are qualities I, personally, have noticed that help graduate students succeed. Other advisors might have other ideas.

1. Curiosity

Many students come to graduate school having spent years becoming very good at checking boxes: study for the exam, earn the grade, move on. That system rewards a specific kind of performance, and a lot of high-achieving students have optimized for it. Graduate school largely dismantles that system. Unless you are on academic probation, your grades are not your primary focus; your research is. [I have students who are still caught up in getting A’s in all their classes. This pulls you away from your research, which is the exact opposite of what you want!]

If you can review the literature in your field and feel pulled toward it rather than overwhelmed by it, that's a good sign. If you can identify what is known and what is not known, you have identified a research gap. This can provide a foundation for your work. Without curiosity, you will have to wait to be told what to study. Your work will be reactive rather than novel and innovative. If you’re often asking, “What if”, or “Why do we do it that way,” you probably have what it takes to be a PhD student.

2. A High Tolerance for Uncertainty

When you design a research study, you are working without a template. You will read the literature, learn from studies that have already been done, figure out what worked and what didn't, and try to adapt best practices to your specific question. There will not be a "right" way to do this. There will be a range of defensible choices, and you will have to make them, justify them, and sometimes live with the consequences when they don't work out the way you expected.

Story time: I spent over a year developing a technique for my doctoral work. So. Many. Failures. A lot of time spent questioning if I was ever going to be able to solve the problem. My experience is not unique. In fact, it’s quite normal. The question is not whether you will experience failure and uncertainty, but how you will respond when you do. If ambiguity, non-linear progress, or intangible progress shuts you down, a PhD will be a very difficult experience. If you can cope with not-knowing while you figure it out, you'll be okay.

3. The Ability to Separate Your Ego from Criticism

Your PhD advisor will critique your work. Regularly. Bluntly. If they are doing their job, this is exactly what they should be doing. You cannot take this personally. And this is difficult to do.

The feedback your advisor gives you is information that can be used to improve your thinking, your writing, and your study design skills. It’s not a verdict on your worth as a person or whether you should be in the program. Believe it or not, your advisor once sat where you are sitting. They didn’t know how to write an academic paper or a dissertation when they started, either. I was mortified the first time I had my writing critiqued, but I got better. Remember that what your advisor knows now, they learned through this process.

Academic feedback can feel harsh. This is partly by design — the feedback of journal peer reviewers, which you will eventually have to navigate on your own, is often direct to the point of being uncomfortable. Reviewers are not interested in protecting your feelings; they are there to protect the integrity of the published literature. Learning to receive critical feedback as useful information rather than as a personal attack is one of the most important professional skills you can develop in a PhD program.

This also means learning to take direction. There is a reason (probably lots of reasons) your advisor has been successful! You may not always agree with their guidance, and part of your development as a scholar is learning to have those conversations productively. But in the meantime, especially early in your program, you don't know what you don't know.

A note for students who did not grow up in the US: It is worth knowing in advance that direct feedback is the norm in US academia. It is not a sign that your advisor dislikes you, or that you are failing. This is how your work gets better.

4. The Ability to Teach Yourself

Your advisor is your mentor, not your teacher. That’s an important difference. They will guide your thinking, push back on your ideas, and help you see what you're missing. They cannot teach you every single thing you need to know to do your research.

Some of the most important learning you will do in a PhD program, you will do on your own. My own statistical knowledge, what little there is, came largely from one excellent book — Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics by Andy Field — and from YouTube tutorials. [Not using SPSS? Dr. Field has other versions of the book.]

I couldn’t wait for someone to walk me through every concept. I found the resources I needed and worked through them. Similarly, if you wait until you feel like you are 100% ready to do something, you will never finish your program. You’ll never feel 100% ready to defend your dissertation or present at a conference. You need to prepare the best you can, and then do it. You learn by doing.

The students who thrive in PhD programs are the ones who, when they encounter something they don't know how to do, go figure out how to do it, and then come to their advisor with a proposed approach. The students who struggle are the ones who wait to be told. The difference in progress between those two groups is significant.

Learning how to learn is also, not coincidentally, one of the most transferable skills you’ll take out of a PhD. Whatever methodology or software or framework is standard in your field today will be different in ten years. The skill that lasts is knowing how to teach yourself what you need to know.

For students from educational systems where independent study is less emphasized: The expectation that you will seek out and evaluate your own learning resources can be a significant adjustment. If you have been trained primarily to master what your instructors assign, the open-endedness of self-directed learning in a PhD can be uncomfortable at first.

5. Stress Management

A PhD program is stressful. Not in the "this exam is hard" way you may be used to, but in a slower, more sustained way. You may work long hours without obvious progress. You may run an experiment for months and get results that don't make sense. You may feel like everyone around you is ahead of you, more productive, more confident, more certain of what they're doing. Having real strategies for managing stress is not optional. What those strategies look like will be different for everyone. Maybe you like to exercise, have a social life outside of lab, some sort of creative outlet, go to therapy, follow a regular schedule, maintain a separation between work and home. Whatever it is, you must use it. Frequently.

On the topic of comparing yourself to others: this deserves its own conversation, and I've written about it separately here. The short version is this; comparison is a losing game in graduate school. You will always be able to find someone who is further along, publishing more, winning more awards. If you measure your progress against theirs, you will always feel behind. The only useful comparison is to your past self. Are you learning? Are you improving?

6. The Ability to Keep Going Without External Validation

In undergraduate study, validation is built into the structure. Assignments have grades. Semesters end. Progress is marked and acknowledged on a regular schedule. That structure is largely absent from graduate school.

You may go weeks without anyone telling you you're on the right track. Your advisor may be traveling, managing their own deadlines, supervising multiple students. The absence of feedback is not a signal that something is wrong. But it can feel like one, and if you depend on external reassurance to sustain your momentum, that feeling can stop you cold. The ability to keep working in the absence of regular affirmation is one of the less glamorous qualities a PhD requires — and one of the most important. This is worth knowing before you start. That said, your advisor cannot read your mind and might not know you are struggling. If something feels wrong, set up a meeting with them to check in.

A Final Thought

None of these qualities are fixed. Most of them can be developed, and the PhD process itself is designed to develop and refine them. If you recognize yourself in most of this list, that's a good sign. If you find yourself resistant to several of these ideas, if the thought of direct critical feedback feels unbearable, or if you know you struggle to work without clear direction, it doesn't mean a PhD is impossible. But it does mean you have some work to do before you get there, and that's worth taking seriously to ensure your success as a PhD student.

If any of this graduate school advice resonates with you, or if you're still figuring out whether a PhD program is the right path, feel free to reach out.

Back to the Blog