Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist.

wuphys.wustl.edu

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#11
post #5

"I became a scientist in order to have the freedom to work on problems which interest me." I thought a more reasonable path to this would be to join a startup or three, get rich and then spend the rest of your life getting a PhD, working on interesting problems, etc. No? ;)

Since one out of ten fail, that wouldn't be the best strategy.

If only one out of ten failed, that would clearly be a great strategy. I think you meant 10% succeed.

Even if that stat is true, it isn't useful. It doesn't mean your chances must be one in ten, and it doesn't mean that the overall rate can't or won't rise in the future.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#12
post #9
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you're 30 and the hunger and energy is gone." If anything you know a lot more in your domain of expertise and are in a better position to start a co. Plus you're hungrier -- grad students make very little money. A formula for startup success. "Maybe we should redefine the Masters to include some research work." Actually the Masters does in fact include research work. At least mine did.

In practice, it's hard to completely change course and take on even more risk once you are finished with your Ph.D. Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them. In Physics, a Masters typically means 2 years of coursework and passing some set of exams. Most of us join a research group about 1 year into grad school but it's hard to do real research until your classes are done.

"Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them."

I don't agree with your statement. I think we hear more stories of dropouts starting companies because they are rare and make interesting stories.

For instance: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli

. .

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, it's hard to completely change course and take on even more risk once you are finished with your Ph.D. Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them. In Physics, a Masters typically means 2 years of coursework and passing some set of exams. Most of us join a research group about 1 year into grad school but it's hard to do real research until your classes are done.

"Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them." I don't agree with your statement. I think we hear more stories of dropouts starting companies because they are rare and make interesting stories. For instance: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli . .

Since there are a lot more degree holders than dropouts, it's probably mathematically true that there are more PhDs starting companies. I wonder what percentage of dropouts start companies vs. percentage of PhDs.

That is basically what I was driving at in my original post. If you are a PhD candidate 3 years into grad school are you more likely to start a company by dropping out or by staying in school?

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#14
Although I agree with nearly everything he says in this essay, it's worth pointing out that he has written several other pieces that would make most normal people question his grip on sanity. At the very least, this guy is eccentric. Also, the numbers he cited are from 1999, and are getting a bit dated. NIH post-doc stipends are now roughly $40k/year (including in the most expensive cities, like San Francisco); grad-student stipends are around $25k per year.

Everything else is true, in my experience. If you start a PhD in the physical or biological sciences this year, you'll spend 5-10 years in grad school, barely making ends meet at $25k a year. Then, if you're incredibly lucky (think 95th-percentile lucky), you'll get a stellar paper that will set you up for a post-doc in a superstar lab, which will give you a roughly 50/50 shot at a tenure track position somewhere (don't count on living in a city, or even a place where your significant other can find a job, however, because you're now living at the whims of the academic system.)

Your post-doc will take 3-4 years, and will pay you less than you could have made right out of an undergraduate CS program, in exchange for more risk and longer hours. You'll be expected to work nights and weekends, and in case you lack the drive to do it, there will be some guy from China with a J-1 visa sitting next to you. He's probably living in a boarding house right next to the university with ten other post-docs, and he's willing to work 100-hour weeks for a shot at a job in this country. That's your baseline.

If you're astronomically lucky, you'll get a faculty position -- hopefully not at Podunk U -- where you'll be paid significantly less than that undergrad CS major (who is now probably making over $100k/year, buying a home, getting married, etc.) You'll be competing for grant money in an insanely tight market (the funding rate for NIH research grants is well below 5% now), and evaluated by established faculty who will torpedo your proposals if it helps their own chances. At the end of six years of insane work, you'll get a shot at keeping your job. If you get tenure, you can settle down to a lifetime of below-market wages, while working relaxing 50-60 hour weeks.

Of course, if you choose to leave academia after grad school, the prospects are equally dismal. The rare position that requires research experience is essentially set aside for friends (you hear a lot about "networking" on the science job boards, but little practical advice on how to actually do it), or for people who have been poached from other companies by recruiters. Meanwhile, once you have a PhD, you're untouchable by most employers -- considered too theoretical and expensive for "practical" work. Ultimately, most people with advanced degrees in the sciences spend years teaching courses on contract, or jumping between dead-end, low-paying jobs, hoping to start something that resembles a career.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist.

#19
post #2

Don't be misled by the promise of freedom in academia. It's not like that at all.

What is wrong with it?

Unless you get a faculty position at a stellar university (highly unlikely nowadays), the teaching will be depressing. And your research will suffer as a result since you will be in no mood to do it.

Also, unless you plan to do everything yourself for research, you will need to get some funding. But whether you get that funding depends on whether your peers -- competitors actually -- like what you plan to do.

Finally, the fact that computer science tries to be a science severely limits your creativity -- at least if you want to publish in respectable conferences and journals.

Post reply on HN