21–30 of 85 posts
If anyone is curious, here are the median starting salaries for graduates from Stanford's CS/EE departments (survey was self selecting so the numbers are probably skewed up, but there were a large number of responses): Undergrad: 80k Masters: 87k PhD: 114k
In science and engineering (engineering in particular), PhD students rarely have to pay their own way, with stipends around $25000 or even up to around $30000 with a fellowship. The job prospects are certainly a lot better as well- since research funding in the US is very much focused on science and engineering.
If anyone is curious, here are the median starting salaries for graduates from Stanford's CS/EE departments (survey was self selecting so the numbers are probably skewed up, but there were a large number of responses): Undergrad: 80k Masters: 87k PhD: 114k
If anyone is curious, here are the median starting salaries for graduates from Stanford's CS/EE departments (survey was self selecting so the numbers are probably skewed up, but there were a large number of responses): Undergrad: 80k Masters: 87k PhD: 114k
The sole purpose of some PhDs is to serve as cheap labour for the research efforts of a professor.
If anyone is curious, here are the median starting salaries for graduates from Stanford's CS/EE departments (survey was self selecting so the numbers are probably skewed up, but there were a large number of responses): Undergrad: 80k Masters: 87k PhD: 114k
The PhD hits the workforce ~6 years later than the undergrad. It is entirely feasible, in fact most probable, for a 80k undergrad to hit ~115k in 6 years.
A PhD is all about wealth creation [1]. Also many of the technologies we take for granted were due to "lowly" PhD students toiling away. I can't even imagine how without decades of dedicated academic effort we can have semiconductor based electronics, massively layered software that work seamlessly, etc. Maybe the author can. "The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes." The "fierces…
Nice read. Speaking as a PhD I am okay with the PhD certificate having no value (you don't deserve extra earnings for having the certificate). It was my intent to learn some valuable things during the degree process, and I did.
I agree with the argument that PhD's might be underpaid a bit, but I think the author is exaggerating when he says that universities exploit them to get cheap research done, or that there are too many PhD's being produced by the system in general (as if this had a strongly negative impact on our society?)
The problem is far less in Computer Science, where your skills transfer over to The Real World relatively easily, and companies like Microsoft and Google value them. This means the potential job pool is much bigger.
As a CS PhD student, of course I feel underpaid. Universities have reached a point where they can convince students that what they are doing is being paid for being taught, which must be a great deal, right? However, everyone else calls this "on the job training" or "starting at the bottom of the ladder" and they get paid better for it. However, I think about the benefits I get (work when/where I like, use whatever language I like, nap when I like, release all my work as open-source, never feel like I'm waking up to "work", don't have to worry about mundane but potentially catastrophic life things like health insurance), and it does even out somewhat.
If anyone is curious, here are the median starting salaries for graduates from Stanford's CS/EE departments (survey was self selecting so the numbers are probably skewed up, but there were a large number of responses): Undergrad: 80k Masters: 87k PhD: 114k
The PhD hits the workforce ~6 years later than the undergrad. It is entirely feasible, in fact most probable, for a 80k undergrad to hit ~115k in 6 years.
A PhD is all about wealth creation [1]. Also many of the technologies we take for granted were due to "lowly" PhD students toiling away. I can't even imagine how without decades of dedicated academic effort we can have semiconductor based electronics, massively layered software that work seamlessly, etc. Maybe the author can. "The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes." The "fierces…
Actually most semiconductor technology was developed by industry. Nowadays it is often too expensive for a university to do any cutting edge IC research without industry partnerships.
There's going to have to be a little bit of realignment, I think, and some disciplines are going to have to start letting go of being "we're the practical ones and you could deploy our tech tomorrow" to pushing out a little bit, maybe incorporating things like AI and stuff.