11–20 of 106 posts
> A PhD applicant who wants to get a good academic job should have ~10 papers
> A tenure case should have ~40 papers
That alone would push me away from a PhD in CS. In economics, it's closer to what he said was the case when he was new:
> I got tenure from Berkeley in 1976 — With about 5 papers
There will be extended periods of intense struggle, and those parts are not that fun. One has to accept those. But, doing cutting edge research with experts is an incredible opportunity and I'd encourage those interested to take the plunge. If it doesn't work out, why not take the MA and run?
What isn't often discussed is how hard it is to go from a no name school that isn't ranked highly to an elite school. At a non-elite school your recommenders may be unknown to the admissions committee, the 'level' of education these applicants receive can be questionable ("What does an A mean from this program and how does it compare to our class?"), their research experience could be weak, student visibility could b…
Very interested in working through the PhD as a mid-career SW engineer with a MS. Curious how someone in that state would be seen by the acceptance committee, or, alternatively, by hiring committees post-graduation. Perspectives?
Is it? Some of my friends went on to start successful companies after getting their PhDs. I'm a bit envious of them actually, I didn't have that option as my research was on an obscure topic with zero commercial potential.
> The Ph.D. is a tremendous opportunity. You get to pick an advisor in any research area you like and then you get to do research in that area, receive mentoring, think deeply on problems, publish papers, become famous, while paying zero tuition for 6 years and receiving a salary.
Yes it is a great opportunity, but considering how universities benefit massively from the work generated by their PhD students they're grossly underpaid (at least in STEM).
Overall this seems like good practical advice, but it's firmly written from the perspective of a true believer in the PhD system (and academia in general). My take is a bit different, I really think academia is broken in some fundamental ways.
Very interested in working through the PhD as a mid-career SW engineer with a MS. Curious how someone in that state would be seen by the acceptance committee, or, alternatively, by hiring committees post-graduation. Perspectives?
coventional wisdom is -- why get a PhD unles you want to publish ? .. shorthand for, publications with trackable impact (citations) or, fundemental contributions to the field; otherwise, long road, much time .. "piled higher and deeper" PhD
I have run the financials on a PhD program. I have done highly independent research as part of my Master's. I am aware the TT job market is dicey on a good year. I am aware that it's a Very Institutional game, unlike startups, and h-indexes tend to matter more than one might hope. I have known a number of PhDs and watched their planned graduation dates slip, and their advisors put them through wringers.
So: thank you; I'm very aware of the PhD road. I would really like to go deep on a research problem and, later, be paid an acceptable sum to research & teach.
Any remote PhD opportunities nowadays?
> Some people never do research again after completing a Ph.D. For such people, the Ph.D. was largely a waste of time. Is it? Some of my friends went on to start successful companies after getting their PhDs. I'm a bit envious of them actually, I didn't have that option as my research was on an obscure topic with zero commercial potential. > The Ph.D. is a tremendous opportunity. You get to pick an advisor in any res…