Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#31

Post by dan-robertson »

mayank wrote: post #21
scottishcow wrote: post #16

> 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…

> Some people never do research again after completing a Ph.D. For such people, the Ph.D. was largely a waste of time I'm in this camp (haven't published since I graduated and joined industry), and I also strongly disagree with this statement. The value of the PhD is how it changes the way you think, how you break down big fuzzy problems, and how it helps you navigate the literature when you need help, and how it hel…

Surely this is a question where many opinions will be biased.

If you did a phd and stayed in academia then you are likely to feel that having people do phds and leave academia is a waste of resources (maybe this is wrong and phd students are so cheap that they are net contributors).

If you did a phd and left academia then you are perhaps likely to feel that your phd bestowed benefits to you outside of academia and that those benefits ought to be afforded to people in later generations.

I suppose if one doesn’t have a phd then one might have either opinion, or some other opinion eg that phds are entirely a waste of public money.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#32

Post by twblalock »

scottishcow wrote: post #16

> 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…

6 years of a grad student salary is a big financial sacrifice compared to 6 years of a software industry salary, even at non-Silicon-Valley salary levels.

The opportunity cost of a PhD can be pretty high. In CS you could theoretically make back a lot of that money with a higher salary after graduation if you then enter industry, but the gap in lifetime earnings up until that point is huge.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#33

Post by romwell »

supernova87a wrote: post #25

> "...You need to know why you want a Ph.D. You need to have vision and ideas and you need to be able to express yourself..." I've got to stress that this advice is really important. Especially for people who are considering going into grad school because they're on autopilot or think that it's just a natural continuation of your schooling. That's an easy way to think, but it's not the right way. You can easily lose…

>Go into grad school and pursue a PHD because you've got a burning desire to turn one of your good ideas into a breakthrough.

Yeah, this doesn't apply to mathematics, where the undergraduate degree often doesn't even prepare you to understand the problem you would eventually get to work on.

I participated in REUs and was a co-author on a published paper before I started my math PhD, and it was still a long journey to arrive at a project that ended up in a dissertation.

One of the great things about grad school was that I got to learn mathematics that I wouldn't otherwise - not just in classes, of course. Getting more educated would have been a good enough reason.

Aimless wandering was just a part of the journey, and a nearly inevitable one.

While I am talking about mathematics here, theoretical computer science is just a branch of math, and is not much different.

Looking back, there are many things that I could have done differently, lots of bullshit I could have avoided, and many things in that broken system that I could have dodged.

But "don't go to grad school if you don't already have a project" just isn't a solid advice, in my opinion. It's great if that is the case, but you need to be very lucky for that to happen.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#34

Post by kyllo »

asciident wrote: post #27
supernova87a wrote: post #25

> "...You need to know why you want a Ph.D. You need to have vision and ideas and you need to be able to express yourself..." I've got to stress that this advice is really important. Especially for people who are considering going into grad school because they're on autopilot or think that it's just a natural continuation of your schooling. That's an easy way to think, but it's not the right way. You can easily lose…

That's a really surprising opinion to be, because I feel the exact same way but replacing "grad school" with "working at a corporation". I feel that most people go get a job on autopilot, as applying to a PhD requires substantial preparation whereas applying for a job is sort of a default. Then a job is even more so trading time for money, and easy to lose 6 years, or even 40 years in a blink. And what do you have to…

Good point, but it's worth noting that "go get a job on autopilot" behavior is entirely rational as it's driven by economic necessity--most people go get jobs because that's the only way they can afford food, shelter, healthcare, and other basic necessities. I wish it were optional!

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#35

Post by Cyph0n »

gaze wrote: post #12

My feelings are a little different. If you feel like doing a PhD and enjoy doing research, you should do it. A PhD above all should be fun, and is thus not a waste. It's only a waste if it's not fun. 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…

Agreed. As you noted, you don’t have much to lose by giving it a try, and you can always drop out and get the MS (like I did).

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#36

Post by jvanderbot »

mayank wrote: post #21
scottishcow wrote: post #16

> 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…

> Some people never do research again after completing a Ph.D. For such people, the Ph.D. was largely a waste of time I'm in this camp (haven't published since I graduated and joined industry), and I also strongly disagree with this statement. The value of the PhD is how it changes the way you think, how you break down big fuzzy problems, and how it helps you navigate the literature when you need help, and how it hel…

The problem is the definition of "research". If you call it "publication", then yes, it seems like a waste.

If you call it "development of new widgets after principled approaches consistent with or beyond the state of the art", it starts to feel like a Ph.D can be training to do really great work in industry.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#37

Post by jkhdigital »

scott_s wrote: post #14
plushprocessor wrote: post #5

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…

I agree, mostly. A possible route is to do a Master's at a mid-tier school, making sure to do research that results in a publication. That turns you into a very strong candidate and a mid-tier Master's program is easier to get into. And you might decide to stay at that school for a PhD!

This is exactly what happened for me. I started an MSCS at a decent state school, took an elective course in cryptography and crushed it, and the professor basically propositioned me to switch to a PhD and fast-tracked my application. Nothing else on my weird-ass mid-career resume mattered, because I took his course and he had all the evidence he needed.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#38

Post by papeda »

bachmeier wrote: post #11

I don't work in CS. I was surprised when I watched this talk[1] by Michael Stonebraker to learn of the "Diarrhea of Papers" > 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's a bit of a counterpoint to this: with papers, it's easier to point to your body of work (peer-reviewed and, if you're good/lucky, peer-understood-and-approved) as clear evidence that you can do research. Without papers, or with very few papers, that evidence has to come from somewhere else. My understanding is that somewhere else is usually recommendations, from your advisor and other people in the field. Some reasons to dislike that system include:

1) it gives advisors a lot of influence over the student's career (obviously, if you have an actively hostile advisor things will be hard in any system, but I have known successful faculty who had indifferent fund-and-forget-style advisors who wouldn't know enough about the student's field to write a good recommendation)

2) informal "I like this person, hire them" networks tend to select for people who are like current participants in the network

I agree that a coarse "do they have at least x papers?" way of evaluating researchers is silly. But it's not crazy to have 10 papers when you graduate. That's about one paper every 6 months in a 5-year program. Six months is a long time, almost a thousand hours of work. If three people are focused on a project, it's pretty plausible to get a cool result in six months.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#39

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

gaze wrote: post #12

My feelings are a little different. If you feel like doing a PhD and enjoy doing research, you should do it. A PhD above all should be fun, and is thus not a waste. It's only a waste if it's not fun. 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…

It should be fun, but it's not clear for how much people it is fun and not merely Stockholm syndrome.

It feels like in many ways academia has it worse than the corporate world (lower pay, similar or more politics, more personal fiefdoms, greater chance of harassment / coercion), yet people propagate the image of a certain unfairly romanticized wonderland.

Re: Applying to PhD Programs in Computer Science (2014) [pdf]

#40

Post by ImprobableTruth »

supernova87a wrote: post #25

> "...You need to know why you want a Ph.D. You need to have vision and ideas and you need to be able to express yourself..." I've got to stress that this advice is really important. Especially for people who are considering going into grad school because they're on autopilot or think that it's just a natural continuation of your schooling. That's an easy way to think, but it's not the right way. You can easily lose…

What would you do to get a good idea? I have an area I'm really interested in, but it just seems like any ideas I have could have the potential to be a dud. Coming up with an idea that you'd be willing to commit several years to just seems incredibly hard.

I'd imagine that working at a real company isn't really the best occupation and place to generate new ideas unless what you're interested in is more practical. It just seems like it'd be more distracting than inspiring.

I've thought about getting a second undergrad degree (math, very closely related to the area) to broaden my horizon and I'm from Europe so I wouldn't be in debt or anything, but the idea feels quite silly.

Post reply on HN