This comment is based on my experience working as a scientist in academia in USA, Japan, Germany, France, Norway, UK, and now the Netherlands.
Advice for Prospective PhD Students
41–50 of 97 posts
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Very few jobs in industry need a PhD. Most are ok with a masters. This varies dramatically by field.
What industry has a heavy concentration of PhD except academia?
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#43Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Very few jobs in industry need a PhD. Most are ok with a masters. This varies dramatically by field.
What industry has a heavy concentration of PhD except academia?
They probably don't have high concentrations absolutely (e.g. they're not going to be 90%+ PhDs) but it's probably still several orders of magnitude above your average industry role.
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#45This is mediocre advice that largely won't work for the members of this community. For neuroscience, where there is relatively little competition, it's ok. For AI/ML, where the competition is crazy, it's bad advice. > Lastly - the dreaded Undergraduate Publication. Are you a co-author on a publication? Fantastic. It means you made a considerable contribution to a project which can only be done through a significant a…
Insane take. Neuroscience is highly competitive. As someone in both fields, I would say it is only a little bit less competitive than AI/ML.
I largely agree with the rest of your advice, but I would argue that having multiple extremely positive reference letters from different research experiences are worth more than some middle author publication.
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Very few jobs in industry need a PhD. Most are ok with a masters. This varies dramatically by field.
What industry has a heavy concentration of PhD except academia?
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Very few jobs in industry need a PhD. Most are ok with a masters. This varies dramatically by field.
What industry has a heavy concentration of PhD except academia?
Whether it becomes a practical requirement, or formal requirement, would depend. If it's a high paid position, in a small research group, of an established field, then Ph.D.s are likely to be very important.
If its a position in a large research group in a new and fast changing field, then its likely to be more open to anyone with unusual or interesting promise, but still highly value Ph.D's.
As for fields: research in engineering, finance, economics, device physics, chemistry, biology, pharmaceuticals, etc. Anywhere the research involves highly technical knowledge, and a pre-existing track record of original thinking, personal initiative, that have produced objective results, are very important.
"Research" is a thought and project management meta/leadership skill, on top of being highly educated and talented in an area. Ph.D.'s provide the extra time and social context to fill out those skills and demonstrate a track record.
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
What industry has a heavy concentration of PhD except academia?
IC design for behemoths like Intel/AMD/Nvidia. AFAIK none of those is gonna let you anywhere near their multibillion-dollar design without being at the top of the field or having lots of experience (>5yrs) already
Even if you get a PhD your working career is going to be around 35 years. Add 5-10 if you're done after college, and even more if you're not doing college.
I think we need to stop pretending people are senior when they're 10-15% of the way through their career.
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#49If you live in the US, have the ability to work in the US, and have a stem degree, the opportunity cost of a PhD is just way too high, many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Technically, one could do the PhD in the UK where PhD is 3 years, to minimize that opportunity cost, but not by much.
You should not get a PhD for the money. That's always been the case. It's a research degree. If it will open doors for the type of work you want to do, that's the only time it's worth it. Traditionally, the reason to get a PhD was that it was the only way to get an academic job. In 2023, I don't recommend academic employment. Sadly, it's just another type of employment today. I started my first academic job in 2002 a…
Re: Advice for Prospective PhD Students
#50Sure, a bad PI can make you miserable, and if you only catch on when you've already invested serious time into research, you might be stuck with that PI until you're done. But, at least from what I've seen at my university, you have a good amount of flexibility during the first years of the program. Plus, after the first semester, our department expects PhD students to do teaching assistant work if not funded by other means, which gives them the chance to work with professors without getting tied down to a PI, making it easier to make a more informed decision.
It's worth emphasizing that if you really love the topic, have confidence in your skills and can tolerate your PI, it can be a very fulfilling albeit stressful experience. My PI is typically well spoken, very demanding and often an asshole but also gives enough freedom and autonomy to grow. The pay is also definitely nowhere near as good as it would be in industry.
But as someone who would consider himself to have been pretty immature and mentally 'weak' (struggling to cope with anything stressful that wasn't an exam or project) when starting the program, I feel I have grown significantly as a person over the past few years in a way that would have likely involved a lot more exploitation and pain in industry (especially given my immigration status, which also tends to encourage exploitation). When I started, I struggled even with basic 'adult' things, yet 4 years in, approaching the end of my program, I am able to operate in the group mostly autonomously, with just occasional progress updates and handling basic decision making - reducing my PI's workload etc.
Additionally, as someone who had always been interested in physics, but pursued an education in computer engineering since that was my stronger skill, a PhD ended up giving me the chance to participate in cutting edge physics research despite my computer specialization.
I may have lost out on some wealth, but I feel I've more than made up for it through the personal growth, the satisfaction of unintentionally fulfilling a childhood dream, the satisfaction of making a measurable and meaningful contribution to science and the significantly expanded immigration opportunities compared to the conventional painful H1B->Green card route for Indians.
I can't speak too much about admissions, as my experience with that was fairly unusual - I transferred in from a Masters at the recommendation of the department chair with most other requirements waived because they remembered my classwork from undergrad and felt a PhD would fit me better. I was also set up with an introduction at a lab to fund me (granted that this did mean I didn't get any flexibility in choosing my PI). But I disagree with the general premise that PhDs are not worth it.