131–140 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of benefits come from getting a Masters? Everyone I talk to seems to say a Masters in CompSci is useless, and that you may as well do a PhD instead.
> What sort of benefits come from getting a Masters Google will hire you to work on moving protobufs around as an L4, instead of an L3.
People seem to be getting stuck on the PhD opportunity cost piece for STEM. The matter of fact is that Americans don't do PhDs in STEM: if you look at the top schools and top departments, they are 70-90% international students. The PhD then is a phenomenal deal: by and large people are coming from places where FAANG jobs don't just fall on your lap at SF salaries. You get a free education in the US, and can jump stra…
35,566 / 57862 = 61.5% (overall)
26,622 / 45,533 = 58.5% (stem PhDs)
Survey of earned doctorates, national center for educational statistics, 2023 data…very useful, as are many of the data products the federal government collects, for however long this is up
Despite the typical tech-bro anti-intellectual comments on this thread. As the article states. It's the money. People need to be able to support themselves. PhDs are important because they train specialists by giving them the time and space needed to develop that expertise (something not usually available at corporate gigs). The work you do during a PhD has value, much more value than the stipend is worth. Taxpayer d…
Isn't calling someone a tech-bro itself just anti-intellectualism blended with sexism?
I question the premise that low pay caused this drop. PhD research was never about financial security , instead it pays in prestige and expertise of notoriously ramen-eating overworking geniuses. Prestige has certainly gone down since they became so commodified, and expertise can end with a Master's. Most PhDs are not even computer science and related fields (where the most interesting research roles are in companies).
We should rethink the duration and archaic formulation of the doctoral programs. Our times are faster
In STEM in particular the opportunity costs of a PhD are extremely high and with little payoff at the end. Even if you want to stay in academia, which is the only real reason to do a PhD now, there are far more PhDs graduating per year than open faculty positions. Many get stuck in Postdoc or adjunct hell for years and can never get a tenure track role.
There are many research jobs at Microsoft, Google, etc., that require a STEM PhD.
As usual, lot of PhD bashing in the comments. My experience was generally positive. The good things 1. I had mostly fun doing it. Being paid to learn things is great. 2. I got to work in different countries, and travel to many places 3. I was able to have more than one career. PhD + academia, before switching to industry. Gave me more perspectives. 4. I did learn a few things and skills (public speaking, I learned a…
I had a ton of fun in my PhD. It probably wasn’t the best route if I was trying to maximize total lifetime earnings, but I’m happy with the route I took. In fact I liked it enough that I often joke that my retirement plan will be to get into another PhD program for the stipend/insurance and just do projects to help some junior prof get their career going
> Financial insecurity is also one of the chief concerns for doctoral students in Japan I question the premise that low pay caused this drop. PhD research was never about financial security , instead it pays in prestige and expertise of notoriously ramen-eating overworking geniuses. Prestige has certainly gone down since they became so commodified, and expertise can end with a Master's. Most PhDs are not even compute…
You're looking at this wrong. PhD was always about financial security for the vast majority of PhDs. You think all those Chinese and Korean etc. students are coming to study engineering to get invited to the good parties back home? No, they're doing it because it provides financial security. Same for places all over the world. Europe, everywhere.
It's basically upper and upper middle class white Americans who pursue PhDs for the social prestige, because they already have actual capital, so they're pursuing social capital. Everyone else does it for a combination of money and love for the subject matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you don't understand something is not evidence that it's not valuable.
What didn't I understand? What of value is contained in those theses?
What rebuttal to the works do you have?
Many seemingly useless theses turn out to be prescient and valuable decades or even centuries later. What evidence exists to suggest these won't have long term value?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prior to the new administration I would have pointed out that US CS and engineering Ph.D.s are generally paid with a stipend that's "just enough to live on". There's even a website: https://csstipendrankings.org/ I disagree a little with their cost of living calculations - they're off in both directions for areas I know reasonably well. Most Ph.D. students can live for something under the MIT living wage calculations…
I get what you're saying, but "in some places, in some disciplines, you could be at a livable level of poverty" is not a very persuasive point
> Financial insecurity is also one of the chief concerns for doctoral students in Japan I question the premise that low pay caused this drop. PhD research was never about financial security , instead it pays in prestige and expertise of notoriously ramen-eating overworking geniuses. Prestige has certainly gone down since they became so commodified, and expertise can end with a Master's. Most PhDs are not even compute…
> PhD research was never about financial security You're looking at this wrong. PhD was always about financial security for the vast majority of PhDs. You think all those Chinese and Korean etc. students are coming to study engineering to get invited to the good parties back home? No, they're doing it because it provides financial security. Same for places all over the world. Europe, everywhere. It's basically upper…