11–20 of 122 posts
The article fails to compare Computer Science PhD's who are in high demand and job openings for them far exceed the supply of CS PhD grads.
Most jobs, even technical ones, truly do not require a Ph. D. This is just the market sorting things out. Why have zero (or negative) income to get post baccalaureate education if you can go work somewhere (for money) and learn on the job?
As far as desirable traits, a job can be: 1. Interesting 2. Secure 3. Lucrative You get to pick two at most, and that's if you're lucky--most people only get to pick one, or none. Jobs in academia are certainly no exception to this rule.
It will no doubt be shocking news to Mr. Weissmann to find out that factors such as a desire to learn more or to make new contributions to human knowledge can motivate aspiring PhD candidates. It's also rather ironic to see such analyses promoted by someone who chose a career in the notoriously unprofitable field of journalism.
Most jobs, even technical ones, truly do not require a Ph. D. This is just the market sorting things out. Why have zero (or negative) income to get post baccalaureate education if you can go work somewhere (for money) and learn on the job?
As far as desirable traits, a job can be: 1. Interesting 2. Secure 3. Lucrative You get to pick two at most, and that's if you're lucky--most people only get to pick one, or none. Jobs in academia are certainly no exception to this rule.
OT, but I find it amazing that the triangle of desirable traits applies in so many places. There's the obvious "faster, cheaper, better. pick any two" and yesterday I heard another one "sane, smart and beautiful, pick two", which I'm sure has a corollary like "handsome, sensitive and rich, pick two". It's as if Brook's "no silver bullet" can be applied to just about everything our life (or it's just that easy to pick…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7L9xAjgoZxo/ToydjJ7Hb8I/AAAAAAAABG...
As far as desirable traits, a job can be: 1. Interesting 2. Secure 3. Lucrative You get to pick two at most, and that's if you're lucky--most people only get to pick one, or none. Jobs in academia are certainly no exception to this rule.
OT, but I find it amazing that the triangle of desirable traits applies in so many places. There's the obvious "faster, cheaper, better. pick any two" and yesterday I heard another one "sane, smart and beautiful, pick two", which I'm sure has a corollary like "handsome, sensitive and rich, pick two". It's as if Brook's "no silver bullet" can be applied to just about everything our life (or it's just that easy to pick…
As far as desirable traits, a job can be: 1. Interesting 2. Secure 3. Lucrative You get to pick two at most, and that's if you're lucky--most people only get to pick one, or none. Jobs in academia are certainly no exception to this rule.
Very talented people can easily accomplish all three, especially in tech.
I guess the lucrative and secure part are supposed to be in tension? EG, if something is lucrative, there will be lots of competition that fights and eats away the security? But that same lucrativeness causes security, eg, golden hand cuffs.
Uh... I'm doing a PhD because I like scientific research and can't stand the thought of being a process engineer. If I'm going to spend 8 hours a day working on something for the rest of my life, it better be something I enjoy! While it is possible to do R&D with a bachelor's degree, your chances of being able to do exactly the kind of research you want goes up significantly with a PhD, plus you've already had the experience of doing it for 4 years.
Also, I'm not sure where this "not much money" concept comes from anyway. I'll start at an engineering salary, right out of grad school. I guess that's not "Hacker News wealthy", but that's plenty more than I need to even live comfortably!
