Live data from Hacker News

Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

economist.com

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#61
The only thing this article convinces me of is the shallowness of The Economist. The University of Pheonix offers PhDs and so does MIT. If the University of Pheonix starts offering more PhDs each year and MIT keeps graduating the same number, then according to TFA the USA would be doing better in terms of PhDs. This is asinine reasoning and does harm to educational policy in the USA.

PhD programs differ widely between schools and disciplines. If you're going to pursue a PhD do some investigation. Find out what graduates from the program are doing now. Do you want to do what they're doing? If so then consider a PhD from this program. If not then either don't do a PhD or find another program.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#62
post #8

It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't earn a huge amount, but I have a fantastic job, I live in a wonderful place about 5 minutes from my office and doing my Ph.D. was the best thing that I ever did. I agree that you don't need one, and many people with one that I have met and employed are fairly hopeless (in comparison to razor sharp and super talented…

>>It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't know... If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction. A fantastic job with good living arrangements do not require a Ph.D.

> have more benefits than just personal satisfaction.

It is possible that others have different considerations?

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#63

Someone needs to write a "why getting a job in industry is a waste of time" rebuttal to this tired argument to illustrate how ridiculous it is to evaluate everything with a single (and shallow) goal structure. After all, it typically doesn't contribute anything new or meaningful to scientific knowledge, therefore it is a waste of time (...). I guess I shouldn't expect any better from The Economist, but not everyone i…

I am planning on doing a PhD because of financial benefits in the long run. Here's why:

- Immediate respect. It is harder to question the authority of a (technical) PhD. This is much more pronounced in 3rd world economies. Also Germany. Basically anywhere besides the non-super-meritocratic US. This is a huge benefit: my opinions are more likely to be listened to, my consulting fees are likely to be higher and be more credible, career breaks (maternity) will not set me back by much, because a PhD proves technical mastery of an area as well as tenacity, responsibility, and independence - all of which non-PhDs will continously try to prove to new coworkers and new management.

- Universities are forever open, but not so with Masters. That gives immense job security as a private university lecturer for the rest of your life, in any country (flexibility to travel and find a job even in countries you don't speak the language of). Private universities in rich countries pay a lot to be able to say they have a, say, MIT-PhD on their faculty. I knew a person who had a data-entry job and saw the faculty salaries in Saudi Arabia. The profs were making 396$k/year, housing and living costs fully compensated by the university.

- Flexibility to find jobs forever (especially because of the university thing). Normally I imagine it would be harder to be a salaried employee after 65 years of age. Nobody will hire you because it is so weird to have an employee your dad's age. Ageism is real. But because you can always lecture, you are pretty much unretirable.

The 4-5 year salary cut is nothing compared to a lifetime of these benefits and zero anxiety about job prospects after 50. I personally want to work and earn money in a respectable job well into my 80s.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#64
post #7

I'm currently working on my PHD in Computer Science. All the doctoral students I know have a very firm understanding that their degree is not the most profitable idea. If we wanted money then we would not be trying to be scientists. We pursue it because we love it and because we a curious.

Agreed. I'd be making twice (if not three or four times) as much if I went and got an industry job instead of pursuing my CS PhD, but my stipend is sufficient to live comfortably enough on, and the pay raise wouldn't be worth the loss of autonomy to me.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#65
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but I think this deserves reconsideration considering the recent debate about H1-B visas -- especially since the fact that there are (relatively) few US-born PhD's is one of the major justifications for increasing the number of visas awarded.

On that note can anyone explain to me why immigration reform is a hot button in us politics - surely if you want to employ someone from outside the US you tell them to use Skype. A plane ticket every six weeks will increase your selection far more than anything congress can pass - especially for a hot coder with you know family and commitments Or is that it - let the cheap young single coders in ?

> A plane ticket every six weeks

May not be that easy given what you are allowed to use a Business visa for.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#66
This doesn't surprise me at all. Most of the high paying jobs in software development have almost zero academic interest. People with PhDs are simultaneously far too overqualified academically and underqualified in terms of raw industry experience to get such jobs.

One of the key reservations that I had before starting my PhD was how much it would reduce my employment options and limit my earning potential; I did it anyway. I don't know how things will work out, but I made peace with the fact that I will in all likelihood be earning less after I get my PhD than I was beforehand.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#68

Sorry, but I see bad advice here. "Waste of time"? No, it's not. Academia as a career, unless you're unambiguously one of the top minds of your generation, is a bad idea. That boat has sailed and sunk. However, a PhD in math or CS will make you eligible for higher-quality jobs more quickly than a Master's degree. There's a certain prestige that PhDs have that someone like me probably won't, and by the time you're 35+…

I find myself agreeing with you on many things. I first noticed your username after the real-googler discussion and what you saw at Google is so similar to what I saw in my job in a bank. Without external or positional prestige, there is little interesting work for even the bright young staff engineers.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#69
Several possible reasons why there might be too many people getting Ph.D's:

1) It's the only way to get a job in certain really interesting fields

2) Ph.D's garner massive respect from peers

3) Disrespect for industry, there's a perception of tedium, and looking down on people who are "code monkeys" or "project managers"

4) Some kind of academic momentum - it's socially and psychologically easier to stay in college/academia than to switch to industry

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#70
post #68

Sorry, but I see bad advice here. "Waste of time"? No, it's not. Academia as a career, unless you're unambiguously one of the top minds of your generation, is a bad idea. That boat has sailed and sunk. However, a PhD in math or CS will make you eligible for higher-quality jobs more quickly than a Master's degree. There's a certain prestige that PhDs have that someone like me probably won't, and by the time you're 35+…

I find myself agreeing with you on many things. I first noticed your username after the real-googler discussion and what you saw at Google is so similar to what I saw in my job in a bank. Without external or positional prestige, there is little interesting work for even the bright young staff engineers.

Valve figured it out: let people move around the company at will.

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/dont-look-now...

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/tech-companie...

Anything else falls down, both because the interesting work gets hoarded and distributed as a political token, and because the best people find it easier (after 3-5 years at most) to leave then to get the work they want internally.

Good companies are out there, but they tend to be slower growing. This ties in to my r/K-selection analysis of capitalism: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1es505/corporate...

Post reply on HN