31–40 of 169 posts
I work in a semiconductor company and we have process engineers as PhDs. Development of a semiconductor process has little deep technical work and more about managing suppliers, process characterization and lots of statistics. But we have folks with deep technical know how and PHD in some esoteric subject of proton-proton collision inside a nuclear reactor core developing ball attach processes on BGA chip packages or…
There aren't many degrees that would indicate the ability to design and run a good experiment with little guidance, and doing well in a statistical methods class doesn't cut it, sadly.
I think technical PhD is simply used as a filter for people who: 1) Have some aptitude for intellectual activity (in a quantitative field) 2) Had to drive a project and face failure 3) Can learn things on their own Technical expertise is I think usually a distant fourth, since if you have the first 3 you can generally learn whatever is required. Do you need a PhD to have these things? Definitely not, but it's a simpl…
Very few jobs require PhDs. Tech most certainly doesn't. I've been in this industry across three decades now, and by far the most talented people I've worked for or with have had nothing but HS diplomas and AS degrees. That's right. The bottom rung education levels. My dearest mentor, a man who has forgotten more about *nix, coding, and about anything else than I will ever know has a HS diploma and can and does run r…
I've thought about this before because I've found the same thing. I think it's caused by an over reliance on education as a signal. If you have a stack of resumes you're likely to interview everyone with a PhD, but only the ones with the most stellar github profile if they have no formal education. During the interview if the PhD says something silly you'll probably disregard it. But the person without a formal educa…
My mentor long ago likened these people to Eloi and the IT grunts to Morlocks. I cannot say I disagree.
I worked with a bunch of a Ph.Ds at Google, and my dad had one. I myself have nothing more than a bachelor's, and no desire to get anything more. I've heard and observed that the Ph.D teaches you one crucial skill - how to take a vaguely defined research problem that nobody has done before, where you're not even sure that a solution exists, and make tangible, rigorous progress on it. Your actual doctoral topic as a P…
I like the way you put this. I am researcher in academia, and my parents (who do not have advanced degrees and have never done research) always ask me "When you get into the lab, how do you know what to do?".
No one really tells me. My PI only gives very general research directions. It's up to experience and intuition, part of which was gained during my grad student years.
But also agree there are other ways to learn that as well. There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution.
For example, the article's graph of "PhD Proliferation" shows a 20k increase of PhDs from 1970s-2010s.... but that is a fairly unremarkable presentation to make on its own when the US population has increased 100M people from 1970 to 2010: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
How is the graduate education population different from 1970s to 2010s? What percentage of college students go on to get PhDs? Is the PhD per capita lower or higher today than it was back then? What is the PhD breakdown by field over time? What other factors affect this?
Also, my hypothesis is that employers hire PhDs for their particular research experience and thesis topic relevant to their business; not just because someone has a PhD in a technical field. For example, a hedge fund is probably more likely to hire a PhD quant analyst with a research speciality in econometrics vs. autonomous driving. Therefore, not all PhDs are equal when it comes to hiring because the demand varies.
Further, the author says "Master’s or even bachelor’s degree holders are often highly talented, and many can learn Ph.D.-level research skills on the job as they go." While it may be true, it's not the point. PhDs are hired not just for research, but also analysis and insight. Why would an employer pay a PhD more money than a pure researcher unless they are getting something else out of it? Nothing says someone needs a PhD to be able to research, but there's a difference between knowing a skill and having the capacity to learn a skill over time, which is the distinction in hiring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a PhD and completely agree with you. I did a PhD because back then working in software wasn't attractive to me (open source was not normal and Linux was seen as this weird geek think). But it set my career back a good few years really.
And if you ever get to a point where you are financially secure yet want a non-stressful job, you could always teach something like Yearbook at a HS. I know a guy who did this. He cashed out of his IT job after making almost a million. He wife is a nurse. He got tired of the burnout, on-call rotation, and got his teaching certificate, got hired at a high school teaching Yearbook creation and media. He's off 3 months…