Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

jeffhuang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#61

Post by HarryHirsch »

jrs99 wrote: post #31
pnathan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm detector might be failing, but PhD work has very little to do with homework....

to get into a phd program, i mean. a phd from a "top school" means you did your homework in college and high school.

But to make it a meaningful experience (and get out of it with a PhD) you need a wholly different skillset. It's clear that you have never seen a kid who destroyed the productivity of a whole office because he treated his colleagues Just Wrong, and that you have never seen a fellow who just couldn't transfer what he learned in class to real-life application.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#62

Post by zerr »

dominotw wrote: post #56
zerr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe someone who is not a good software engineer or even can't code at all, can still be admitted into some CS PhD program.

How about theoretical computer science? That probably doesn't need one to be a good software engineer.

I mentioned only some subset of PhD applicants, which might not be small. So there are many other types of applicants who apply with different and various reasons.

As for your question, no, I don't think that scientists in all of the branches of CS need to be good engineers. But that is just my personal opinion.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#63

Post by PeterisP »

dominotw wrote: post #56
zerr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe someone who is not a good software engineer or even can't code at all, can still be admitted into some CS PhD program.

How about theoretical computer science? That probably doesn't need one to be a good software engineer.

Well, you really don't need to be a good engineer, but the skills required to do anything meaningful in theoretical computer science PhD program are more hardcore and rare than good SW engineers - from what I see, most of the people who can do theoretical CS are already doing it; and most engineering-oriented CS researchers couldn't/wouldn't cross to theoretical CS no matter what.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#64

Post by bkamapantula »

tjr wrote: post #41
bkamapantula wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt if it would happen at all. I'm a full time Ph.D. student. You might, of course, know that professors interact with the students very often (except if the professor is super busy always). I interact with mine almost every day. I do work with couple of collaborators in different countries. That is because my advisor knows them in-person before deciding to collaborate. I work with lab colleagues frequently. Remo…

What about it exactly is challenging? How is doing computer science research (probably what many people here would do; I don't know what your research field is) with a team of remote individuals harder than doing software development with a team of remote individuals?

I haven't worked in industry so far. So, cannot comment on that.

In academia however you can possibly build connections with your peers (other labs) and lab colleagues through your work. One can attend on-campus seminars and exchange ideas with potential collaborators. Being remote voids these options. Opportunities to work on interesting projects (other than research. For instance, contributing to student organizations) will be lost as well.

Edit: Regarding my research area. On most occasions, students will have to register for classes (not all classes are offered online). Once you complete classes, it is potentially viable to work remotely. However, it again depends on the funding scenario. How a student is supported etc. If I'm a Teaching Assistant, I'm expected to be on campus and available to students. Being a Research Assistant gives the flexibility to work remotely (if advisor agrees however not all universities might allow that).

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#65

Post by jrs99 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #61
jrs99 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to get into a phd program, i mean. a phd from a "top school" means you did your homework in college and high school.

But to make it a meaningful experience (and get out of it with a PhD) you need a wholly different skillset. It's clear that you have never seen a kid who destroyed the productivity of a whole office because he treated his colleagues Just Wrong, and that you have never seen a fellow who just couldn't transfer what he learned in class to real-life application.

i've seen people who didn't know what a lac operon was get a PhD in biochemistry.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#66

Post by ex_ex_nihilo »

mcguire wrote: post #40
DrSpock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entry into elite PhD programmes is as competitive as ever. Others, not so.

...and of course Brown (where the author is) is top-twenty, in fact tied at #20 [according to US News & World Report[1]] with places like Rice. It's pretty elite. [1] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-gradu...

Wow, my school's not even on the list and our graduate program for CS/CE has less than a 13% acceptance rate.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#67

Post by tanzam75 »

pgbovine wrote: post #50
tanzam75 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those interested in a career in development, a PhD is rarely helpful. For the PhD candidate, it can even be counterproductive, as any gains in initial salary will be more than offset by the lost salary during the 5-6 years of the PhD. Only for a career in research is a PhD important.

i will vehemently argue that a Ph.D. in CS is one of the best ways that a young hacker can spend his/her 20s, regardless of which career they end up pursuing in the future. pursuing a Ph.D. + interning at several companies during summertimes = amazing combo for a wide variety of future careers. the ONLY enduring downside (which you mentioned) is the lost income. see: http://vimeo.com/73178238

> i will vehemently argue that a Ph.D. in CS is one of the best ways that a young hacker can spend his/her 20s

No need to argue that point, because I'm not arguing against it. Look at the comment that I was replying to:

> For those interested in a career in research and development, a PhD is almost a must.

A PhD is a must for a career in research. It is not a must for a career in development. We use the term "R&D," but those are quite different things. There's a lot less "R" around, and a lot more "D."

When I say that the PhD is "rarely helpful," I do not mean that it is totally useless. I mean that the person who would otherwise have done the PhD is probably a self-starter who would've done other equally-valuable things in the meantime. Different things, certainly. But unlikely to be worse than what you would've done in the PhD. Thus, it is not helpful compared to what else you could've done in the meantime.

For a career in the "D" side of computer science "R&D," it's about your technical skills and experiences. Doesn't matter if you acquired them while doing a PhD, or in a company, or working on open source. This is very different from a career in research, where it is much more important to have a piece of paper with "PhD" written on it.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#68

Post by Mgccl »

jrs99 wrote: post #49
jchendy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It completely depends on what area you're going into. Software engineering, systems, and AI students obviously need significant coding experience. HCI and theory (ie math), not as much.

i don't think it depends what area. almost every single person in all of those fields will have done some coding before. Even if that means cs 101

It's hard for someone in anything remote to math/science without coding anything in their entire undergraduate life.

It's like you say no one can be admitted to a PhD program in US without first learning some English.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#69

Post by PeterisP »

zerr wrote: post #55
jrs99 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't think it depends what area. almost every single person in all of those fields will have done some coding before. Even if that means cs 101

Right, but what I wanted to highlight - a person might be able to code quick sort algorithm or breadth first search, but unable to get paid doing real world coding - when it is the client or employer who needs to be satisfied. So basically when you have a choice of being unemployed vs doing PhD and getting some studentship, you obviously prefer the latter path. And I believe there are quite many people who can "code"…

If you can "code" so poorly that you're unable to get paid, I can't imagine how you'd get even close to getting into a PhD program, even if your specialization is math of finite state automata or human interface guidelines.

Coding (or being DBA or analyst, depending on your area) to the level of getting an okay salary is quite trivial compared to that - from the PhD students I've seen the 'most unemployable' ones would be so not because of their ability to code but because of social/mental issues.

Re: Ph.D. 2.0: Rethinking the Ph.D. Application

#70

Post by cmeiklejohn »

I think this is a very interesting idea, and I look forward to the results of the experiment!

Allow me to take a moment to reiterate some of the comments I left on the Georgia Tech master's thread [1], specifically as a student who has taken graduate level computer science courses at Brown University with the majority of his experience working in industry.

* I went directly into industry in 1998 working at a software/systems engineer for a telecom working on Solaris deployments. I worked full-time and paid for my undergraduate education which I pursued part-time and which took me 9 years to finish. I majored in "information technology," as there was no computer science online program at Northeastern University. I didn't take any theory courses at all, and the majority of my course work was programming in languages like Java, C++, and C# (also COBOL, and the like...)

* I applied at Brown University after talking to the admissions and computer science departments multiple times, in which they told me I wouldn't be able to pursue a master's due to lack of independent or undergraduate research or an undergraduate education in computer science. The process of being told this was rather unfortunate, as the responses I received via e-mail telling me it wouldn't be possible were ended with "Sent from my iPhone."

* At the time I talked with them, I had been working at Basho Technologies for a year on Riak, an open source distributed Dynamo-style data store, as well as serving as a maintainer of rubygems.org.

* I was finally able to get accepted as a "non-degree" or "special" graduate student, which is allowed to take courses at full price. This role exists primarily to allow students to determine if they would be a fit for graduate school, at which point I would then have to re-apply for degree seeking status. This was possible because of an independent meeting I scheduled with Shriram Krishnamurthi, who, based on my industrial experience expedited the process along.

* Since starting as a "non-degree" student, I've been heavily motivated to attempt to stand out from other candidates for when I eventually re-apply to be a degree seeking student by independently publishing papers, publishing a blog, organizing a podcast, and speaking at conferences.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510142

Post reply on HN