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

Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#71

Post by kaeluka »

VLM wrote: post #45
kaeluka wrote: post #14

I'm so sick of economists/journalists/outsiders implying that the reason to study or, more general, to learn is income. I do it because it's giving me the chance to pick problems I find interesting, try to solve them as best as possible and learn a lot about myself along the way. Also, where I'm doing my PhD, a starting salary as a PhD student is comparable (slightly lower) with entry level programmer salaries. edit:…

"I'm so sick of economists/journalists/outsiders implying the reason to" They're not implying reasons, they're reporting it. Its all about how much your culture values people with PHD / in the pipeline to get one. You may not like what your culture is saying about you, but no point in blaming the messenger. Rotate into a (hopefully) nonpersonal analogy. Say a statistician reports that your average ex-con makes 25% le…

this article is very much an opinion piece. Subtitle: "Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time".

Weasel words all over the place, invented problems (at least not backed with anything): |Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things.".

I'm not reading further now as I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#72

Post by michaelochurch »

mathattack wrote: post #58
drobilla wrote: post #23

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…

Very true. Most programmers in NYC could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it because they don't like the abuse. Most Physics professors could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it for a variety of reasons. It's about more than money. But... The core of the story is true. There's a systemic problem with the Phd market. Every school and professor has an incentive to churn out more than the m…

Most programmers in NYC could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it because they don't like the abuse.

Wall Street is, on the whole, less abusive these days than VC-istan. However, it is more selective. Also, the chances for rapid career progress aren't there. You can make as much money, but you certainly won't be leading a team at 27 in a hedge fund; whereas if you are 27 and not at least a "tech lead" in VC-istan, you've lost.

Don't rule out finance based on its reputation, because it's not as bad as it's made out to be, especially relative to the other high-paying options. I've seen both and engineers are treated worse, on average, in the VC-funded world than in the hedge funds.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#73

Post by feral »

anxx wrote: post #63
drobilla wrote: post #23

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…

Secure tenured positions are very competitive globally. There are only sufficient such jobs for a small percentage of PhD graduates.

Further, the university sector may be on the verge of massive disruption - look at startups such as Coursera and Udacity. Its difficult to be sure it'll provide reliable employment by the time you reach 65.

I've just finished a PhD program in an Irish university, which I got a lot out of; but I wouldn't do it for job security, or earning power.

But maybe you are talking about doing a PhD in a best-in-world institution; if so, maybe the picture is different.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#74

Post by crpatino »

anxx wrote: post #63
drobilla wrote: post #23

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…

You have a very hard awakening in queue. Of course I can only speak of my direct experience, in Mexico, but here it goes:

1. Business people tend to mistrust highly educated people with no at least as impressive industry credentials. The meme of the crazy scientist with the head on the moon an no concern to real concerns runs deep and wide. Once you have both the schooling and the provable hands on experience it starts to pay off, but getting there is not trivial. Also, to make it pay it off you must go into consulting, since no employer will think they can afford you full time past some point. And to make it as consultant you need to pick an specialty that provides hard qualitatively measurable value.

2. Scratch that immense job security in the private university. As a matter of fact, they tend to hire a lot of adjunct professors and post-doc lecturers in order to avoid giving the sinecure for full professors. Public universities and research centers are still ok, but you will have a hard time in any education center whose bottom line depends on undergrad tuition.

3. Don't count on the flexibility thing either. University may be happy to hire part time lecturers with lots of industry experience, but not the other way around. I had a very hard time crawling out of this particular hole and have know others that never were able to make it back after a "short stint as a teacher".

4. Jobs prospect after 50 might be right, but you have to know how to play your cards really well. It is not a given, and in any case you are probably better off knowing your way in industry than relying on academia.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#76

Post by VLM »

andrewcooke wrote: post #41
VLM wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health and safety of your kids and spouse? I could have gone academic, in fact I could toss it all away and go academic right now. However ... I would never voluntarily make my wife and kids suffer like that. Maybe after I retire it would be safe to go academic. It boils down to you might be able to fire me up enough to eat ramen and live in a cardboard box because of topic X, but I'd have a hard time looking my kids…

i know plenty of academics with healthy, safe, spouses and children. they eat just fine.

Can't have it both ways. The article says they're not doing as well financially compared to the non-academic path. Well, if you really loved science you'd do it anyway, and its not all about the money, and scientists are supposed to be poor because thats how its always been. OK whatever I'm not doing that to my kids. Oh OK well it turns out that despite the article, the ones I know are doing great. Um nope, its one or the other.

You might have selection bias. All the pro athletes I know of, appear to be financially healthy. That doesn't mean pro basketball is a great plan for kids, given the evidence that 99.99% of kids who want to be pro basketball players end up doing something else, something much less profitable than NBA star... I would theorize this is directly analogous to going into academics.

The winners win. Turns out that winning is, in fact, pretty fun. The losers, well..., that's most of the them, but we're not going to talk about them.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#77

Post by vlasev »

anxx wrote: post #63
drobilla wrote: post #23

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…

What you are talking about when you talk about those large salaries is something of a pipe dream for most people pursuing degrees. I too was lured into more education with high prospects but the truth is that it's really difficult to get in on the awesomeness. If you want to make a statement about long-term benefits you better talk about the average situation. Some PhD's do provide quite a bit more money on average, but a lot of PhD's (math, for example) provide only a marginal benefit over a Master's degree. I don't have the data in front of me but when I checked the situation for math, the difference in the mean was about 2-3 thousand dollars per year. If you take into account the financial opportunity costs of doing a PhD (things like low wages, tuition, loans), it will take you about 40-50 years AFTER finishing your degree to be on par, on average.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#78

Post by pseut »

enraged_camel wrote: post #18
sgt101 wrote: 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.

Is this a hypothetical or have you actually done a PhD? For people considering a PhD, personal satisfaction had better be enough. If it's not, don't don't don't go to grad school.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#79

Post by vlasev »

fragsworth wrote: post #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/a…

I have to disagree with you on points 1-3. They are the minor points. I think number 4 should be on top of your list. Number 4 and then number 3 together probably make up 90% of the real reason why people end up doing a phd.

Re: Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic (2010)

#80

Post by rdfi »

anxx wrote: post #63
drobilla wrote: post #23

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…

Even if you have a PhD it isn't necessarily easily to find a job as a lecturer in an university. Often the criteria for hiring a lecturer is their publication record, and if you leave academia for the industry you probably won't be writing any papers. Without publications getting a lecturer position probably won't happen. This is the case in most European universities that I know. Also, the average time a student takes to complete a PhD, especially if you are planning to work while you do it, is well over 5 years.
Post reply on HN