I got PhD and I am still not sure how I feel. It took me 6 years, a lot of doubts and putting my life on hold.
You never know if you will finish your PhD. In fact, 50% drop out. Imagine spending 4 years of your life and then quitting with little to show for it.
First of all, PhD is too long (in the US). You spend 1 - 1.5 years taking grad classes that have little relevance to your subfield. If you haven't done research in undergrad, you spend the first year figuring out what is research. IF you did, there's still a lot less hand-holding as a PhD researcher compared to an undergrad researcher.
Now let's talk about research. First, you need to come up with a good idea that no one thought of it before. This requires understanding of all the previous research.
Then you try to implement the idea. Even if you implemented everything correctly, if your method is not better than the state of the art, you just wasted your time. (Of course, you need to implement the state of the art also)
Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings. Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
I'm not even talking about PhD in other subfields like Physics, where people become Google's SWE after finishing their PhD. Such a waste.
I think people from the US who consider a PhD should really look outside the US too, as many (not all, of course) of the disadvantages don't apply globally.
For example, in Spain:
- Typical PhD duration: 4 years. It's not even possible to go beyond 5 years (there is a hard cap) and if you want to do it fast, typically 3.5 years or so is enough in most fields if you do it full time.
- Tuition is a symbolic amount (something like 100 €/year or so).
- Most students do their PhD either with a grant or a contract. So it's basically a normal job. Not a high-paying one, mind you, but a job. You typically get something in the range of 1200-1600 €/month and social security. Enough to live reasonably well (not luxuriously, but comfortably) in almost any city that is not Madrid or Barcelona (in those two you'd need to share a flat and it wouldn't be very good, but in most of the rest of the country, a typical rent is around 600 €).
- I don't have figures on drop out but I don't think it's anywhere near 50%, if I had to give a pessimistic estimate I would say 20% at most.
Of course, the bit about becoming a professor is still true (although the competition is somewhat different, less about brilliance and more about sweat... very roughly speaking, churning out more papers than your competitors even if the papers aren't that great. But there are still much fewer professor jobs than PhD candidates).
The thing that bugs me most about the PhD is how much of the final years are controlled by your advisor and the committee. You have a bit of leeway in your first few years to do some "blue sky" research, scoped by the grants your advisor has of course, but the last 1-3 years can be a nightmare since you're expected to produce work that is funded by and within the scope of your grant BUT also be innovative and something that your advisor and committee approve and let you graduate with.
An important caveat I think: your mentor is critical. I’m a PhD student, and I have an incredibly lucky mix of subject matter and mentorship (my mentor has actually gotten some awards in the past for being a good one). (Also, he’s funny.) Every day my research is a blast. My mentor is truly an expert in his field (he’s actually mentioned in Norvig’s AI textbook introduction) and has the answers to my questions. I get just enough steering to make sure I’m on track to producing something novel, but I’m totally free to explore. This is all bolstered by me being truly extremely intrinsically interested in my sub field. It’s really a very pleasant experience. I’m not terribly worried about the prospects afterwards as furthering humanity’s knowledge is rewarding enough to me. Heading to industry as a code monkey afterwards wouldn't upset me as I’m really just having fun as a PhD student, and it’s all because my mentor is incredible.
It’s important to try working with multiple mentors if you can. I actually started with a different person, and he probably would have been considered by most to be ideal. I was basically totally funded to do whatever I wanted with very little mentor interaction. Interestingly, this wasn’t great for me. In part I wasn’t interested in the subject, but more than that I greatly benefit from weekly mentor interaction to check in with my direction. Now I don’t have funding (working to support myself while doing research), but I’m happy as a pig in mud.
Isn't working towards the top of any field going to have just as many chances of failure at every step? My wife was the very top candidate for her surgical sub-specialty in the year she completed her fellowship and she still barely got an attending position due to how few openings were available. I am nowhere near as talented as she is, but I still had a tremendous battle to get where I am in tech and I watch brilliant engineers tap out before hitting even PE routinely. Working hard for 4 years and having nothing to show for it is de rigueur. Most effort spent in the world is spent in vain, but you have no chance of winning if you don't play the game.
> I'm not even talking about PhD in other subfields like Physics, where people become Google's SWE after finishing their PhD. Such a waste.
There are senior high - paying FAANG roles outside webdev where quantitative skills like the ones acquired in subjects like Math/Physics/Theor. CS are imperative, in which you can get straight into after graduation without even having to go through the absurd LeetCode hiring process (it's significantly easier if your advisor recommends you to an old friend on the industry).
> Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings. Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
This is very accurate, especially in the US where tenure seems to be largely reserved for people that come from financially strong families who effectively support them from undergrad to tenure track.
For comparison - UK/mathematics, I went into research on day one, my supervisor set me an 'easy' problem straight off the bat, and I learned on the job. A couple of extra research problems came up naturally during my PhD. Had a paper submitted by end of year 1, was ready to write-up my thesis by end of year 3. I had some teaching responsibilities, but nothing heavy like running a course. Not saying it always goes this smoothly, but I rarely felt like I wasn't moving towards the end goal. +1 to 'forget about becoming a professor though/pay is terrible' though!
I did 1 year pre-apprenticeship, then 4 years apprenticeship (Baker). Then shortly after that I left the industry and got into IT.
shrug I think that life is a process of navigating obstacles while acquiring skills. Its not a RPG with you choosing a character that you have to stick with until the end.
Branch out... you'll be surprised at where your PHD learned skills will lead you.
I tend to agree with you, but I don't think it's that black though.
> Even if you implemented everything correctly, if your method is not better than the state of the art, you just wasted your time.
You didn't waste your time as you know now the state of the art, and also why your method isn't better.
> Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings.
The world is a big place. There's more to academia than Ivy League in the US. And don't believe all professors are geniuses! I think it's possible to somewhat assess your odds to get an academic position when you start a PhD.
On the downside, academia is very competitive and being a second rank professor drowning in teaching and administrative duties isn't the most rewarding thing to do.
> Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
This also depends in which industry you want to work. Not all fields/companies pay as a well as Google. And having a PhD can also open doors in industry.
I did a PhD. It was the most interesting and productive time of my life|*
Aside from actually enjoying the work, I had a salary / scholarship that where I went to school was the same or more than most of my peers who went right to work made (because of tax implications), and when I got a job, I got a better one than I would have otherwise. Plus, many people I started school with had barely finished their undergrad by the time I was done a PhD because of the usual breaks and major changes and failing courses and stuff.
I'm not saying this to brag (I've made all sorts of terrible choices since then), only to say that it's possible to do a PhD, have fun (specifically in the sense of learn cool stuff, although I enjoyed the social life), and not make a "sacrifice" in terms of money or starting a career. It's like any other job. You can make all kinds of early career decisions that help or hinder you later, generalizing a "phd" as some specific thing doesn't work
* (I like to think I'm coming back to another such period 15+ years later, but anyway)
I agree with your general experience, I'm in the middle of my PhD and so far I find it to be some of the most interesting and productive time I've spent thus far.
I'm not really interested in continuing on to academia, but this has been a good transition period for both building confidence and exploring other topics without having to worry about finances (besides of course making sure to keep up with advisor grants).
It has helped me learn and improve a lot about myself without the pressures of a more typical job. I'd say I was still pretty immature after undergrad, I wasn't really independent and didn't really think for myself (to the point that I didn't even realize I ought to be looking for a job until I had graduated and had family asking what my next step would be), which, after a year spent languishing led me to going for a Masters. Then my research work got me recruited for a PhD. Since then over the past 3 years I've been learning to be more independent which I feel works better when still having the freedom a PhD offers compared to a SWE job. If I had gone straight into the workplace I'd probably be in the process of overworking myself into burnout right now.
A side benefit is that having a PhD is very helpful for speeding up the immigration process and opening up possibilities elsewhere in case my current plans don't work out.
Out of curiosity. What was your family like, stable nuclear family? Middle income, did you fully support yourself, on your own during your studies? Did you have any other work or responsibilities? Did you get cash or material gifts and support from family? etc etc.
You described almost a very insta perfect version of the experience which doesn't play out most of the time.
I got a Ph.D. in computer science a long time ago, and I think it was the worst mistake of my life. 6 years wasted, for no obvious benefit. I don't know why I did it, other than wanting to learn more computer science stuff. And I think I could have learned a lot more by just working in the industry.
I do sympathize for many graduate students who are chasing dreams of making a contribution in their fields and to push the edge ever so slightly, not pursuing graduate school purely for vanity sake.
But it's apparent to me that academia is straining under the system in which it exists. Incentives are misaligned, from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top. Economic strain puts pressure to produce rushed research, at the expense of PIs and the students and limits the allocations of grants to proven institutions and individuals.
The issue is so complicated that I don't even know where to begin to address it without sounding like a Kacyznski-nut. From a naturalist's perspective, maybe this was bound to happen as 'real' innovation dries up.
It seems that the only rational conditions to pursue a graduate degree in this economic climate is 1) purely for intellectual reasons, the challenge and the growth, 2) to put a small pimple on the butt of your field and given that it takes off, pick the fruits until the tree is bare. To expect glory and honor is setting yourself up for bitterness and from a purely vocational perspective, many have remarked at the negative opportunity cost.
> The issue is so complicated that I don't even know where to begin to address it without sounding like a Kacyznski-nut.
I don't find it complicated at all. The root issue is that there is too much supply and too little demand. There are too many people willing to work in the academia, while the rest of the world is only willing to feed far fewer academics. Everything else is just symptoms. This was already clear when I did my PhD 10-15 years ago. In the past couple of years, the job market finally reached some kind of breaking point and started to rebalance itself.
A Ph.D. really is about the journey. I'd be surprised if anyone ever thought it represented more money. It's unlikely to matter for that.
The time I spent getting a Ph.D. was one of the best times of my life. Not just the work, but the environment, the other people in the same situation, and the personal growth. I pursued it because 1) I really did love learning about Computers, and 2) I just loved the University environment. Every time I "graduated" I just signed up again for the next degree.
I never thought much about "using it" after I got it. I think it got me a higher starting title at a company or two and impressed a few (probably easily impressed) people along the way. I think the most measurable* impact however was listing it on my dating profile.
Again - it was a journey worth taking without much thought of the destination.
I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school modeled by mentors (professors, parents) was built on a growing post-war pyramid of faculty jobs and research opportunities, now it has become a saturated pyramid in many fields. So then students find themselves not competing easily for a growing number of jobs, but waiting to see which senior professor retires or dies and opens up a spot. Or else leave for industry. And woe to those who go into fields where there is not a lot of industry to exit to.
You've probably heard in your field of the old professors who got a faculty job after one postdoc, or even out of grad school? Well, those days of yore are long gone. And don't think that it was just because they were incredibly smart (well, some of course were) but that the field had ripe jobs for them to fill. Do you see some colleagues going to "odd" countries for positions lately? It's where the money is -- we just didn't realize in the past it actually was tied to where the money was (hidden in the form of jobs).
Anyway, also now it has almost become a baseline credential for certain jobs or advancement (like college), further filling up the pipeline with competitors for those jobs.
Don't get me wrong, for some people graduate school can be great, a great time to explore and satisfy an intellect that wants to gather and contribute to knowledge. But for others, the idea of graduate school is no longer what it was. You're in for a multiple-postdoc, where-is-this-going-on-the-faculty-track questioned existence, seemingly at the whim of advisors who hardly have time to spend on helping your career.
Of course, it varies by field. Chemical engineering, probably ok no matter how relatively bad it seems. Astronomy? Not so much. Biology? Better exits, but you're also competing against everyone who can afford a hot plate and PCR rig. Computer science / ML? Your competition is every student in China who has access to a couple hundred hours of GPU time. (exaggerating a bit of course)
> I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school modeled by mentors (professors, parents) was built on a growing post-war pyramid of faculty jobs and research opportunities, now it has become a saturated pyramid in many fields. So then students find themselves not competing easily for a growing number of jobs, but waiting to see which senior professor retires or dies and opens up a spot. Or else leave for industry. And woe to those who go into fields where there is not a lot of industry to exit to.
I was basically told I would not graduate my PhD program if I didn't do my dissertation in a machine learning application of my field of interest.
The intersection existed but after a year of trying to motivate myself I could not. I ended up quitting. It's more politics than it's worth and I was in competition with students from other countries who had infinitely more funding, infinitely more time, and infinitely more energy than me. I was doing night classes and spending every other waking hour I wasn't working pushing my research.
There is a lot of myth baked into the PhD along with a lot of romanticization of deep innovative work. From school that is pretty much fed to you of scholars and that you need to get a PhD to be known as one. E.g. Newton, Gauss, Kelvin, Tesla, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, etc.
There is a massive misreading of the general situation though like the parent comment mentions. I think until before WWII academia was a rich mans profession. I would bet that people who got into academia were those whose parents had the means to support their education and that they could either independently or through patronage carry out research. This is what most people miss about a PhD or a scholar. It was exclusively a rich mans (and in very exceptional cases a woman married to a rich man or a man married to a rich woman) business. A more extreme example Carl Jung’s wife supported her husband’s research even when he was having an affair with another woman. Remember that cabin he built so eloquently described in “Deep Work” with a walk in the woods. It might have been with the wife’s money.
Post WWII government funding for research exploded but there were not enough researchers. Universities brought in more and more professors for their government funded programs and government funded student loans. All professors want tenure track. To handle tenure track you need publications. But now we have a problem - the professors aren’t wealthy. They need to apply for patronage (ahem - government grants) and need to write proposals. The problem is “professorship” is an up or out profession. You get 7 years to move up or get out. In time, the government grants have reduced, the number of professors has ticked upwards. You have a complete rat race for scraps. There are some well-funded departments that continue to attract great students. But by and large its the stress of grant writing that will eat at you.
So, in the end the profession itself hasn’t changed much. You’re still petitioning the “rich man” for “patronage”. It’s just that now there are many more petitioners. It’s just not worth it.
That being said, there needs to be some mechanism to acquire deep advanced skills as you continue along your professional journey. A masters with a thesis mostly works and can get you a considerable way through. It could be specialized so that you get more time for focused research as opposed to filling up your time with pointless credits. I did a PhD when I was working. It was stressful - but only from a time perspective. I never had stresses of money or career for which I’m thankful. I also had a very considerate advisor. I cannot think of a position in industry today except in research labs that really need a PhD. Everyone going for it needs to look out and understand that.
> I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school [...] Astronomy? Not so much. [...]
Ph.D. in astronomy has been "do not expect a job" for at least 2 full generations now. I recall talking to an astronomy professor from (?) Univ. of Michigan ~1982. Supposedly, it was SOP to tell the kids in UM's "freshman astronomy for potential astronomy majors" course that Ph.D.'s should not expect jobs. Jobs were "possible" at lower levels, if you were clever about it. (Make sure you got lots of experience running the planetarium, maintaining high-end astronomy equipment, etc.)
I'd been working as a research assistant in a university lab during and after my undergraduate degree, for about a year, and my supervisor was trying to convince me to do a PhD with him.
However, I'd already had several months of getting to know PhD students there and in neighbouring labs, and it made me realise two things. Firstly, how much stress and long working hours they were all enduring. Secondly, for many of them, how fascinated they seemed with their research topics despite this.
I quickly realised I didn't really give much of a shit about doing any more of this research, at least not compared to the obsessive PhD students I was working alongside, and ended up pivoting to a vulnerability research career instead. Which has been much, much more rewarding and interesting than anything I was doing previously.
I'm incredibly glad I didn't get stuck wasting my life away in academia, which for a time seemed like the default path to take. For a while afterwards I felt like I'd let myself down somehow by not continuing along this path, but I look back in relief knowing now what a nonsense attitude that was.
I did a PhD and it completely changed my trajectory in life.
I would maybe compare the academic path to more like a start up life : most fail, but you will learn a lot and you will be in charge of your own destiny.
Of course the pay and living can be brutal depending on where you choose to do your PhD. But there are phd programs that pay a generous wage (with benefits like health care and retirement) at affordable cities.
I am happy I was able to roll the dice with academia. If it didn’t work out I would still be doing fine in industry.
I got a PhD in 2.5 years (already had a masters), a very fast amount of time, and the advice I always give people is “pick a program with clear deliverables.”
My advisor said that after publishing 3 articles in good journals, I was done. So I was very motivated, had a clear target, and had a more satisfying and quick experience than probably 98% of PhD students.
I looked at programs in more attractive locations and at better rated schools, where they said essentially “you are done when we feel like you are done”. I turned them down and it was a fantastic decision.
IMO this is exactly not how to do a PhD which should be about exploring a topic and becoming an expert over time. A meandering path concentrated around self directed learning.
If you want clear deliverables and a set path to follow, just get a job in industry.
3 different papers in 2.5 years with a group? Did they all have to be lead author works? And if so may I ask what is your field?
That kind of requirement would be way too strict for some fields. Flexible graduation guidelines can be abused by bad programs and/or bad PIs, but they also allow flexibility in what you get out of the PhD and when you can leave. I know people that graduated from my program with 0 lead author papers (and <= 2 contributing author papers) because they had already lined up an industry job or a pivot to research in a different field. They'd be in school forever if there were strict authorship requirements.
PS - some PIs, whether intentionally or not, can actually abuse strict requirements more than flexible ones. If you used PI resources to do research, which is often unavoidable in experimental fields, you need their permission to publish. Some PIs have extremely high standards for what journals they will allow their work to be published in. Often students end up with 4th author via a piece of a paper that got published in a journal like Cell, but could've been a stand alone lead author work in a mid tier journal. Nothing wrong with that, arguably it's better from a scientific perspective, but you can see how that might impact student careers.
I find it interesting how many articles and people on HN say something similar. I had basically the opposite thoughts (and outcomes) from my PhD. I loved the 5 years I spent in my program, I learned a ton about super interesting topics, I learned a ton of very applicable skills, I met and befriended many extremely intelligent and kind individuals, and I immediately got a job after graduating. I’m still at that job, and it’s amazing, 2 and a half years later. (And I didn’t do my work at an Ivy League or anything, I was at Wayne State in Detroit).
Frankly, the only thing I wish I would have realized beforehand is that you’re basically forming your young adult friend group with a bunch of people who are going to be spread out over the globe in ~5 years. That part is hard. Everything else was great.
Frankly, the only thing I wish I would have realized beforehand is
that you’re basically forming your young adult friend group with
a bunch of people who are going to be spread out over the globe in ~5 years.
For a lot of us, this is a problem with standard 4-year college as well. It's frustrating that it's so hard to colocate with college friends once your careers have taken you all in different directions (often with very little choice in the matter). I suspect that's responsible for a big chunk of social dysfunction in the USA today: so many people spend 4 years building a circle of friends, and it fractures irreparably 5 minutes after graduation.
What field were you in? I feel like PhDs in fields with a strong job market for R&D (e.g., machine learning, biomedical or chemical engineering) can be worth it. I think, otherwise, it can be really difficult.
Also, remember the survivorship bias inherent in surveys like this. They rarely capture the very large portion of graduate students who leave their program without a degree.
I was one of those, and it’s really difficult for me to look back and see anything positive in the experience. I’m sure if the opinions of dropouts were included, you’d get an even bleaker view of the value of going to graduate school.
"Publish or perish" attitudes caused a lot of friction for me. I try to be more careful in my research than most, and I don't care too much about the sheer number of papers I publish. One great paper beats 100 average papers.
I also think that the (practical) requirement to bring in external funding severely limits what research can be done. There are a lot of great ideas that don't sound good to people in control of money.
My day job doesn't involve any research now. I do research on the side. I am glad that I can do research at my own pace and don't have to ask permission from others before doing research. The main problem is that I don't have a lot of time for my research, but I'm hoping to switch to part-time eventually.
I did a Ph.D. (chemistry) and a M.A. (geology), both at UT-Austin.
I have absolutely no regrets, and knew fully what I was signing up for, unlike many people who are featured in articles like the one referenced here: that is a little puzzling, since you are an adult when you embark on the graduate school journey, and there is no shortage of readily-available information about employability, salary, and so on.
But enough about the bewildered adults who awaken in the middle of their graduate program and wonder what happened and who to blame other than themselves.
Neither graduate degree cost me a dime, as tuition was waived (really, paid by advisor at an in-state rate) and I had combinations of research assistant (RA)/teaching assistant (TA)/fellowship the whole time. There was no assistance at any point from my family. I lived well in Austin in the 1990s, and had a great social life. It was great.
I knocked-out my Master's in just over 2 years, then breezed through my Ph.D. in 4 years. I published 6 first-authored papers by graduation time. My advisers were both nice guys, not overly hands-on with career guidance but I was headed towards a tenure-track position anyway. Research projects were reasonable and that was why I was able to go through smoothly. That and I wasn't walking around asking myself what the hell I was doing in grad school...anyway.
My postdoctoral fellowships - first at UCSF, then at Princeton - were great with the notable exception that the ~$30K/year salaries did not go far in either location.
My tenure-track journey ended with an appointment as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at a small school, and the salary was $52K/9 months. I didn't last long - those deferred student loans from undergrad were due, and the price was steep - but at the rate I was at, if I got a grant with summer salary, I was looking at $70K/year.
Totally great experiences. Low salaries even now, and yes I don't bring in big bucks but I'm not a SWE at a FAANG, but that's not for me.
The 1990s were a pretty good time for grad school compared to the 2000s.
The 2000s were pretty good compared to the 2010s.
Things are now at a breaking point.
Last week I had a mentoring conversation with a first year grad student that ended with tears about looming eviction due to over-due rent (un-reimbursed conference travel from months ago) and was followed by a call to a friend who still lives in the area to drop off some food as well as a... perhaps unprofessional... letter to a dean.
Those $30K/year stipends from the 90s were decent money; these days, at many institutions, it's still $30K/year. With a dependent and no family nearby, that's one late reimbursement from homelessness even in a comparatively cheap rust belt city. Remember: if you had a mortgage or owned a home before 2019, you feel basically none of the inflation happening in the USA. (And no, I wouldn't fault a mid-20 year old for not predicting double digit inflation in 2019.)
It is much harder now to follow that path you described than it was 30 years ago. That is, fewer portion of people who would like that path successfully get it. (Yeah, the early 90s is 30 years ago. Shocking to me too).
Whether students now "know what they were signing up for" or not (or should somehow be expected to or blamed if they didn't, which is not quite the same question), I couldn't say. None of the survey questions mentioned in the article seem to cover what their expectations were before enrolling, or if they have now changed. I wouldn't assume that they did, or didn't.
Having had a lot of experience of academia, I’m probably one its harshest critics.
But - I don’t regret the PhD. I learnt a lot of skills, learnt from other PhD students and postdocs.
I will say, make sure your supervisor is a nice person who does not place their career above all else. I was lucky with that, and I think finding such a person in academic is increasingly difficult. Never do a PhD with a supervisor you are unsure about.
Finish the PhD in 3 years (U.K.) and get the hell out. There is nothing left in academia for people who genuinely want to improve the world.
If your goal is getting paid a reasonable amount for a bit of a silly job, and you can tolerate or enjoy politics and game playing, that’s fine, stay. Hours are flexible, you can get away with not doing anything much at all for your career, and the pensions in the U.K. are still very generous. Over the summers most people don’t actually do any work.
>I will say, make sure your supervisor is a nice person who does not place their career above all else. I was lucky with that, and I think finding such a person in academic is increasingly difficult. Never do a PhD with a supervisor you are unsure about.
This is a great point. A bad supervisor will make your time miserable, and universities generally have no interest in weeding out the bad ones.
There's an academic whisper-net where this knowledge is spread, but undergrad or MSc students generally have no access to the net. Which is a shame as it would protect them from terrible supervisors who look good to the world.
If you're in that position, see if you can find a Prof who you can trust and explicitly ask them about colleagues in a 1-on-1 meeting; at least you'll get some access then.
I spent 3 years in a PhD program, like many of the posters it was one of the most fun experience of my life. I ended up dropping out to do Ycombinator, but it was an incredibly hard decision.
Like many things in life not all PhDs are created equal. In my program I was able to take classes across the University that helped broaden my narrow business / computer science undergraduate experience. I was paid somewhere between 20-30K/year, but was able to take graduate business, econ, architecture, anthropology, and computer science classes. I was able to publish papers and travel internationally. My peers were way smarter than me, and went on to find industry and academic jobs, a few dropped out like me and ended up building very successful careers.
In general my advice would be, find a program that suits your interest. The benefits of 3 years of largely self-directed learning is not for everyone, but can be an incredible way to grow. Also, your advisor will make or break your experience, I worked for an amazing guy, and still stay in touch, even after dropping out.
As a grad student (ML) close to finishing I can say exactly what I want. I want to read math books, program, and publish slowly (papers + blogs) with meaningful and substantial work. I do not want to be chasing benchmarks or worrying about how to play the politics of paper publishing to get through the provably random[0][1][2] noise that is the review process. But no one is going to pay me for this, including academia. I know a lot of my peers are chasing big paychecks but I don't understand why anyone would go through all this just for money. There's much easier ways to make money. If you know of anyone that would actually hire me for this, please do let me know.
That said, I don't regret doing my PhD. There is a lot of personal value in being able to (mostly) freely study a topic in extreme detail. Obviously you need some obsessive behavior to do this. The thing is that I just want to keep doing it. But with a focus on the learning and extending human knowledge part and cutting out the bullshit.
[2] Personal experience: I've had reviewers state that a paper with >100 citations is not useful to anyone while many of those citations are from hard sciences using it for explicitly the reason we made it. In another review round a reviewer asked us to include experiments comparing to our main comparitor, which was included in every single graph and table we had in the entire paper (no ability to respond). I've seen rampant abuse of the review system (ACs accepting and rejecting papers in weird ways), collusion rings, and overall benchmark chasing (which hinders a lot of research all together). We are encouraging lazy reviews, everyone agrees, but few are actively trying to make a difference. The worst part of this is that the people hurt the most by these actions are in fact the grad students. Their graduations depend on top tier publications and their ability to get their first jobs highly depend on their top tier publications. Ironically being hired by people who actively discuss issues with the publication system and how much noise there is. It is frustrating.
Government labs, scientific agencies (NASA et al), or any FFRDC might be a good fit. Also old-hat industrial labs. Defense and defense contractors can also be good, if you don't mind that type of work. They don't care much about vanity metrics like publications at top X conferences, and they don't move at the fast pace of product-oriented groups in tech companies.
You can also start an LLC and fund it through SBIR/STTR and/or transition-to-practice style grants, but you'll have to hire a professional admin staff and pay them more than you're making if you want the type of life you're describing (and it'll take some years).
A few random thoughts based on personal experience:
- A PhD is like a sabbatical in many ways. You are trading off time and money for what amounts to a long break to explore things or work on something that may be difficult otherwise.
- Identifying well defined problems is half the game.
- Finding a good advisor is quite important. Above all, it should be someone you can get along with.
- At least for CS, the tradeoffs are quite reasonable. In a good case, it will open more doors for you. In the worst case, you will be at the same level as a Master's student after having spent a few more years in school.
PhD is a scam that sucks hardwork from smartest individuals while giving them poverty, mental health problems, significant opportunity cost and graduating them with absolutely no skills that are required to make a living in market economy. I have said it multiple times unless you are doing a CS PhD or you are an Olympiad medalist, PhD is a significant net negative for your life and career.
Everything you said about CS PhDs also applies to a lesser (but not insignificant) extent to postgraduate and undergraduate degrees.
You don't need degrees to make it into the tech world. Yes some companies might ignore you in the very beginning of your career if you don't have a degree but there is so much demand out there for tech workers that you will find a job for sure and after one or two years nobody will care that you don't have a degree. By the time your peers graduate you will have multiple years of experience in the field and that's what everyone cares about.
Oh, and doing a CS degree you hardly learn anything about programming and most professors teaching you have never coded anything longer than 50 lines.
Weird to see the PhD is now a trade degree with people expecting to receive technical skill training to increase their chances to get an ok job with benefits working for some corporation.
Possibly the PhD is the new High School Diploma, signifying basic literacy and ability to follow directions.
I put it down to a lack of focus. Research universities had one job, to ensure the undelayed success of someone (or collective) like Yitang Zhang/Katalin Kariko, and it failed, while managing to award tenure to many a downright incompetent or even fraudulent persons and research groups. Surely doing this job is, if not easier, more important than achieving general AI? When I say easier, I refer to the ontopic suggestion of giving every person who gets a PhD a basic income..
[+] [-] fluxem|3 years ago|reply
You never know if you will finish your PhD. In fact, 50% drop out. Imagine spending 4 years of your life and then quitting with little to show for it.
First of all, PhD is too long (in the US). You spend 1 - 1.5 years taking grad classes that have little relevance to your subfield. If you haven't done research in undergrad, you spend the first year figuring out what is research. IF you did, there's still a lot less hand-holding as a PhD researcher compared to an undergrad researcher.
Now let's talk about research. First, you need to come up with a good idea that no one thought of it before. This requires understanding of all the previous research.
Then you try to implement the idea. Even if you implemented everything correctly, if your method is not better than the state of the art, you just wasted your time. (Of course, you need to implement the state of the art also)
Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings. Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
I'm not even talking about PhD in other subfields like Physics, where people become Google's SWE after finishing their PhD. Such a waste.
[+] [-] Al-Khwarizmi|3 years ago|reply
For example, in Spain:
- Typical PhD duration: 4 years. It's not even possible to go beyond 5 years (there is a hard cap) and if you want to do it fast, typically 3.5 years or so is enough in most fields if you do it full time.
- Tuition is a symbolic amount (something like 100 €/year or so).
- Most students do their PhD either with a grant or a contract. So it's basically a normal job. Not a high-paying one, mind you, but a job. You typically get something in the range of 1200-1600 €/month and social security. Enough to live reasonably well (not luxuriously, but comfortably) in almost any city that is not Madrid or Barcelona (in those two you'd need to share a flat and it wouldn't be very good, but in most of the rest of the country, a typical rent is around 600 €).
- I don't have figures on drop out but I don't think it's anywhere near 50%, if I had to give a pessimistic estimate I would say 20% at most.
Of course, the bit about becoming a professor is still true (although the competition is somewhat different, less about brilliance and more about sweat... very roughly speaking, churning out more papers than your competitors even if the papers aren't that great. But there are still much fewer professor jobs than PhD candidates).
[+] [-] samspenc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comfypotato|3 years ago|reply
It’s important to try working with multiple mentors if you can. I actually started with a different person, and he probably would have been considered by most to be ideal. I was basically totally funded to do whatever I wanted with very little mentor interaction. Interestingly, this wasn’t great for me. In part I wasn’t interested in the subject, but more than that I greatly benefit from weekly mentor interaction to check in with my direction. Now I don’t have funding (working to support myself while doing research), but I’m happy as a pig in mud.
[+] [-] lightbendover|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antegamisou|3 years ago|reply
There are senior high - paying FAANG roles outside webdev where quantitative skills like the ones acquired in subjects like Math/Physics/Theor. CS are imperative, in which you can get straight into after graduation without even having to go through the absurd LeetCode hiring process (it's significantly easier if your advisor recommends you to an old friend on the industry).
> Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings. Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
This is very accurate, especially in the US where tenure seems to be largely reserved for people that come from financially strong families who effectively support them from undergrad to tenure track.
[+] [-] sweezyjeezy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senectus1|3 years ago|reply
shrug I think that life is a process of navigating obstacles while acquiring skills. Its not a RPG with you choosing a character that you have to stick with until the end.
Branch out... you'll be surprised at where your PHD learned skills will lead you.
[+] [-] lrem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|3 years ago|reply
> Even if you implemented everything correctly, if your method is not better than the state of the art, you just wasted your time.
You didn't waste your time as you know now the state of the art, and also why your method isn't better.
> Do you want to become a professor? Forget about. There are so many bright PhDs competing for a few academic openings.
The world is a big place. There's more to academia than Ivy League in the US. And don't believe all professors are geniuses! I think it's possible to somewhat assess your odds to get an academic position when you start a PhD.
On the downside, academia is very competitive and being a second rank professor drowning in teaching and administrative duties isn't the most rewarding thing to do.
> Even if you become a professor, it will take 10 years and a lot of work to get tenure. And if you finally become a professor, the pay is terrible compared to the industry.
This also depends in which industry you want to work. Not all fields/companies pay as a well as Google. And having a PhD can also open doors in industry.
[+] [-] ModernMech|3 years ago|reply
Unless you want to be a professor of computer science. There, everyone is hiring.
[+] [-] version_five|3 years ago|reply
Aside from actually enjoying the work, I had a salary / scholarship that where I went to school was the same or more than most of my peers who went right to work made (because of tax implications), and when I got a job, I got a better one than I would have otherwise. Plus, many people I started school with had barely finished their undergrad by the time I was done a PhD because of the usual breaks and major changes and failing courses and stuff.
I'm not saying this to brag (I've made all sorts of terrible choices since then), only to say that it's possible to do a PhD, have fun (specifically in the sense of learn cool stuff, although I enjoyed the social life), and not make a "sacrifice" in terms of money or starting a career. It's like any other job. You can make all kinds of early career decisions that help or hinder you later, generalizing a "phd" as some specific thing doesn't work
* (I like to think I'm coming back to another such period 15+ years later, but anyway)
[+] [-] dotnet00|3 years ago|reply
I'm not really interested in continuing on to academia, but this has been a good transition period for both building confidence and exploring other topics without having to worry about finances (besides of course making sure to keep up with advisor grants).
It has helped me learn and improve a lot about myself without the pressures of a more typical job. I'd say I was still pretty immature after undergrad, I wasn't really independent and didn't really think for myself (to the point that I didn't even realize I ought to be looking for a job until I had graduated and had family asking what my next step would be), which, after a year spent languishing led me to going for a Masters. Then my research work got me recruited for a PhD. Since then over the past 3 years I've been learning to be more independent which I feel works better when still having the freedom a PhD offers compared to a SWE job. If I had gone straight into the workplace I'd probably be in the process of overworking myself into burnout right now.
A side benefit is that having a PhD is very helpful for speeding up the immigration process and opening up possibilities elsewhere in case my current plans don't work out.
[+] [-] gonzo41|3 years ago|reply
You described almost a very insta perfect version of the experience which doesn't play out most of the time.
[+] [-] xnyan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notRobot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chihuahua|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _gmax0|3 years ago|reply
But it's apparent to me that academia is straining under the system in which it exists. Incentives are misaligned, from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top. Economic strain puts pressure to produce rushed research, at the expense of PIs and the students and limits the allocations of grants to proven institutions and individuals.
The issue is so complicated that I don't even know where to begin to address it without sounding like a Kacyznski-nut. From a naturalist's perspective, maybe this was bound to happen as 'real' innovation dries up.
It seems that the only rational conditions to pursue a graduate degree in this economic climate is 1) purely for intellectual reasons, the challenge and the growth, 2) to put a small pimple on the butt of your field and given that it takes off, pick the fruits until the tree is bare. To expect glory and honor is setting yourself up for bitterness and from a purely vocational perspective, many have remarked at the negative opportunity cost.
[+] [-] jltsiren|3 years ago|reply
I don't find it complicated at all. The root issue is that there is too much supply and too little demand. There are too many people willing to work in the academia, while the rest of the world is only willing to feed far fewer academics. Everything else is just symptoms. This was already clear when I did my PhD 10-15 years ago. In the past couple of years, the job market finally reached some kind of breaking point and started to rebalance itself.
[+] [-] zinxq|3 years ago|reply
The time I spent getting a Ph.D. was one of the best times of my life. Not just the work, but the environment, the other people in the same situation, and the personal growth. I pursued it because 1) I really did love learning about Computers, and 2) I just loved the University environment. Every time I "graduated" I just signed up again for the next degree.
I never thought much about "using it" after I got it. I think it got me a higher starting title at a company or two and impressed a few (probably easily impressed) people along the way. I think the most measurable* impact however was listing it on my dating profile.
Again - it was a journey worth taking without much thought of the destination.
*Note, I said "measurable", not "good" or "bad"
[+] [-] nonethewiser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernova87a|3 years ago|reply
You've probably heard in your field of the old professors who got a faculty job after one postdoc, or even out of grad school? Well, those days of yore are long gone. And don't think that it was just because they were incredibly smart (well, some of course were) but that the field had ripe jobs for them to fill. Do you see some colleagues going to "odd" countries for positions lately? It's where the money is -- we just didn't realize in the past it actually was tied to where the money was (hidden in the form of jobs).
Anyway, also now it has almost become a baseline credential for certain jobs or advancement (like college), further filling up the pipeline with competitors for those jobs.
Don't get me wrong, for some people graduate school can be great, a great time to explore and satisfy an intellect that wants to gather and contribute to knowledge. But for others, the idea of graduate school is no longer what it was. You're in for a multiple-postdoc, where-is-this-going-on-the-faculty-track questioned existence, seemingly at the whim of advisors who hardly have time to spend on helping your career.
Of course, it varies by field. Chemical engineering, probably ok no matter how relatively bad it seems. Astronomy? Not so much. Biology? Better exits, but you're also competing against everyone who can afford a hot plate and PCR rig. Computer science / ML? Your competition is every student in China who has access to a couple hundred hours of GPU time. (exaggerating a bit of course)
Just go into it knowing the situation.
[+] [-] Test0129|3 years ago|reply
I was basically told I would not graduate my PhD program if I didn't do my dissertation in a machine learning application of my field of interest.
The intersection existed but after a year of trying to motivate myself I could not. I ended up quitting. It's more politics than it's worth and I was in competition with students from other countries who had infinitely more funding, infinitely more time, and infinitely more energy than me. I was doing night classes and spending every other waking hour I wasn't working pushing my research.
[+] [-] gautamdivgi|3 years ago|reply
There is a massive misreading of the general situation though like the parent comment mentions. I think until before WWII academia was a rich mans profession. I would bet that people who got into academia were those whose parents had the means to support their education and that they could either independently or through patronage carry out research. This is what most people miss about a PhD or a scholar. It was exclusively a rich mans (and in very exceptional cases a woman married to a rich man or a man married to a rich woman) business. A more extreme example Carl Jung’s wife supported her husband’s research even when he was having an affair with another woman. Remember that cabin he built so eloquently described in “Deep Work” with a walk in the woods. It might have been with the wife’s money.
Post WWII government funding for research exploded but there were not enough researchers. Universities brought in more and more professors for their government funded programs and government funded student loans. All professors want tenure track. To handle tenure track you need publications. But now we have a problem - the professors aren’t wealthy. They need to apply for patronage (ahem - government grants) and need to write proposals. The problem is “professorship” is an up or out profession. You get 7 years to move up or get out. In time, the government grants have reduced, the number of professors has ticked upwards. You have a complete rat race for scraps. There are some well-funded departments that continue to attract great students. But by and large its the stress of grant writing that will eat at you.
So, in the end the profession itself hasn’t changed much. You’re still petitioning the “rich man” for “patronage”. It’s just that now there are many more petitioners. It’s just not worth it.
That being said, there needs to be some mechanism to acquire deep advanced skills as you continue along your professional journey. A masters with a thesis mostly works and can get you a considerable way through. It could be specialized so that you get more time for focused research as opposed to filling up your time with pointless credits. I did a PhD when I was working. It was stressful - but only from a time perspective. I never had stresses of money or career for which I’m thankful. I also had a very considerate advisor. I cannot think of a position in industry today except in research labs that really need a PhD. Everyone going for it needs to look out and understand that.
[+] [-] bell-cot|3 years ago|reply
Ph.D. in astronomy has been "do not expect a job" for at least 2 full generations now. I recall talking to an astronomy professor from (?) Univ. of Michigan ~1982. Supposedly, it was SOP to tell the kids in UM's "freshman astronomy for potential astronomy majors" course that Ph.D.'s should not expect jobs. Jobs were "possible" at lower levels, if you were clever about it. (Make sure you got lots of experience running the planetarium, maintaining high-end astronomy equipment, etc.)
[+] [-] zzda|3 years ago|reply
However, I'd already had several months of getting to know PhD students there and in neighbouring labs, and it made me realise two things. Firstly, how much stress and long working hours they were all enduring. Secondly, for many of them, how fascinated they seemed with their research topics despite this.
I quickly realised I didn't really give much of a shit about doing any more of this research, at least not compared to the obsessive PhD students I was working alongside, and ended up pivoting to a vulnerability research career instead. Which has been much, much more rewarding and interesting than anything I was doing previously.
I'm incredibly glad I didn't get stuck wasting my life away in academia, which for a time seemed like the default path to take. For a while afterwards I felt like I'd let myself down somehow by not continuing along this path, but I look back in relief knowing now what a nonsense attitude that was.
[+] [-] j7ake|3 years ago|reply
I would maybe compare the academic path to more like a start up life : most fail, but you will learn a lot and you will be in charge of your own destiny.
Of course the pay and living can be brutal depending on where you choose to do your PhD. But there are phd programs that pay a generous wage (with benefits like health care and retirement) at affordable cities.
I am happy I was able to roll the dice with academia. If it didn’t work out I would still be doing fine in industry.
[+] [-] flownoon|3 years ago|reply
My advisor said that after publishing 3 articles in good journals, I was done. So I was very motivated, had a clear target, and had a more satisfying and quick experience than probably 98% of PhD students.
I looked at programs in more attractive locations and at better rated schools, where they said essentially “you are done when we feel like you are done”. I turned them down and it was a fantastic decision.
[+] [-] iorrus|3 years ago|reply
If you want clear deliverables and a set path to follow, just get a job in industry.
[+] [-] caddemon|3 years ago|reply
That kind of requirement would be way too strict for some fields. Flexible graduation guidelines can be abused by bad programs and/or bad PIs, but they also allow flexibility in what you get out of the PhD and when you can leave. I know people that graduated from my program with 0 lead author papers (and <= 2 contributing author papers) because they had already lined up an industry job or a pivot to research in a different field. They'd be in school forever if there were strict authorship requirements.
PS - some PIs, whether intentionally or not, can actually abuse strict requirements more than flexible ones. If you used PI resources to do research, which is often unavoidable in experimental fields, you need their permission to publish. Some PIs have extremely high standards for what journals they will allow their work to be published in. Often students end up with 4th author via a piece of a paper that got published in a journal like Cell, but could've been a stand alone lead author work in a mid tier journal. Nothing wrong with that, arguably it's better from a scientific perspective, but you can see how that might impact student careers.
[+] [-] atty|3 years ago|reply
Frankly, the only thing I wish I would have realized beforehand is that you’re basically forming your young adult friend group with a bunch of people who are going to be spread out over the globe in ~5 years. That part is hard. Everything else was great.
[+] [-] dont__panic|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcosfelt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gtmitchell|3 years ago|reply
I was one of those, and it’s really difficult for me to look back and see anything positive in the experience. I’m sure if the opinions of dropouts were included, you’d get an even bleaker view of the value of going to graduate school.
[+] [-] pfdietz|3 years ago|reply
http://magazine.art21.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/life_in...
[+] [-] btrettel|3 years ago|reply
"Publish or perish" attitudes caused a lot of friction for me. I try to be more careful in my research than most, and I don't care too much about the sheer number of papers I publish. One great paper beats 100 average papers.
I also think that the (practical) requirement to bring in external funding severely limits what research can be done. There are a lot of great ideas that don't sound good to people in control of money.
My day job doesn't involve any research now. I do research on the side. I am glad that I can do research at my own pace and don't have to ask permission from others before doing research. The main problem is that I don't have a lot of time for my research, but I'm hoping to switch to part-time eventually.
[+] [-] toddm|3 years ago|reply
I have absolutely no regrets, and knew fully what I was signing up for, unlike many people who are featured in articles like the one referenced here: that is a little puzzling, since you are an adult when you embark on the graduate school journey, and there is no shortage of readily-available information about employability, salary, and so on.
But enough about the bewildered adults who awaken in the middle of their graduate program and wonder what happened and who to blame other than themselves.
Neither graduate degree cost me a dime, as tuition was waived (really, paid by advisor at an in-state rate) and I had combinations of research assistant (RA)/teaching assistant (TA)/fellowship the whole time. There was no assistance at any point from my family. I lived well in Austin in the 1990s, and had a great social life. It was great.
I knocked-out my Master's in just over 2 years, then breezed through my Ph.D. in 4 years. I published 6 first-authored papers by graduation time. My advisers were both nice guys, not overly hands-on with career guidance but I was headed towards a tenure-track position anyway. Research projects were reasonable and that was why I was able to go through smoothly. That and I wasn't walking around asking myself what the hell I was doing in grad school...anyway.
My postdoctoral fellowships - first at UCSF, then at Princeton - were great with the notable exception that the ~$30K/year salaries did not go far in either location.
My tenure-track journey ended with an appointment as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at a small school, and the salary was $52K/9 months. I didn't last long - those deferred student loans from undergrad were due, and the price was steep - but at the rate I was at, if I got a grant with summer salary, I was looking at $70K/year.
Totally great experiences. Low salaries even now, and yes I don't bring in big bucks but I'm not a SWE at a FAANG, but that's not for me.
Highly recommended.
[+] [-] thwayunion|3 years ago|reply
The 2000s were pretty good compared to the 2010s.
Things are now at a breaking point.
Last week I had a mentoring conversation with a first year grad student that ended with tears about looming eviction due to over-due rent (un-reimbursed conference travel from months ago) and was followed by a call to a friend who still lives in the area to drop off some food as well as a... perhaps unprofessional... letter to a dean.
Those $30K/year stipends from the 90s were decent money; these days, at many institutions, it's still $30K/year. With a dependent and no family nearby, that's one late reimbursement from homelessness even in a comparatively cheap rust belt city. Remember: if you had a mortgage or owned a home before 2019, you feel basically none of the inflation happening in the USA. (And no, I wouldn't fault a mid-20 year old for not predicting double digit inflation in 2019.)
[+] [-] jrochkind1|3 years ago|reply
Whether students now "know what they were signing up for" or not (or should somehow be expected to or blamed if they didn't, which is not quite the same question), I couldn't say. None of the survey questions mentioned in the article seem to cover what their expectations were before enrolling, or if they have now changed. I wouldn't assume that they did, or didn't.
[+] [-] randomsearch|3 years ago|reply
But - I don’t regret the PhD. I learnt a lot of skills, learnt from other PhD students and postdocs.
I will say, make sure your supervisor is a nice person who does not place their career above all else. I was lucky with that, and I think finding such a person in academic is increasingly difficult. Never do a PhD with a supervisor you are unsure about.
Finish the PhD in 3 years (U.K.) and get the hell out. There is nothing left in academia for people who genuinely want to improve the world.
If your goal is getting paid a reasonable amount for a bit of a silly job, and you can tolerate or enjoy politics and game playing, that’s fine, stay. Hours are flexible, you can get away with not doing anything much at all for your career, and the pensions in the U.K. are still very generous. Over the summers most people don’t actually do any work.
[+] [-] a_bonobo|3 years ago|reply
This is a great point. A bad supervisor will make your time miserable, and universities generally have no interest in weeding out the bad ones.
There's an academic whisper-net where this knowledge is spread, but undergrad or MSc students generally have no access to the net. Which is a shame as it would protect them from terrible supervisors who look good to the world.
If you're in that position, see if you can find a Prof who you can trust and explicitly ask them about colleagues in a 1-on-1 meeting; at least you'll get some access then.
[+] [-] bcx|3 years ago|reply
Like many things in life not all PhDs are created equal. In my program I was able to take classes across the University that helped broaden my narrow business / computer science undergraduate experience. I was paid somewhere between 20-30K/year, but was able to take graduate business, econ, architecture, anthropology, and computer science classes. I was able to publish papers and travel internationally. My peers were way smarter than me, and went on to find industry and academic jobs, a few dropped out like me and ended up building very successful careers.
In general my advice would be, find a program that suits your interest. The benefits of 3 years of largely self-directed learning is not for everyone, but can be an incredible way to grow. Also, your advisor will make or break your experience, I worked for an amazing guy, and still stay in touch, even after dropping out.
[+] [-] godelski|3 years ago|reply
That said, I don't regret doing my PhD. There is a lot of personal value in being able to (mostly) freely study a topic in extreme detail. Obviously you need some obsessive behavior to do this. The thing is that I just want to keep doing it. But with a focus on the learning and extending human knowledge part and cutting out the bullshit.
[0] https://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html
[1] https://inverseprobability.com/talks/notes/the-neurips-exper...
[2] Personal experience: I've had reviewers state that a paper with >100 citations is not useful to anyone while many of those citations are from hard sciences using it for explicitly the reason we made it. In another review round a reviewer asked us to include experiments comparing to our main comparitor, which was included in every single graph and table we had in the entire paper (no ability to respond). I've seen rampant abuse of the review system (ACs accepting and rejecting papers in weird ways), collusion rings, and overall benchmark chasing (which hinders a lot of research all together). We are encouraging lazy reviews, everyone agrees, but few are actively trying to make a difference. The worst part of this is that the people hurt the most by these actions are in fact the grad students. Their graduations depend on top tier publications and their ability to get their first jobs highly depend on their top tier publications. Ironically being hired by people who actively discuss issues with the publication system and how much noise there is. It is frustrating.
[+] [-] thwayunion|3 years ago|reply
You can also start an LLC and fund it through SBIR/STTR and/or transition-to-practice style grants, but you'll have to hire a professional admin staff and pay them more than you're making if you want the type of life you're describing (and it'll take some years).
[+] [-] bubblethink|3 years ago|reply
- A PhD is like a sabbatical in many ways. You are trading off time and money for what amounts to a long break to explore things or work on something that may be difficult otherwise.
- Identifying well defined problems is half the game.
- Finding a good advisor is quite important. Above all, it should be someone you can get along with.
- At least for CS, the tradeoffs are quite reasonable. In a good case, it will open more doors for you. In the worst case, you will be at the same level as a Master's student after having spent a few more years in school.
[+] [-] wanderingmind|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erfgh|3 years ago|reply
You don't need degrees to make it into the tech world. Yes some companies might ignore you in the very beginning of your career if you don't have a degree but there is so much demand out there for tech workers that you will find a job for sure and after one or two years nobody will care that you don't have a degree. By the time your peers graduate you will have multiple years of experience in the field and that's what everyone cares about.
Oh, and doing a CS degree you hardly learn anything about programming and most professors teaching you have never coded anything longer than 50 lines.
[+] [-] Fomite|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warbler73|3 years ago|reply
Possibly the PhD is the new High School Diploma, signifying basic literacy and ability to follow directions.
[+] [-] balsam|3 years ago|reply