
Are PhD Students Irrational? - jseliger
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/phd-students-irrational/#!
======
Futurebot
If you enjoyed this piece, you should read "Planet Loser":

"If you actually want to know why people persist in going to grad school, or
trying to be screenwriters or musicians or professional athletes or actors —
or, if we’re getting really real about it, journalists and writers, the kind
that write for The Atlantic — it’s because our culture insists relentlessly
that certain kinds of work have intellectual and aesthetic value, that they
are a way to be a Somebody, and also that you never, ever give up on your
dreams. There is no message that we deliver to children and adolescents more
relentlessly than that they should pursue their dreams with manic focus and
unflagging persistence, no matter how hard and often they fail, and that they
will be assured of eventual victory. Never, never, never give up. Whether you
think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re right! If you believe it, you
can achieve it. Go to a middle school sometime. Look at the posters on the
wall. It’s like a one-party state, propaganda of the most ubiquitous and
intense variety. When I was a long-term sub at my local junior high I was
amazed; it was like some sort of totalitarian reeducation camp, with the
purpose being to indoctrinate in all who passed through the doors that failure
stems always and only from a lack of nerve."

[http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/04/24/planet-
loser/](http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/04/24/planet-loser/)

~~~
alpineidyll3
So do you think that a 20 year old deterministically absorbs the values of
their culture? Don't be so paternalistic. College students are not children;
they are not your students.

The value of a PhD is not high because the life of a PhD is desirable.
Academia provides a (flawed) society with a permanence and thoughtfulness that
competes with non academic america. Leisure and camaraderie is everywhere. It
provides a sense of identity which is hard to find, so supply is high and
price is low.

Within the cult there are bad actors who misrepresent their value, and
selfishly collect rewards. Nothings perfect.

~~~
Chinjut
Not just 20 year olds but everyone is affected by, and can't help but absorb a
great deal of, the values of their culture. That's what it means to call it
their culture.

------
throw_away_777
In my experience people don't enter into PhDs expecting to make a lot of
money. And STEM PhDs get paid, so it isn't as if we accumulate debt. Often
times a PhD is the only route to doing what you love. It isn't possible to do
academic research in industry. Personally when I entered into my PhD I really
liked that the research I was doing had a noble purpose.

On the other hand, a PhD is way too long. And if you stop at year 4 or so you
have basically wasted 4 years. I did not appreciate how much my values would
change over time and sort of got locked into trying to finish my PhD. Trying
to finish a PhD when you don't have passion for the subject anymore is very
stressful. This experience is disturbingly common.

Finally, the author early on implies that the job market for STEM PhDs is not
good. At least in physics, this is only true in academia. I know many people
who have transitioned successfully to data science, or who have gotten a post
doc. Overall, the unemployment rate of physics PhDs is low.

~~~
xapata
There was a time when a failed postdoc was in a very depressing financial
situation. Corporations didn't want to hire a PhD, because they were
overqualified and likely had some anti-authoritarian streak that led them to
attempt academia.

STEM PhDs are more in demand these days, but some still don't know it and need
encouragement (and sometimes a little help) transitioning to industry.

~~~
throw_away_777
I agree with your sentiment, and think that postdocs are the real problem with
academia currently. Besides the low pay, being a graduate student is not a bad
job - you get good job security, interesting problems, good mission, and can
somewhat choose your boss. A postdoc is a terrible, soul-crushing, low-pay
job. At least for the physics postdocs I have seen - I have heard that in the
humanities a postdoc is actually a highly sought after position.

~~~
xapata
One of the saddest conversations I've ever had was with a two-time assistant
professor who had just been denied tenure (second chance is the last).

A mutual friend had referred him to me for advice on how to transition to
industry. I gave him a pep-talk and explained how to build a portfolio to show
skills that matter in the workplace. I think he turned things around, but for
a little while he couldn't stop thinking about the "wasted" years. PhD,
postdoc(s), 3-5 years of assistantship, repeated once, ... it's a tragedy for
such a smart, capable person to succeed so much and yet feel like they failed.

------
thr0waway1239
When talking only about software and CS, I think there is one more way to look
at this issue (and has been mentioned multiple times in this comment thread).

Let us say the typical software engineer's day is filled up with the following
types of tasks:

1\. What patio11 describes, although in a different context: "Don't try to
make a career out of optimizing the SQL queries to display a preference page
on a line of business app at a company that no one has ever heard of." [1]

2\. Some kind of algorithmic work (e.g. writing a compiler)

3\. Big data, machine learning etc. (consuming the results of algorithms,
hence different from 2)

4\. Software architecting

My view is that after a while, most people want to move from group 1 to one of
the other groups. This gives a good way to explain the pursuit of Ph.D. even
when it is not economically rational (both in time and money cost) - it is a
pursuit of something which is not mundane as long as you make the effort.

A teacher of mine said: "You are going to be spending about 40 years in your
career. If you take 5 out of that to do a Ph.D. you are not going to reflect
on it with regret. And at the end of it you have a Ph.D. too."

When you combine this with the possibility that you will be mostly hanging out
with elastic minded students as PG once put it and you might actually have the
time of your (intellectual) life, the decision doesn't look all that
irrational.

[1] [https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/do-not-
en...](https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/do-not-end-the-week-
with-nothing)

------
altoz
The article doesn't really touch on this, but for people embarking on a PhD
program, school is what they've been doing 8 or so hours a day for 16+ years
and school is what they're good at (or else they wouldn't have gotten into the
PhD program). It's the least disruptive path post-college for a certain group
of college grads and their choice is to trade potential financial gain for
stability and familiarity. That may not be the best choice for each one of
them, but it's certainly not irrational.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
That rather fails to account for people who "go back to school" for a PhD
after finishing their undergrad and working for a while.

~~~
gnarbarian
Those who can, Do...

~~~
kibibu
...those who can't, comment on HN

------
hprotagonist
I'd say it entirely depends on the assumption that to get a PhD means that you
want to be a professor (and teach in the US at a reasonably decent school and
get tenure one day). If that really is your goal, then yes, you should think
very hard before you do it.

The Adjunct scam is really, truly atrocious. Adjucts and grad students can
unionize now, though, and it only takes one strike in the e. coli labs for a
research university to cave...

However, PhDs do have valuable (and financially rewarding) roles in nonprofit
research institutions that are not subject to the same challenges as
universities (though I sure hope you like writing grants),

In "real" industry positions, a PhD can be a way to bulwark yourself against
"the engineer trap", where you get promoted into a project management role and
become unable to actually do anything except munge Excel documents. It is a
gamble.

I have an engineering background, so I can't really speak to what it is like
to, e.g., have a PhD in English. But, depending on your degree, there are also
really cool gigs at places like microsoft research -- they do everything from
cell biology to audio, now, as well as employ "pure theory" CS folks.

~~~
gozur88
>The Adjunct scam is really, truly atrocious. Adjucts and grad students can
unionize now, though, and it only takes one strike in the e. coli labs for a
research university to cave...

Grad students have been forming unions since the '70s, and it hasn't had any
impact. There are so few tenure track positions you can't afford to even
_slightly_ irritate the people you need to get one, and everyone views their
stint as a TA or an adjunct as temporary.

------
sn41
I don't see why being irrational is bad. A "labour of love" is precisely
something that does not obey the law of diminishing returns. Passion and
interest are much more sustaining and fulfilling than a job in the finance
sector just because it is highly paid.

I think "rationality" is a stupid assumption, often wrong. Of course, people
need more money, but a lot of people are also willing to make sacrifices for
something else - spouses, children, parents, religion or country. Money is
important, but not the overriding concern for everyone. I often feels that the
correct word for a "rational" individual in the sense of economics is
"sociopath".

Ralph Nader once said about his organization, that "you can bring your
conscience to work" every day. This actually counts for a lot.

However the basic point of the article, that the Universities are conning
students is perfectly valid (source: ex-PhD student, can relate to the
frustration). This point needs to be better made, avoiding slinging mud on the
intellect of the hapless students. This article is an example of how you can
write a dubious article, even in the presence of good data.

~~~
groovy2shoes
Everyone on this thread seems to be focusing entirely on _money_ when
determining whether or not something is _rational_. The Economics 101
definition of _rational_ that I recall from university is only tangentially
related to strictly monetary value -- things usually provide non-monetary
value as well ("opportunity cost", etc.). If every trade were always based
solely on monetary value, trade would be a zero-sum game, but it's not: fair
trade is a win-win situation. Seller wins because the product is worth more to
the buyer than it cost to produce; buyer wins because the product is worth
more _to them_ than it cost to buy. If this weren't the case, one or both
parties would decline the trade (assuming, of course, as economists are wont
to do, that both parties are rational).

As you point out, there are plenty of non-monetary benefits to academia:
passion, interest, fulfillment, pride, etc. These things have different value
to different people depending on their own interests and goals. If the total
benefit (tangible _and_ intangible) is worth more to someone than the
opportunity cost, then, according to economics, that person is _still acting
rationally_ in such pursuits.

I'm not an economist, but this is seriously undergraduate-level Introductory
Economics material.

------
geebee
Hard to say. The RAND institute did a study concluding that there is no
meaningful shortage of STEM graduate degrees, that the aversion to these
degrees, to the extent it exists, is a rational response to completion times,
attrition rates, job prospects, and salaries when compared to other
professional degree programs such as MBA, law, or medicine. However, this
wasn't quite the same as concluding that it is _irrational_ to pursue these
degrees, just that we should stop scratching our heads and wondering why more
people don't pursue them.

Payscale has an interesting ranking of graduate degrees by program, which is
more useful than raking all holders of a particular graduate degree together.

[http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-
report/grad?page=49](http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-
report/grad?page=49)

Unfortunately, it doesn't break out MS and PhD holders by subject studied. So
while you do get to see a specific ranking for an MBA or JD holder from UCLA
or MIT, you only get overall salary info for PhDs from MIT, not PhD in
Computer Science from MIT vs Electrical Engineering from Berkeley. That would
be far more useful.

As it stands, a PhD doesn't show up until spot 29 on this list, but then
again, a PhD in CS might, so hard to say.

To me, the attrition rate from PhD programs is an under appreciated aspect of
this discussion. A lot of people from elite Law, MBA, and MD programs are
floored when they hear the attrition rate from PhD programs. Seriously, the
attrition rate form an elite law or med school tends to be well below one half
of one percent. Attrition rates form elite engineering and science PhD
programs range from 35%-50%.

In any case, I'm always glad to see this discussed. The only people who seem
to think there is a "shortage" or STEM graduate students are people who have a
financial interest in hiring STEM graduate students. Almost every other
analysis concludes that people with the freedom to choose their career in the
US (free of visa restrictions that limit their career choices) are largely
acting rationally by pursuing other graduate degree programs (or no graduate
degree program).

~~~
chestervonwinch
> ... the attrition rate form an elite law or med school tends to be well
> below one half of one percent. Attrition rates form elite engineering and
> science PhD programs range from 35%-50%.

Many PhD programs offer full tuition, health care, and a yearly stipend with
teaching duties. OTOH, there may be less incentive to give someone the boot if
they're bringing in large sums of money by paying their way through, which is
how most master's and professional degrees work (as I understand).

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Many PhD programs offer full tuition, health care, and a yearly stipend with
teaching duties.

Do we have data showing that entry-level jobs (the first three to five years)
in STEM industries have 35-50% attrition rates?

~~~
geebee
I'd guess the attrition rate is higher than that. Just a guess though. Would
also be interesting to see if the attrition rate is mainly transferring to a
different field rather vs. changing jobs within the same field.

------
sjg007
A PhD is a great way to immigrate and this drives down PhD stipends.

A PhD is a great way to continue learning.. And good for the overall economy
because companies rely on math, science and engineering to produce products.

~~~
cperciva
A PhD at a good institution is also a great way to open doors which would
otherwise remain closed. I found that opening emails with "I'm a DPhil student
at the Oxford University Computing Lab and" resulted in a dramatic increase in
how helpful people would be.

~~~
igravious
That's probably the Oxford part doing the trick, not the DPhil part ;-) I am
only half-joking.

~~~
cperciva
I _did_ say "at a good institution". ;-)

------
j7ake
Since we are on HN, how does this irrationally differ from the hordes of
people going into start ups hoping they will be the next AirBnB?

I would be interested in comparing the chances of a graduate student becoming
a tenured professor versus a fresh grad starting a start up that becomes a
unicorn.

~~~
cossatot
If we stick to PhDs as opposed to the excellent but undervalued MS degree:

Far better chance of becoming a tenured professor (I'd say roughly 1 in 10-20
in my field, geoscience). Plus, like has been said elsewhere in this thread,
after 4-7+ years of being underpaid and overworked, you've got a PhD.

However, a freshly-tenured professor at a major research school might make
100k, and might make 150k by full professor. Very few outside of
business/medicine/maybe some engineering make more than 200k by full
professor.

If you found a unicorn, you probably do a bit better than that, financially.

~~~
j7ake
Those seem to be pretty good odds. Thanks for the rough estimate.

You can also hit 'unicorns' as a scientist, for example a major discovery
(nobel prize) or innovation (millennium technology prize), which should be
taken into account somehow if we want to compare the two.

In start ups there are lots of discussions and analysis of long tails and
capturing unicorns (implying lots of failures along the way) but analysis of
careers in science never gets the same treatment, although I find many
connections between the two (many small failures but big wins). It is always
statistics of what an average scientist would achieve rather than what a top
scientist would achieve. It would be nice to apply some of the same analyses
we do on careers in start ups to careers on science.

------
loser777
In computer science, I feel that this definition of irrational only applies in
the same way that doing anything that isn't maximizing my $/hour rate is
irrational.

Sure, the academic job market is very competitive (though CS arguably has more
opportunities than other fields), and landing a solid industry research
position is no cakewalk either. But the difficulties in finding a research job
don't preclude doing software engineering work to pay the bills.

It's not uncommon to decide a few years into a graduate program that you'd
rather just be making more money and drop out for a more lucrative
industry/industry research position. For CS PhD students, the job market only
seems terrible if you have a very narrow definition of a job (which seems
irrational).

~~~
danielvf
Yes, CS is way better than most majors in that you can move without too much
difficulty from post-graduate studies to a good job. For many other majors,
when moving out of acedemia, people end up working at Starbucks, or as a
receptionist at a doctor's office. And to top it off, you've got thirty
thousand dollars in debt on top of a low paying job.

------
jdoliner
From my reading it seems like the crux of the argument is this:

> We’ve presupposed a scenario in which there really is a massive oversupply
> of PhDs, and thus PhD students must be irrational for treading into an
> oversupplied labor market. But that’s simply not true. PhD “oversupply” is
> just a euphemistic way of talking about the fact that colleges and
> universities haven’t met student-generated demand with a commensurate supply
> of full-time, tenure-track faculty.

PhDs aren't irrational for wasting 5 years on something that won't net them a
job... universities are shirking their responsibility to provide a job to
those who demand them.

~~~
cstrahan
Normally I'd agree. Especially if we're assuming purely selfish pursuits ("I
want to fuck around in academia forever and get paid, supply/demand be
damned!").

However, if I see it through the lense of someone who desperately wants to
move the world forward -- and at any personal cost -- then I start to
entertain the thought that, maybe, it's unfortunate that that some can't find
jobs, and they're deserving of my sympathy.

Simillarly, I work on a bunch of OSS. A lot of it is based in academia and
unlikely to become mainstream. I'm also unlikely to benefit directly from it,
and I don't really enjoy the process of creation within the field of software.
However, I feel that the stuff I'm working on -- even with the slim odds of
mass adoption -- are worth dumping my time into because it'll move the
industry forward _if_ it's successful. You can bet that I'd love to get paid
to work on this stuff, but I also understand that's unlikely to ever happen.
And sure, I could let other people work on these projects so I can instead go
off and have fun, but I believe that my background fills a particular niche
that would likely be left open if I didn't sacrifice my time and energy in
these pursuits.

Maybe it's the same with these PhD peeps. Each person believes that they're
essential to progress, and their principles prohibit them from abandoning
their self sacrifice in the pursuit thereof. I think I can understand the
frustration; perhaps someone really ought to give these selfless people some
money so, you know, they can make all of our lives better.

(In other words, I think "passionate (if not masochistic) altruism" might be
mistaken as "entitlement" here.)

~~~
visarga
> if I see it through the lense of someone who desperately wants to move the
> world forward and at any personal cost then I start to entertain the thought
> that, maybe, it's unfortunate that that some can't find jobs, and they're
> deserving of my sympathy

Maybe it would work if PHDs benefited from some kind of basic income, as long
as they dedicate their life to research or teaching. Tenure should not be the
only way to achieve the basic necessities for researchers. In the long run
society benefits from all the fundamental research being done, which would be
difficult to sponsor in the private domain, where immediate profits are most
valued.

------
nickff
Should universities not be held accountable for the fraud that they have
perpetrated on their students? The tobacco companies were taken to court
because their products had long-term consequences which they persistently
minimized, while continuing to push product; it seems universities have done
the same. If anything, the universities have better, clearer data than the
tobacco companies, and the universities have far more people with clear
understandings of both statistics and the observable consequences of getting a
PhD. Throwing away the last years of your life because of cancer doesn't seem
clearly worse than throwing away the best years of your life seeking a PhD.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
You should read the article more closely. It advocates _exactly_ holding
universities accountable, and in particular, holding universities accountable
for deliberately casualizing academic (ie: PhD-holding) labor by converting
tenured professorships into adjunct positions, even while expanding
enrollments and using the tuition money to hire more and more administrators.

It would be more accurate to say that universities are exploitative than that
the existence of a self-reproducing class of professional scientists is
irrational.

>But perhaps the best way to get answers is to talk to the parents of college
students, the ones footing the bill. Ask whether they’d rather pay that
ballooning college tuition for lazy rivers on campus, for fruit baskets and
housekeepers for executive staff, and for other rising non-classroom costs; or
for more top PhD talent, smaller classrooms, more one-on-one attention from
faculty, more independent studies and research opportunities with faculty, and
a stable faculty who won’t have to leave halfway through their student’s
college career. Then you’ll get a sense of the real, unmet demand for PhDs,
and the irrationality of a market that isn’t delivering.

~~~
nickff
I am making the case for lawsuits with billion dollar settlements or
judgements against universities, as well as ongoing concessions. The article
advocates what I would describe as 'half-measures', not actual penalties. Many
have proposed criminal charges against tobacco company executives, and I see
no reason that the university heads should be held to a lower standard.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
How can I contribute ;-)?

------
nnain
No. Reason:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

~~~
nnain
Hah, downvotes. I thought people would get that I was 'trying' to joke.

