
Why some PhDs are quitting academia for unconventional jobs - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-april-8-2018-1.4604763/from-professor-in-waiting-to-florist-why-some-phds-are-quitting-academia-for-unconventional-jobs-1.4604766
======
ronald_raygun
There is a joke I like that goes

A professor of mathematics noticed that his kitchen sink at his home leaked.
He called a plumber. The plumber came the next day and sealed a few screws,
and everything was working as before.

The professor was delighted. However, when the plumber gave him the bill a
minute later, he was shocked.

"This is one-third of my monthly salary!" he yelled.

Well, all the same he paid it and then the plumber said to him, "I understand
your position as a professor. Why don't you come to our company and apply for
a plumber position? You will earn three times as much as a professor. But
remember, when you apply, tell them that you completed only seven elementary
classes. They don't like educated people."

So it happened. The professor got a job as a plumber and his life
significantly improved. He just had to seal a screw or two occasionally, and
his salary went up significantly.

One day, the board of the plumbing company decided that every plumber had to
go to evening classes to complete the eighth grade. So, our professor had to
go there too. It just happened that the first class was math. The evening
teacher, to check students' knowledge, asked for a formula for the area of a
circle. The person asked was the professor. He jumped to the board, and then
he realized that he had forgotten the formula. He started to reason it, and he
filled the white board with integrals, differentials, and other advanced
formulas to conclude the result he forgot. As a result, he got "minus pi times
r square."

He didn't like the minus, so he started all over again. He got the minus
again. No matter how many times he tried, he always got a minus. He was
frustrated. He gave the class a frightened look and saw all the plumbers
whisper: "Switch the limits of the integral!!"

~~~
vowelless
Two mathematicians are in a bar. The first one says to the second that the
average person knows very little about basic mathematics. The second one
disagrees, and claims that most people can cope with a reasonable amount of
mathematics.

The first mathematician goes off to the washroom, and in his absence the
second calls over the waitress. He tells her that in a few minutes, after his
friend has returned, he will call her over and ask her a question. All she has
to do is answer “one third x cubed.”

She repeats “one thir — dex cue”?

He repeats, “one third x cubed”.

She asks, “one thir dex cubed?”

“Yes, that’s right,” he says.

So she agrees, and goes off mumbling to herself, “one thir dex cubed…”.

The first guy returns and the second proposes a bet to prove his point, that
most people do know something about basic mathematics. He says he will ask the
blonde waitress an integral, and the first laughingly agrees. The second man
calls over the waitress and asks “what is the integral of x squared?”.

The waitress says “one third x cubed” and whilst walking away, turns back and
says over her shoulder “plus a constant!”

[https://simonsingh.net/books/fermats-last-
theorem/mathematic...](https://simonsingh.net/books/fermats-last-
theorem/mathematical-and-scientific-joke-competition/)

------
awelkie
I think CS PhD programs in particular can be a little strange. I decided to go
back to school to pursue a CS PhD after chatting with a retired mathematician
about his PhD. He was talking about how he took classes for two years to
explore different areas of mathematics and to pass the general exams, then he
decided on a branch of mathematics (topology) and approached a professor in
that area to be his advisor. After working through a few textbooks together,
this person posed a question to his advisor, spent a few more years working to
answer the question, eventually answered it and published the result in his
dissertation.

This seemed to be what a PhD was all about, but it's not what I've
experienced. I've just completed the first year of grad school, and while the
classes have been interesting, the expectation is that you already have an
advisor when you arrive (or at the latest at the end of your first year) and
you hit the ground running pumping out papers. There seems to be little
opportunity to explore computer science as a whole or to work towards one
singular result. I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Peter Sarnak
about CS graduate education. He said that CS is in a weird spot between
traditional engineering disciplines and the liberal arts, and that the need
for grant funding causes departments to encourage students to work on whatever
projects the professors are leading. But even he seemed a little surprised
when I told him that our department's general exam is basically a presentation
on the research you've accomplished so far.

I think this is unfortunate. First, because it goes against what I wanted out
of a PhD. But also because it makes the PhD not much different than working in
industry. If in either case I have to write code for some boss and satisfy my
curiosities on the nights and weekends, why would I choose to do it for much
less money and worse career prospects? I imagine this is causing the best and
brightest to avoid academia in computer science, which seems bad for research
and technological progress in general.

~~~
chrisseaton
What you're describing as what you didn't expect is how PhDs were done
traditionally. It's the more recent US model to have classes and exams.

I posed a question to my advisor in order to get onto the PhD, started
researching immediately, and my 'general exam' half-way through was a
presentation and viva. Obviously the question changed totally by the time I
finished, but that's the nature of research and where it takes you.

I'm not sure why you'd expect to explore computer science as a whole on a PhD.
The point of a PhD is to become an expert in one part of the field and to push
it to expand what we know - not to gain general wide knowledge. I don't think
that was ever the idea - that's what a bachelors is for.

~~~
awelkie
I think it depends on the field. In mathematics I think the expectation is
that students need to study for a few years to even understand what the open
questions are, and only then can they begin the research.

I'm fully aware of what the point of a PhD is. I wasn't expecting to become a
generalist, but I was expecting some time to study some recent results and
come up with a tractable research proposal. Indeed, if the purpose of a PhD is
to expand the totality of human knowledge, why was it expected that I would
publish 3-4 conference papers to graduate? Wouldn't one significant result
have been enough?

~~~
gajjanag
> Indeed, if the purpose of a PhD is to expand the totality of human
> knowledge, why was it expected that I would publish 3-4 conference papers to
> graduate?

This is a question that bothers me quite a bit with respect to EECS
(electrical engineering and computer science). In mathematics, one's PhD
thesis can often serve as one's first paper (once revised). Funnily enough,
the same was true for EECS even at the top tier places in the 1980's - I know
of a case at Caltech where the student did not have any publications prior to
graduation, and yet went on to become a successful professor.

Is it really true that humanity is producing more knowledge in EECS today per
student than it was in the 1980's? I seriously doubt this. In my experience,
instead what has happened is that the average "delta" in a conference
proceeding has gone down significantly, in spite of the vast increase of words
like "novel" and "new" being used, and the ballooning of the average paper
length.

In mathematics on the other hand, top quality authors freely admit that a lot
of their work can be "implicitly" traced back to the "big names" of the past;
indeed this has to be done for conceptual and historical clarity.

I see that you mention Peter Sarnak in your top comment. Peter Sarnak has a a
wonderful article at the very end of "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics"
on his advice for students. Among other things, he stresses the importance of
the "history of ideas", and how it often brings clarity to an entire field.

~~~
sah2ed
Thanks for the pointer to Peter Sarnak's advice. I believe this is the history
of ideas advice you were referring to on pg 1008 (1031 in pdf):

 _When learning an area, one should combine reading modern treatments with a
study of the original papers, especially papers by the masters of our subject.
One of the troubles with recent accounts of certain topics is that they can
become too slick. As each new author finds cleverer proofs or treatments of a
theory, the treatment evolves toward the one that contains the “shortest
proofs.” Unfortunately, these are often in a form that causes the new student
to ponder, “How did anyone think of this?” By going back to the original
sources one can usually see the subject evolving naturally and understand how
it has reached its modern form. (There will remain those unexpected and
brilliant steps at which one can only marvel at the genius of the inventor,
but there are far fewer of these than you might think.)_

------
gww
A few of my colleagues with bio PhD's have started microbreweries with various
levels of success. They seem to be much happier than my colleagues and myself
who have chosen the post-doc route.

This is a bit of a tangent but it seems to be a common trend now among labs to
arrest trainees (particularly phd students and post-docs) in their positions
as long as possible. For example, the institute I am at has recently extended
the maximum assignment length for post-doctoral fellows to from 4 to 6 years.
I can see the PI's reasoning for this but it is incredibly demoralizing and
one of the contributing factors for a lot of people I know who have abandoned
their careers for unconventional jobs.

~~~
brightball
In my opinion, that’s what needs to happen. Thin out the ranks of professors
as they move to greener pastures in the workforce and eventually you’ll see
schools get in a position where they have to work harder to recruit. Better
pay, benefits, support, etc.

~~~
_delirium
That's pretty much happening in computer science in the US. Pay for CS faculty
members has been rising significantly faster than inflation, and faster than
other fields, although still not nearly as fast as in industry. A brain-drain
of people at all levels of seniority to high-paid tech jobs is a big part of
it, although increase in demand is another part of it (the number of incoming
freshmen declaring a CS major is exploding, driving lots of places to expand
their departments).

The same effects have also made long postdocs less common, and it's even
possible to jump directly to a tenure-track faculty job from a PhD with no
postdoc in between. Alternately, people seem to be doing a kind of "industry
postdoc". You get an industry job, but one that lets you publish (DeepMind,
Facebook Research, some startups, etc.), and after a year or two you either
find you like it and stay, or you use that as a springboard to apply for
faculty jobs, treating it as having been basically a high-paid postdoc.

Still plenty of stuff to complain about, but the job market looks _far_
different than in the natural sciences or humanities.

~~~
neuromantik8086
> Still plenty of stuff to complain about, but the job market looks far
> different than in the natural sciences or humanities.

Yup. Economics [0] and comp sci are basically the only doctoral programs worth
going into at this point (at least if you're an American citizen). You can
debate which one is _more_ worth it, but the fact is that if you're doing
anything else, you're in a for a world of pain.

[0] [http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-
ge...](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-
economics-phd.html?m=1)

~~~
TimonKnigge
Tangentially, the author now prefers applied mathematics to economics [0].

[0]
[https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1015988356184866817](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1015988356184866817)

------
chriskanan
A PhD is a degree in conducting research. Get one if you want a career in
research. If you don't like research, don't do a PhD. Any decent program pays
students about a $1.5-3K monthly stipend. Don't have being a professor as the
only acceptable end-goal.

There are lots of careers that benefit from or require a PhD besides being a
professor. People with STEM PhDs are found in great concentration in R&D
settings. For example, when I worked at NASA JPL probably about 50%+ of the
scientists had PhDs.

Outside of STEM activities, it can still be an enriching life experience. You
don't incur significant debt. It does have a high opportunity cost, if one's
undergraduate degree is lucrative. On the other hand, you get the privilege to
spend your time trying to create new knowledge.

Real PhD Issues (and Cons):

1) Research is hard and it requires a massive time investment to create new
knowledge, especially when just starting.

2) High levels of impostor syndrome. You will likely meet people much smarter
than you, and those that can work 80+ hours per week for years. If you fall
into the trap of comparing yourself to them, your mental health will suffer.
You have to just work toward solving your problems. As one old friend put it,
he felt like a genius when he worked as a software developer, but throughout
his PhD he felt like an underachiever.

3) Jealousy of your friends "getting their lives started" (kids, buying a
home, etc.). Very hard to have any work-life balance as a PhD student.

4) Don't expect to get rich after a PhD. Do it because you think a career in
research will be satisfying.

5) If you want to be a tenure-track professor running a lab, you have to be
very flexible with where you live. Being a professor is also very stressful.

6) If you want to teach in college, a PhD is required but the main thing a PhD
teaches is research -- not teaching.

7) Clearly assess your ability to get a professorship if you choose to do a
podstoc. There is little point in one unless a professorship is your end-goal.
Many don't realistically assess their competitiveness for professorships. I
wrote a blog post about this about 6 years ago (it needs updating):
[http://www.chriskanan.com/planning-for-life-after-your-
phd/](http://www.chriskanan.com/planning-for-life-after-your-phd/)

~~~
gowld
I thought the entire appeal of a "liberal arts" college was that the college
focuses on quality teaching instead of research. Why on earth would they
demand their profressors have PhDs?

~~~
privacypoller
Requiring a PhD to teach serves the same purpose as requiring a degree to
apply for a job: an arbitrary but easy to apply filter. While PhDs are
research-oriented, in reality you can end up in a research or pedagogy track
depending on (a) what you want and (b) how your research progresses.

------
ska
Just to offer a bit of a counter to much of the negative views here, I enjoyed
my Ph.D very much. I went into it with my eyes open, and realizing that an
academic career wasn't the only option that would work for me.

Through scholarships I was paid enough to be comfortable while spending my
time on interesting things. The scholarship game is a bit winner-take-all
though, and I know the minimum funding level in my department was less than
1/2 of what some of us were making, and that was in a STEM department - my
understanding is humanities are a very different thing. You have to decide
what is ok for you.

Afterwards I did a post-doc and then a research position. Through a national
fellowship (post-doc) and funding guarantees (faculty) I knew I would be able
to make something like the low end of what my industry salary would be - and
easily chose the academic freedom at least for a few years.

When I was on the academic market, I didn't find a tenure track position I
felt was the right fit. Rather than play the waiting game some of my
colleagues were doing, and I realized that "any R1 that will take you" wasn't
going to make me happy. So I chose to turn down the offers and go to industry.
That's also had it's ups and downs.

I guess my point is there where many steps along that path I took a good look
at my options and chose to stay. Sure, I could have made a bit more money in
some industries, but there are other considerations. I've never worked with a
more talented or motivated group of people than I did during graduate and
post-doc work. I've never had the time since to just dig into an interesting
problem or really swing for the fences. I'm sure it cost me a bit in terms of
lifetime earnings, but it's a trade-off I'd make again in a heartbeat. I'm
sure I would have been happy teaching somewhere if the parameters had been
slightly different, but I'm ok with that too.

What I really don't understand is people who are somehow shocked to find
themselves in the position, many years in, of making less than they think
their time is worth and without the career prospects they had hoped for, and
bitterly complain about it as if someone else made the decisions that put them
there.

Graduate programs absolutely aren't for everyone. They are, however, a unique
opportunity - if the good parts really appeal to you and the financials etc.
make sense for you, by all means do it. Just don't expect it to be something
it isn't.

~~~
newen
Same here. The academic freedom that I had during my PhD combined with the
intellectually stimulating environment, I cannot find anywhere else. Also most
of my current close friends I made during my PhD.

~~~
ddavis
I'm nearing the end of my PhD in physics and I feel the same way. I've really
enjoyed it and I'm absolutely OK not pursuing an academic career. I'm starting
to lay out my plan for applying for jobs in industry - and I won't be applying
for anything with "physicist" in the job title. I got to work on fun and
interesting projects while having the freedom to learn other things that were
interesting and enjoyable to me. I've also made amazing friends along the way.

------
luizfzs
I have a master's degree and I learned early that getting a PhD was not for
me. The way things worked at the university made me not stand to be in that
environment anymore. This thing that is ridiculous in my opinion is that the
advisor would say: "there is this conference coming and we will send a
manuscript. We can try this and that to see if it is publishable.". Why the
hell should I research for publishing? One should get the results AND THEN
publish it.

The experience with academia was very toxic, although I know people who have
experienced worse than that, with addition to advisors' ego disputes affecting
grad students.

~~~
1996
Most of academia is toxic. Those who don't see that haven't spent enough time
in it.

I believe things can't go well in general in any area where money comes from
organized begging ("proposals", "apply for funding"), driven by reputation
("publications", "impact factor") and where the bad eggs can't even be fired
("tenure")

~~~
neuromantik8086
> driver by reputation ("publications", "impact factor") and where the bad
> eggs can't even be fired ("tenure")

From personal experience, I've always felt as though the existence of "rock
star" academics always gave academia a Hollywood-like feel in terms of
systemic abuse and candidly bizarre and maladaptive behaviors on the part of
researchers.

~~~
1996
At least Hollywood has tabloids to keep things reasonable!

~~~
neuromantik8086
Academia does _have_ Retraction Watch [0]. Unfortunately/fortunately, it
operates outside the system.

[0] [https://retractionwatch.com/](https://retractionwatch.com/)

------
geoalchimista
Because most modern PhD factories are sweat shops that offer a rather dismal
career prospect. (If you've been through the process --- I suspect there are a
lot on HN --- you know what I mean.)

~~~
cageface
I bailed out three years into a chemistry PhD and my only regret is that I
started it at all.

I'm not saying that going to graduate school is necessarily a mistake but I
think a lot of people go because they've done well in school up to that point
and aren't sure what else to do with themselves.

~~~
Kalium
When I was an undergrad, there was a PhD candidate who advised me to go to
grad school for exactly this reason. He told me it was years I could spend
avoiding having to find a job.

~~~
privacypoller
Same here. I encountered a lot of students, especially international, who were
in grad school because it was a socially acceptable alternative to going home
and getting a job.

------
fencepost
I'm positive the same thing happens in the US - grad students spend some time
teaching courses and see up-close just what it's like for adjunct faculty
(which is all a lot of them will ever be able to get to). In a lot of states
they also hear about just how bad things are for public school system
teachers. I suspect that they also understand that part of the private school
system is management/investors that feel that those protesting public school
teachers have it _too good,_ so teaching is basically going to be what they do
between their gig economy jobs shopping for groceries for delivery companies.

Also, [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/college-level-
mathematics](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/college-level-mathematics)

------
spamizbad
Genuinely shocked that graduate programs remain stuffed to the gills.

You live off a meager stipend for about a decade and then, in your mid-30s,
you go on the job market for the first time. Unless you're somehow in the top
0.1% of your field, you're probably going to be fighting for a tenure-track
positions at any institution that will take you. Big dreams of teaching in the
Pacific Northwest? Too bad, the only place that wants you is a state school in
the middle-of-nowhere Arkansas. Once you start, you're now going to spend the
next 4 years grinding and busting your ass to make sure you actually _get_
tenure.

Meanwhile your peers are well established in their careers, have families,
making 2-3x as much as you.

But they don't get to be Dr. So-and-so, so there's that.

~~~
chrisseaton
Not this anti-PhD negative nonsense again! It doesn't ring true to me at all.

> You live off a meager stipend for about a decade

I paid a mortgage, supported a family, and built savings while doing my PhD
with no issue.

> and then, in your mid-30s, you go on the job market for the first time.

You don't appear on the job market like a newbie. By the time you graduate you
should already be well-known enough in your field that you have a reputation,
a track-record and several good options. My first job after my PhD was
building my own team in industry. It's not like starting a new-grad job.

> Unless you're somehow in the top 0.1% of your field

If you're not in the top 0.1% of your field you shouldn't be doing a PhD in
the first place.

> you're probably going to be fighting for a tenure-track positions at any
> institution that will take you

Why do you assume everyone wants to be in academia? I'm not even sure a
majority go into a PhD wanting that. I never did.

> Meanwhile your peers are well established in their careers

Working on a PhD is establishing yourself in your career. But with 1-1
mentorship and a lot of time and space to grow, work with a lot of different
people, travel to meet the important people in the field, learn to talk and
present your ideas. It's the best way to establish your career that there is.

> have families

You can build a family while doing a PhD just fine. I did. Do you think they
bad PhD students from dating or something?

I wasn't even a particularly good PhD student, or at a particularly
prestigious institution, and I managed these things.

~~~
raziel2701
Where did you go to school that you were able to pay a mortgage and have a
family while doing your phd? I'm paying a wee bit more than half my monthly
salary on rent alone. Am in Bay Area though.

~~~
thebooktocome
> Am in Bay Area though.

That's the problem. The housing market isn't literally insane in the whole
country.

~~~
Fomite
This. One of my graduate students just bought a house here, because the
housing market isn't utterly disconnected from reality. Could they afford to
live in the Bay Area? No.

Can _I_ afford to live in the Bay Area? Also no.

------
1996
Not the same thing- I dropped out of because lack of money, because the work
environment providing the funding let me go, because I called them out for
doing things that broke the law and were morally very wrong.

I didn't even bother to claim the alternative diploma I had the credits for.

Now I work with finance and blockchain people, and it's a saner and more
honest world. Crazy, I know!

~~~
neuromantik8086
> Now I work with finance and blockchain people, and it's a saner and more
> honest world. Crazy, I know!

You're not alone:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12807488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12807488)

~~~
1996
Being in the free market is very freeing!

------
DoubleGlazing
My best mate has a PhD in naval architecture. He now runs a small chandler
business. Still boat related, but in no way mentally or academically
challenging.

He spent seven years getting his PhD at a Russell group UK university. He did
the work in two, but because he was being used by his university as a cheap
lecturer/researcher/marker/invigilator it meant his work was stretched out
much longer than it should have been. On one occasion the university's IT
systems automatically locked him out of everything - his email, network
logins, swipe cards etc because it was a assumed a PhD student would be all
finished up after four years. Getting the PhD burned him out, so he took a
year off considering his options. He was found by a company in the US that did
research for the US Coastguard and Navy. They promised him an easy research
job in Norfolk, VA. When he got there he found a company on its death bed and
they completely failed to appreciate the complicated citizenship requirements
to work on government research projects. So after three months he was out of a
job and getting ready to head back to the UK, but he met someone, and they
dated for a bit. She had a bit of money put aside and basically set him up
with a chandlery business with him as an employee to satisfy visa
requirements.

He's in a much happier place now, and earning more than he would as an actual
naval architect.

Basically the PhD did him more harm than good.

------
ptero
I am one of those who chose a "conventional" job (which I guess means
industry) after getting a PhD in math. IMO there is usually nothing tragic
with leaving academia for either "conventional" or "unconventional" jobs.
There are pros and cons to each choice. People's interests change. I loved
(most of) my time in grad school but do not regret choosing a non-academic
career.

IMO the _bad_ part is that when you are on a research track leaving academia
is seen as a non-redeemable loser move by most professors and is a one-way
street. This leads to folks staying on academia path for years after their
heart is no longer in it for fear of making an irreversible change. Just a
data point.

------
rsinmtl
The main subject in this story was pursuing a PhD in "Women's Studies". Not to
disparage that field of study, but it's quite obvious that it is a pretty
useless degree that limits you to a career as a Women's Studies professor. I
don't think this is a good illustration of people who leave PhD programs

~~~
gowld
"Women's Studies" opens doors to a career as an author or a political
activist. Like other PhDs, it prepares to have an impact on the world via the
field of study. It's not a likely _financially lucrative_ career, but it's not
a _useless_ one.

~~~
Chris2048
Who's hiring authors/political activists, but refusing to hire non-PhDs?

------
tlb
The idea, assumed throughout this story, that PhDs are wasted if they don't go
into teaching is a very strange idea. It made sense in monasteries, whence
schools took many ideas, but it shouldn't be the goal of modern universities.

Rather, you should consider PhDs that end up teaching as the overhead of the
educational system, and the ones that go into industry or research labs as the
valuable output.

------
username_123
I feel like PhDs in Computer Science should have better job prospects outside
of Academia. Some jobs, like "research scientist", require PhDs. Look at
companies like Lyft that are currently hiring "Research Scientist" (e.g.
[https://www.lyft.com/jobs/4014499002](https://www.lyft.com/jobs/4014499002))
where they require a M.S.or PhD.

~~~
booleandilemma
I wonder if interviewers still ask you to do fizz buzz when you have a PhD?

~~~
throwaway080383
They do (source: personal experience).

~~~
electricslpnsld
For a research position? In my experience (on my third position now) Research
Scientist interviews in industry tend to mirror academic interviews. 60-90
minute job talk in front of the research group, 5 or 6 hour long one-on-ones
with members of of the research group. No mention of fizz buzz in any of these
interviews, and I've interviewed at Facebook, Adobe, etc.

------
shiado
I find articles such as this one to be absolutely fascinating. It seems that
people like those in this article appear to be trying to gentrify what is
mostly unskilled labour, adding some sort of intellectual doublethink that
they pulled off from the chip on their shoulder which comes from not
fulfilling their path to become a certified academic intellectual. Based on
the title of 'owner' of these ventures I am quite curious how they financed
these businesses.

Ultimately I think articles like these fail to highlight the strange mindset
required to turn what was a defeat, and even possibly a likely scam based on
the way most universities operate, into some sort positive outcome where they
reclassify what was once a boring menial job into one injected with some
supposed millennial intellectualism.

~~~
notfromhere
Quitting academia to join the blue collar workforce has been a trope for a
loooong time

------
forkandwait
I gotmy PhD because grad school was more fun than a real job, and I made about
40,000 a year because I can program. The prospect of being a junior professor
at a middling university gives me nightmares (think about the faculty
meetings...), so now I am analyst / programmer in government.

------
DrBazza
In England, particularly the south-east, the gulf between a post-doc salary
and _starting_ a City/Wall Street job can easily be a factor of 3 or 4.

~~~
alexgmcm
Also the cost of living makes being a PhD student in London almost untenable -
I started in Edinburgh before mastering out and at least there one could live
pretty well on the stipend.

------
efficax
I quit a phd in philosophy to be a lousy full-stack web-magician. Dunno which
was better, but at least I can afford a nice meal these days.

------
shoguning
Interesting to see people picking up on this trend. Just saw on linkedin a
former PhD classmate of mine who is now a wine harvester.

~~~
izzydata
Somehow I read that has Harvey Weinstein and was very confused for a few
moments.

~~~
neuromantik8086
Probably not far from the truth (see comment above; URL:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594196](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594196)).

------
neuromantik8086
Just as a PSA for anyone considering quitting academia who happens to be on
this thread, here are some good posts about how to do that:

[http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/05/16/why-social-science-
grad...](http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/05/16/why-social-science-grad-
students-would-make-great-product-managers/)

[http://www.paullitvak.com/faq-for-academic-social-
scientists...](http://www.paullitvak.com/faq-for-academic-social-scientists-
interested-in-tech/)

------
asafira
I am a little late to reply, but I wanted to anyway from my experience as a
Harvard physics PhD that is choosing to leave academia:

Many PhD programs are their own bubble, and many students don't seriously
consider outside opportunities because of it. I honestly do not believe many
of the students would be there if they had more exposure to basically anything
outside of research, and more students would also consider other opportunities
earlier if there was more exposure or a better connection. I really wish
internships were better embraced by physics PhD's, but the current competitive
culture combined with disagreeable professors makes it not encouraged. (Not to
mention the fact that a 3 month internship is a drop in a bucket for a 6+ year
PhD)

Otherwise, it is great to hear this person decided to leave their PhD program
and found happiness (regardless of what she is doing). One thing I tell people
who aren't sure about what they want to do post-graduation (e.g. most physics
PhD's), or even if they aren't a good fit for the group they are in: if you
took an entire month off from your PhD to make that decision would you regret
it? I personally believe in almost all cases you wouldn't.

Strangely, many students seem to either default to a postdoc or put a half-
assed effort towards finding an industry job.

------
dwheeler
For most people, getting a PhD is a bad idea. The odds that all that time and
effort will pay back is small in most fields. Of course, it depends on the
field and what you plan to do with it. I have a PhD in computing, and I'm glad
I do. But it is definitely not for everyone.

------
wufufufu
Just want to share my friend's experience as someone who dropped out of a MIT
graduate program to be a SWE:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYX9MuWy4cE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYX9MuWy4cE)

~~~
HelloFellowDevs
Hope he gets a gig, a MIT Grad degree doesn't hurt his chances either. Went
through the other videos on his channel and that qualifying exam problem set
was tough imo.

------
curlcntr
My company has a tuition assistance program that allowed me to complete an MS
and PhD, while working full-time. Took 10 years. Loved it!

And, it wasn't just the money that helped, it was also that they supported
continuing education.

------
gtmitchell
As a PhD dropout myself, I understand entirely the decision of these students
to distance themselves from what were obviously negative experiences for them.

Unlike those listed in this article, I actually ended up staying in my field
of study for work, but psychologically it has been very difficult. When I'm
confronted with situations that reminded of what could have been if I had
finished my degree, I sincerely wish I could find a new career like these
people, so different from my current one that I could finally leave behind
those feelings of failure and inadequacy that grad school left me with.

~~~
jimmies
Hey, I just graduated with a Ph.D. degree and I feel the same way you do. The
process did leave a lot of scars in my mind. I just can't imagine how hard it
is for you to not have received a degree.

------
sjg007
I miss grad school... I was terrible at it in the traditional sense but I
enjoy thinking about research problems. I'm not very good at academia though.
All sorts of PTSD and the like. I think it was due to an ever encompassing
fear of failure and going back to trying to solve word math problems... But I
enjoyed the creativity of thinking about questions that could potentially be
solved with the combo of certain tools already available. Even now I can see a
whole host of interesting things to research and pursue.

------
arminiusreturns
I worked for a world-class geneticist who had spent 25 years in academia who
left for the private sector.

Word of warning though, his first venture/partner tried to screw him royally
which ended up in a long and expensive court battle, which was a hard lesson
to learn before he split and started it by himself. I helped him get off the
ground infrastructure wise and last I heard they were doing great business.

I love working for smart people. If you pay attention you learn so much, to
the point that I would readily join another PhD led team.

------
syntaxing
I have a masters in Mechanical Engineering and I always wanted to get a PhD.
But it's unfortunate that it makes no financial sense. I make a meager
(relative compared to full wage) 25K to 30K for about 5 years (and this is on
the high side!). When I finish school and decide not to go the academic route,
I make maybe a little more than my counter parts that have been working for 5
years...Also, I find anecdotally that people with a MSc has a higher
probability of management roles compared to PhD.

~~~
scythe
If your goal is to go into management, you probably don't love the subject
enough to do a PhD.

------
binbag
This sounds very obvious, but everyone I know who dropped out of their PhD
wasn't cut out for doing one. If you are feeling guilty about reading more
papers, you shouldn't be doing a doctoral degree.

On the other hand, when you're a post-doc I totally agree that there is more
to life than the 'big fish in a small pond' world of academia. There is
something particularly annoying about the academic environment - some
combination of ego and insecurity.

Also, the pay is shit.

~~~
asafira
Why did people feel guilty to read papers?

Seems like a strange reason to drop out.

I know many more people who dropped out because of poor management than those
that didn't seem to be good at it.

~~~
jccalhoun
Agreed. I don't think anyone ever drops out because they feel guilty for
reading too much.

------
mcv
A friend was working on his PhD in Artificial Intelligent, and had already
published a paper about some interesting properties of genetic algorithms,
when he was diagnosed with pretty severe RSI.

For a while he tried to work with speech recognition, but eventually he
dropped out and become a security guard in shops. The walking around was good
exercise, and he liked meeting people.

After about 7 years as a security guard, he got back into programming.

------
anonytrary
There are more people who want to get PhDs than there are academic positions
in universities.

------
milesvp
Obligatory link to phd comics [http://phdcomics.com](http://phdcomics.com)

For those who don't know, he started this comic to warn people off from PhDs.
The irony, is he gets a lot of emails thanking him because the comic
encouraged them to get theirs...

~~~
monksy
I had to stop reading that because of how accurate it was.

------
rdlecler1
I wish we’d move to a 3 year PhD program now that you have 5-10 year postdocs
if you even have a career in you’re field at all.

~~~
anonytrary
Three years is not nearly enough time to finish PhD thesis work as an
experimental physicist. Even if the goalpost was lowered for a PhD, a three
year PhD program in physics would just be a glorified masters degree.

Plus, if it's even easier to get PhDs, we'll just end up with even more people
having PhDs and the status associated with the PhD will be even lower. PhDs
are becoming relatively commonplace, and the vast majority of them are not in
academia because either there's no space for them, or they're simply not good
enough.

Meeting someone with a PhD is no longer surprising. It's not "wow, you must be
a renowned researcher" anymore, it's "wow, you were able to do lots of
grueling work for 30k a year, and now you're in industry doing what everyone
else is doing".

~~~
barry-cotter
The University of Cambridge disagrees with you. You arrive with a Bachelor’s
or a Master’s, start immediately on research and should be done in three or
four years.

[https://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/degreesoffered...](https://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/degreesoffered/phdinphysics)

~~~
anonytrary
A single cherry-picked university in the UK may disagree, but what I said is
generally true for American universities. When I was a grad student in
physics, everyone pretty much took 5-6 years at minimum; this was true for
every single grad school I got in to.

I've heard that universities across the pond have different tracks for grad
students, so that might be responsible for the discrepancy.

~~~
barry-cotter
That university is ranked as 21st in the world on the ranking least favourable
to it and in the top ten globally on all others. Its system of graduate
education is comparable to other U.K. universities, like Manchester, Imperial,
Edinburgh or Durham. You are expected to get a doctorate in three or four
years, you generally start research immediately but there are exceptions that
will have taught courses and you need a great Bachelor’s or a good Master’s to
be admitted.

The only real difference between the British system and that in mainland
Europe is that you will find it difficult to impossible to get onto a doctoral
programme without a Master’s. You’ll still be expected to finish within at
absolute most four years and to start researching from the word go.

As far as different tracks for graduate students go, same as in the US. North
Florida State and Harvard both award doctorates, ditto for Anglia Ruskin and
Cambridge.

~~~
anonytrary
In the US, it is different. You get into grad school with a strong bachelors
and are expected to get your masters on the way to your PhD. Some people come
in with masters, but the vast majority from the US are applying right after
their 4 year bachelors and are expected to take graduate-level physics courses
and rotate with groups for 1-2 years before starting their thesis work.

> mainland Europe is that you will find it difficult to impossible to get onto
> a doctoral programme without a Master’s

Not true in the US at all. It is very rare for a student to finish in 3-4
years _here in the US_ unless they are absolutely stellar.

------
j7ake
Most PhD students do not end up being professors. Not everybody who works at a
firm is expected to rise to be CEO or partner.

------
whatever1
Just do a word search in this topic for the word "money".

------
captain_perl
Why?

Because they're trust-fund babies?

Where does a post-grad get enough cash to start a cafe?

------
bitwize
The first thing I thought of when I saw that photo of Cory Jansson was Peter
Gibbons at his first worksite, glad to be in the sunshine and out of the rat
race. Fuckin' A, man.

------
tiatia123
It is an extraordinary risky decision to do a PhD (maybe except in CS). I have
seen the best ones fail career-wise.

Excellent blog post about it:
[https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2018/06/14/losing-the-
nobel-...](https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2018/06/14/losing-the-nobel-prize-
on-careers-in-science/)

Quote:

"My take-away from the careers aspect of the book is that if you (1) love
competition, (2) have a huge appetite for risk, (3) don’t mind working long
hours for a minimum of 27 years until getting that first grant, and (4) are
mostly indifferent to money, pursuing a physics PhD and an academic job might
be a reasonable plan. You’ll get to work with a lot of smart people, for sure,
but, as the book notes, quite of few of them may be planning to stab you in
the back when it comes time to assign credit for a Nobel-worthy discovery. It
is not like most other fields of human endeavor where there is room for
everyone to excel in his or her own way."

------
slowandlow
I blame cultural marxism and the liberalization of our schools.

------
indoorfish
Hey I dropped out of grad school too!

