

Why can't you find a job with a Stanford computer science Ph.D? (2013) - jgunaratne
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2013/09/23/why-cant-yo-find-a-job-with-a-stanford-computer-science-ph-d/

======
eob
One challenge with the PhD->CS Industry sidestep is that PhD candidates are
extremely picky about the kind of jobs they're willing to accept, and many
companies are suspicious of the value/cost ratio of a fresh PhD.

If you're a graduating PhD headed into academia, you will be the boss of your
group, with almost nothing above you in the org chart telling you what to do.
So it is natural for a PhD headed into industry to start from a place of
expecting the same---from their perspective.

But from the perspective of industry, the PhD's value isn't judged the same
way. They've just spent six years doing research, not shipping code. Their
management experience is managing students and classrooms, not employees.

So this mismatch results in a perception of "I'm being undervalued!" from the
perspective of the PhD and "He's overvaluing himself" from the perspective of
the company.

If the student and company don't have high social IQ to navigate this
situation, I can see how it would result in no offers being made.

Source: I've made hiring decisions about PhDs when I worked in industry, and
now I'm a graduating PhD student going back into industry, so I can see it
from both sides.

~~~
GuiA
> If you're a graduating PhD headed into academia, you will be the boss of
> your group, with almost nothing above you in the org chart telling you what
> to do.

Uhhh... what? Where did you get your PhD, and what did you do after? Most
graduating PhDs end up in a research group as postdocs, with everything above
them in the org chart. Even if you get a tenure track job right after
graduating, you'll still have to answer to a lot of people.

~~~
eob
This is dependent on what field you're in and where you graduate from, of
course. CS is less heavy on postdocs [1] and I'm biased by only having had the
experience of top-tier schools.

As a tenure track professor, you don't really answer to many people. You have
to beg for money (grants), constantly prove yourself (publications), and
always be recruiting (students). Of course you also have to teach classes, do
community service, and participate in department politics and initiatives. I'm
not counting these as "answering to people," however, because _none_ of them
involve someone telling you to do something. They're all activities you must
decide to do yourself, and then it's completely up to you how to do them. Is
this what you meant by answering to lots of people, or something else?

The relevant academic joke is: "It's the best job ever! You can do whatever
you want with your 80 hour weeks!"

[1] In CS, from my experience, postdocing is usually a 1-year "reset your
brain" time before taking an academic job. I know in other fields it's often a
mandatory many-year grunt-work experience.

~~~
GuiA
> Is this what you meant by answering to lots of people, or something else?

Yes, this is what I meant. I dropped out of my PhD (CS as well), but when I
was a student my advisor (who was still an assistant professor at the time)
was spending most of his waking hours in department meetings, writing grants,
finding a way to make $RANDOM_OLD_PROFESSOR happy, and so on. To me it seemed
very much like he had 10 million voices telling him what to do (of course he
got to choose what he would actually do and what he wouldn't, but it didn't
feel to me like he was much more "free" than he would have been in an industry
job).

------
lallysingh
I'm a PhD in industry, and interview many candidates. Their attitudes and
expectations are irrelevant to me. I only try to answer one question when
interviewing: can they actually program a computer to do something non-
trivial?

I've seen a lot of PhDs whose answer is "no." They didn't build that skill,
and they do poorly in interviews. They may have weaker skill than they did
before they started their research. All the other knowledge they have is
irrelevant if they can't express it in code for a computer to run.

It's not like there aren't a lot of CS PhDs in industry, they're usually just
quiet about it.

------
g42gregory
OK, here is the answer why he couldn't get a job. It makes sense to me. I am
quoting comment #6 from the original blog post:
[http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2013/09/23/why-cant-yo-
find-a...](http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2013/09/23/why-cant-yo-find-a-job-
with-a-stanford-computer-science-ph-d/)

BEGIN_QUOTE "...It’s worth noting that he has a CS PhD but his research was in
biomechanical simulation.

He then applied to a bunch of Product Management jobs without any industry
experience. Nothing about him suggests he’d be a better candidate for an entry
level spot than the typical BS-CS. The bit about 47k users is not really all
that relevant to anyone hiring for a PM position in the Valley. He’s
definitely nowhere near a live candidate for anything past an entry level
position.

Regarding programming jobs, he’s definitely not all that interesting a
candidate on either the data science or systems front. He should have been
able to get a job _somewhere_ but that would strictly be off potential as
opposed to anything relevant.

I’m not entirely clear on what he expected, given the skills he focused on
during his PhD.

For context: I also went to Stanford, did some biomechanics research and then
had to do a fair bit of resume rehab to be employable. Spent big portions of
the last 5+ years actively hiring engineers for various places I’ve worked.
I’m surprised it took him a year, but was less surprised when I read about the
jobs he went after..." END_QUOTE

~~~
mcv
I guess the root of the problem is a mismatch in expectations. The PhD thinks
his PhD puts him a notch above people with merely a Master's, therefore he
must be ready for management. The industry sees him as someone with talent,
but fresh out of university, with no industry experience. First get some
experience on how projects are run before you expect to manage them.

------
dm2
There is such thing as being over-qualified for many jobs. Just because you
have the degree doesn't mean you are skilled enough to warrant the type of pay
someone with a PhD would demand.

Social skills or management skills could be lacking, past work experience
could be lacking, the person might not be good at finding the jobs which are
obviously out there because programming skills are very desirable right now.

When applying for a job sometimes you have to sell yourself and make the
company know that you can provide value and won't slack off after being hired.
This isn't always easy, just a degree doesn't mean jack shit.

The education system is partially to blame. Spending almost 20 years at a desk
being "taught" (pushed through) doesn't seem like the most effective way to
prepare someone for life. People need experience and variety. Social skills,
organization, self-motivation, and loyalty are all skills that are extremely
important but are hard to learn in the current educational environment, at
least in my experience.

~~~
andyjdavis
Plus, simple like-ability is a huge factor. At least in organizations where
the people you would be working with or directly for are involved in the
selection process.

"Do I want to spend all day with this person?" is a completely valid question
when interviewing the person who will be at the desk next to yours all day,
every day.

That isn't to say that people with PhD's are any more or less likely than
anyone else :D just that there are numerous non-education related factors that
can factor heavily in hiring decisions.

------
nickm12
Why are we even discussing this?

I remember reading Chand's blog post when it was first written and found it
unbelievable. First of all, it doesn't even _try_ to find evidence of a so-
called "PhD-Industry Gap" beyond his own personal experience. This rehash,
written a few days later, doesn't try either. Is there any actual evidence for
the claim that industry doesn't want CS PhDs?

As someone with a CS PhD from a top school, my own anecdotal evidence is that
there are lots of companies, both established and startup, who are interested
in such people for programming positions. I'm with the professors and industry
veterans who found Chand's story incredible. Either he was extremely unlucky
or, more likely, there was something else going on with him personally that
turned off these companies.

~~~
aortega
Anecdotal evidence is useless.

The truth is, to learn any information about the usefullness of a PhD you need
a proper study following the life of a group of people with CS PhDs, and a
control group without CS PhDs. And then, what is "usefullness" anyway? net
worth? happiness?

My theory is that, like most professions, you are born a PhD. If you are not
one, then don't waste time getting it. You'll be miserable.

~~~
nickm12
I don't think anecdotal evidence or non-controlled studies are useless, but
they do have their limitations. In this case, though, the original article is
laughably bad. To quote:

"As a scientist, I had already been gathering data about that question. Each
time I was rejected from a job, I asked the companies for reasons."

From this "data" the conclusion was made that there exists some sort of
"Ph.D.-industry gap".

~~~
aortega
Heh. The conclusion should be "I have some sort of Ph.D.-industry gap"

------
rco8786
Everything about this article seems hand-wavy and just...wrong. I don't mean
to paint with a wide brush but as someone in "the industry"(and in SV) I have
to guess that there is something else at play here if someone with a Stanford
CS PhD really had this much trouble finding a job in 2014.

~~~
wavefunction
Very few folks in the industry want to hire a PhD because they are a)
expensive b) often know-it-alls with little practical experience churning out
boilerplate code which is the majority of positions.

Now, you can hate on my comment without realizing that I respect the work and
knowledge represented by such an achievement, but this is just real-talk from
15 years in the trenches. I have no college degree and am probably more
marketable simply due to my wide experience in various industries and
projects. That is sad but true and maybe indicative of the funked up system we
inhabit.

~~~
dm2
Everything you said is very true from what I've seen.

I would suggest against a PhD in CS right now unless you know exactly where
you want to work and that they require that kind of degree, or if you want to
be a teacher then a PhD is very valuable. I need stuff that works and fast,
not to re-invent the wheel by using outdated techniques your professors taught
you.

A masters degree is probably the best higher education in this field. For
programming it's all about ability, work-ethic, and long term relationships
with the company, because you are an investment as an employee.

I do consulting and have never had anyone ask me about a degree (I have a
degree in a completely unrelated field), I don't even give out a resume and
would not hesitate to tell a potential client to piss off just because of the
huge amount of work available for someone who can create value for a company.

~~~
aortega
>I need stuff that works and fast, not to re-invent the wheel by using
outdated techniques your professors taught you.

It seems you have a very wrong idea of what PhD training is. It isn't about
any outdated techniques, unless you call science outdated. PhDs is about doing
research and writing scientific articles and presentations documenting that
research. Everything else is a side effect.

~~~
nickonline
Except you've been studying this very narrow topic for 6 years and spending
all your time on it. Any technique you're using is most likely very
specialised to that topic or something you learnt in either masters or
undergrad.

Whereas someone in the industry has been developing their generalist skills
and keeping up with current technology.

~~~
sheepmullet
"Except you've been studying this very narrow topic for 6 years and spending
all your time on it. Any technique you're using is most likely very
specialised to that topic or something you learnt in either masters or
undergrad. Whereas someone in the industry has been developing their
generalist skills and keeping up with current technology."

True. Although if you can complete a phd at Stanford you almost certainly have
the ability and drive to get to senior developer level within a year or two in
industry. But when it comes down to it most companies don't hire for who you
will be or who you can become but for your current skills and abilities.

Which is ok, but don't then turn around and complain about a skills shortage.
And don't complain that employees have very little loyalty. And don't complain
when you have to pay $150-$300/hr for experienced developers with expertise in
your specific stack.

------
nyrulez
Sadly there is hardly any correlation between your PhD skills and interview
skills...once you get to the interview, all the previous stuff is out. Only
how you handle the interview matters. Not saying this is optimal, but thats
the brutal truth.

So if you go in thinking you will impress anyone with your credentials, you
will be humbled. Learning to interview in relevance to today's practices is
often skipped over - and people are stunned that their brilliance was not
recognized. If you spend 10+ years getting a top class education, might as
well spend an extra 6 months understanding the interview stuff too.

------
UberB
I think the problem with getting a PhD is that a) You spend so much time in
school that you'd expect a high position job the moment you apply and b) No
employer is going to give it to you because education != industry. Also in
Chand John's personal case, I get the feeling from reading his essay that he's
a little bit too arrogant and that this might have turned employers away. For
example:

"Imagine you’re a brand-new Porsche in 2011. You’re sitting in a dealership,
being test-driven by many enamored consumers but never purchased. Later you
hear that the 2011 Toyota Camry outsold the Lexus 1.5 to 1, the Cadillac 2 to
1, and the Porsche 10 to 1. You ask yourself: Was it worth being an
impressive, expensive car, if no one ever buys you?

That ironic situation is very real for many Ph.D.’s. I faced it myself after
getting my master’s and doctorate in computer science from Stanford
University, where I built software that revolutionized the study of human
movement, became an early expert and core developer of software featured in
Scientific American, and was one of four Ph.D.’s chosen from Stanford’s
engineering school for a research award.

...

It was like being a chameleon and trying to get jobs where you had to be red,
blue, or black. Yes, you’re capable of becoming any of those colors, but
companies would rather hire animals that already were those specific colors.
My unusual Ph.D.—in contrast to my professors’ beliefs—severely limited my
career options in industry, despite my software background and my Stanford
computer-science degrees (which are widely considered synonymous with wild
success in Silicon Valley’s tech scene).

...

So we have today’s employment climate. At one end, companies hire whoever can
get the job done, like consumers buying reliable, affordable sedans. At the
other end, universities, including deeply industry-savvy ones like Stanford,
pump out Ph.D.’s who, like luxury cars, are too specialized and expensive for
most employers."

------
pbreit
It's breathtaking how out of touch academia is with the real world job market.
No one is going to hire a Phd just to code. By getting a Phd you've basically
narrowed your potential job space down to literally a few dozen spots.

~~~
sjtrny
> By getting a Phd you've basically narrowed your potential job space down to
> literally a few dozen spots.

No you haven't. The job market is just as open. What I think you mean is
"PhD's want jobs which are rarely available".

~~~
matthewbauer
Or perhaps "academia prepares them for jobs which are rarely available?"

------
sreya
A better title would be, "Why can't you find a job you _want_ with a
___________ computer science PhD?"

You can most certainly find a programming job with a PhD. They're literally
everywhere

------
SHNM
tl:dr version - companies hire software developers to solve business problems,
not to write software. Most of the time, good enough is all is takes. You do
not need PhDs working on your corp software to get good enough.

I think that one of the main point here may be being lost.

Most of the arguments I read here argue the point from the programmer's
perspective.

What is the employer's perspective? They hold most of, if not, all the cards?
And the story is about employers not acting to tap a resource (this PhD) that
clearly should be valuable to them.

Businesses hire programmers to write software to solve business problems. In
most cases, these business problems are operational in nature - managing
information to run a process.

Writing software for software's sake is not the primary objective of most
businesses.

This means that most businesses are more than happy with good enough.

Systems do not have to be especially robust, they just have to be good enough
to run business operations.

In the case of companies like Google (whose primary business objective is to
sell ads so as to make money), the software is complicated because they way
they sell ads is complicated. The software has to be robust because it is used
by many users simultaneously, is run on multiple machines at the same time
(for many definitions of machine from Google Glass to phones to desktops to
tablets to Nest thermostats) and needs to be integrated across all of this in
a way that makes the whole much greater than the sum of its parts by many many
software developers (PhD. or not).

This need for a complex set of systems to function in a fast and reliable way
is the reason that coding quality is a key issue at play.

Software is the primary asset for these orgs that allows them to make money
and they manage it carefully and spend big money on it.

In hospitals, it is staff, equipment and drugs - that is where the money goes.

In schools, it is meant to be teachers (and kids) but we have that one wrong.

For most other businesses, there is some other asset that is key to success
and the money will always go there, not to software. Businesses typically make
the decision to have just good enough for software to run ops especially if
this software is running on in house systems for use by staff.

------
rgj
Imagine you're preparing for an interview with a guy who's applying for a
product management job and compares himself with a Porsche. You go to LinkedIn
and click the 'personal website' link.

[http://unusualinsights.com](http://unusualinsights.com)

~~~
copperx
I'm sorry, I'm missing the point.

------
endtime
I have a CS masters from Stanford. I work for Google, and other top tech
companies frequently make it clear they'd be happy to have me too. I don't
think finding out I had a PhD would cause any of them to change their minds.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
PhD student here. A legitimate, but seemingly snarky question: is your job at
Google something exciting, challenging, or is it more or less standard
engineering?

(From your reply I assume that you're a recent hire at Google with not much
prior work experience; I can easily imagine people with several years of
expertise _can_ do exciting stuff at Google.)

Being in my first year on my PhD, I have friends that have been recently
accepted to companies such as Google or Microsoft. Unfortunately, their work
there does not sound exciting to a person that has fun working on an
intellectual challenge (which I believe many PhDs do, but not only PhDs -- for
instance, people loving programming contests do so too).

To give a few examples:

* I've heard of a guy that was one of the smartest when it came to the programming contests; he ended up working for Google on the frontend of their site, I think.

* One of my friends got hired by Microsoft; his work is mostly developing code for Skype text servers. Soon he and his group will be given the task of porting it from C++ (a non-MS technology) into C#/Azure. That also doesn't sound very exciting.

* Another of my friends got hired by Google into a Site Reliability Engineer position. That might be challenging (and very stressful), but I expect more time-critical fixes than intellectual challanges.

\---

That's pretty much my reason for doing a PhD -- low pay, but challenging.

~~~
zo1
" __One of my friends got hired by Microsoft; his work is mostly developing
code for Skype text servers. Soon he and his group will be given the task of
porting it from C++ (a non-MS technology) into C# /Azure. That also doesn't
sound very exciting. _" "_That's pretty much my reason for doing a PhD -- low
pay, but challenging.*"

Be prepared to have your bubble burst, badly. Industry is hardly ever like
what you'd find "exciting", and even when it is, the odds aren't likely that
it'll be given to a "PHD" student, but rather the company favorite. i.e. The
person that plays politics better than you.

~~~
stephencanon
Wow, really?

I left a PhD program to go into industry. I get to work on way more
fascinating things in industry than I ever would have in academia. I also get
to work on lots of _different_ interesting things, rather than focusing
entirely in one narrow field. Generally, my advice to PhD students considering
working in industry is “if you’ve identified one specific problem that you
want to devote years to, then academia may be for you. If you want to have a
constant flow of challenging problems and don’t particularly care about
sticking to one narrow field, industry may be a better fit for you.”

My experience is that the incentives in industry are aligned so that it’s
nearly impossible to succeed without having broad interests that allow you to
have impact on multiple projects. Incentives in academia are aligned so that
it’s nearly impossible to succeed without being able to focus almost single-
mindedly on one specific area and churn out the publications; there isn’t much
time for exploration until you get tenure, at least.

Maybe I’ve just been lucky, though?

------
marc0
Keep it simple!

Moving from academics to industry can be difficult. My experience: several of
my applications were rejected even though I considered me as a perfect match.
I analyzed my resume and suspected, there was too much academical stuff in it.
I deleted most of my research work from the resume and kept only "down-to-
earth-stuff". Same strategy in the interviews. And voila, within no time got a
bunch of offers for really great industry jobs.

------
meshko
His article starts with "Imagine you are a brand new Porsche". When I
interview a person who thinks of himself as a brand new Porsche, no matter how
much I try to compensate for my knee-jerk reaction, i most likely raise the
bar significantly. If you come in with an attitude like that, you will have to
really cruise through the interview.

~~~
lallysingh
Well, it's more like "Imagine that you just finished working your ass off for
a half decade, and are finally looking to reap the rewards." It's a normal
human response to want to see a quick reward after having spent so much time
in research.

~~~
xerophtye
see "Imagine that you just finished working your ass off for a half decade,
and are finally looking to reap the rewards." suggests "I worked hard" vs
"imagine you are a porsche" exhibits "I am just way way better than the rest
of you".

The first statement is just about the guy himself and what he did. It does not
present a comparison. The second one comes off as arrogant

------
pacaro
When I see a resume that reads like a CV, heavy on publications, light on
experience, as an interviewer it gives me pause, because it will be harder for
the candidate to demonstrate the skill set that I need to see.

Harder but not impossible or unusual

~~~
xerophtye
I am a little confused, i thought the current industry placed projects >
places you have worked, hence the entire fuss about github profiles

------
kenjackson
Odd that he couldn't play up his open source code more. Grad school is a great
place to build up your portfolio of code.

~~~
roel_v
Nobody cares about open source code, unless it made you famous in some niche.

