
The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists - jseliger
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/
======
Xcelerate
I am surprised that so many people are relating PhD's to the money you'll
make. I hear (very frequently) that "the amount of time you spend doing your
PhD will put you far behind the 4 years of having a job" or "if you want to
get rich, go into ...", or "management is where all the money is; you need an
MBA for that".

Uh... I'm doing a PhD because I like scientific research and can't stand the
thought of being a process engineer. If I'm going to spend 8 hours a day
working on something for the rest of my life, it better be something I enjoy!
While it is possible to do R&D with a bachelor's degree, your chances of being
able to do exactly the kind of research you want goes up significantly with a
PhD, plus you've already had the experience of doing it for 4 years.

Also, I'm not sure where this "not much money" concept comes from anyway. I'll
start at an engineering salary, right out of grad school. I guess that's not
"Hacker News wealthy", but that's plenty more than I need to even live
comfortably!

~~~
javert
_your chances of being able to do exactly the kind of research you want goes
up significantly with a PhD, plus you've already had the experience of doing
it for 4 years._

I'm not so sure that's a valid generalization.

I'm getting a PhD in computer science, but any corporate R&D department I know
of that would hire a fresh graduate would only let you do R in service of
their particular D needs, i.e., you have too little autonomy.

I definitely think I can find jobs that I love and that are lucrative (I have
some in mind), but I won't be doing research as, say, a tenured professor
would define it.

~~~
aheilbut
I'm not even sure that all tenured professors are doing research as they would
define it.

~~~
lutorm
Absolutely not. Look at the publication record of any tenured professor at a
non R1 university and you'll typically find that it's dropped to almost nil.

~~~
javert
True, I really just meant "at R1 universities." Which isn't fair to all those
other tenured professors at non-R1 universities (and I may possibly even be
one, someday).

Of course, I have heard of R1 tenured professors who claim to spend 50% of
their effort procuring funding (though I think 10% is a much more
representative estimate).

~~~
aheilbut
Also, the research that people are writing grants for and doing is dictated by
what is fundable, which is not necessarily exactly what they'd choose to be
doing were there no constraints.

~~~
javert
I know tenured professors who don't apply for grants, and therefore don't have
any money to pay students, but they still get paid a salary by the department.
They can do whatever they want (research, or not), modulo teaching
responsibilities. Some profs actually do very good research, without students.
It's a reasonable way to go, once you have tenure.

Problem is, you can't take that route to get tenure in the first place, unless
you're an absolute genius.

~~~
mbreese
Most places are redefining tenure though, so the only people that still have
_any_ meaningful resources are those that have extramural funding. Anymore,
tenure means you get a closet for an office and a phone. And for new hires, if
you don't have grant support, even with tenure, you can still lose your job.

------
xmattus
The missing half of this article is the failure on the part of academic
departments to even acknowledge this problem publicly in their recruitment
process.

I was an astrophysics Ph.D student at a fairly well-known program until last
year when I left with an M.S. to go full time for the web development shop I
started. It was a good decision on my part, for sure, but what really struck
me is that after I broke the news to my advisor, he was quite open with me
about how poor the job market is (not that I wasn't already aware). He and
many other faculty members in the department sung a very different tune to me
and my classmates during the recruitment process, as did my undergraduate
mentors. This is an endemic problem throughout astronomy (at least) and
probably many other disciplines in the physical sciences as well.

Even the students often seem to have a sort of Stockholm syndrome about the
problem. I still hear from lots of my former classmates that a.) they're well
aware of the extreme shortage of jobs in astronomy, b.) they're not seriously
expecting to get an academic job and are aware that there are virtually no
non-academic jobs doing astronomy and c.) they'll figure out how to get a job
"in industry" (i.e. what the rest of us call "having a job") when they finish.

Many students in these programs seen to labor under the assumption that if
academia doesn't pan out, their programming skills or quantitative knowledge
will make them good candidates for a software or finance job. This is not
really as true as they think, since as most HN readers are aware, good
developer jobs entail knowing about a lot more than just a programming
language, and the sort of programming and quantitative analysis you do in Ph.D
research is really pretty far from what those of us in the private sector do
with our programming skills.

Nonetheless, a lot of these same classmates would go full-out with their
encouragement of prospective students when they came to visit. In my last year
at grad school, I remember going on a long rant at the prospectives about how
bad an idea a Ph.D in astrophysics is, and the looks of horror on my
classmates' faces.

~~~
djt
I agree deeply. After I chose not to do a PhD I was told all the downsides
from everyone. Before that it was all Roses to try and get me to do my PhD
with everyone.

------
jseliger
This goes well with Philip Greenspun's "Women in Science:"
<http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>, though I don't think
his argument about medical school is a good one.

(See my view on the perils and opportunity costs of med school here:
[http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-
beco...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-
nurse-or-physicians-assistant-instead-of-a-doctor-the-underrated-perils-of-
medical-school/) ; Greenspun hosted this:
[http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/why-i-gave-up-
practicing...](http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/why-i-gave-up-practicing-
medicine) in 2011.)

------
csharpminor
There's certainly a big misconception (in the U.S. and elsewhere)that study
and research produces innovations and innovators. However, academia really
fosters a type of conservative innovation. You pick your battles, apply for
grants that you think you can win (and hope for the best).

For the most part, you don't swing for the fences. You learn how to integrate
yourself into a certain type of system, and you hang on until you graduate.
You operate in the zone where the marginal return on labor is usually
miniscule.

In my opinion, Academia is pretty poor at fostering and developing any type of
disruptive innovation. This kind of innovation is generally what makes
headlines and gets funding.

Disclaimer: I am by no means the first person to have this thought. Here's a
blog post from Forbes:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2012/04/19/innovato...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2012/04/19/innovators-
dna-hal-gregersen-interview/)

------
PeterisP
Two points not made here:

1) It's quite common to study for PhD while getting paid for it instead of
paying for it - and in that case, it should be treted as a fun and enriching
(though not very high paying) job for a couple of years instead of "delaying 4
years". Getting into a huge debt for it is a whole different thing, though.

2) It feels that this problem is partly USA-specific. Sure, other places may
have noticed similar tendencies but not as sharply; and science is very, very
global - I'm seeing a lot of great researchers moving between
countries/universities every 5-6 years based on where the major research
projects in their area are happening & funded.

In general, a solution would be to try to decouple research from teaching
instead of mixing them all under PhD/professor positions - the future tendency
seems to be with much less people needed in teaching (due to changes in
society, student funding/loan systems, MOOC's, etc) and thus more PhD's
shifting towards research.

~~~
Evbn
Opportunity cost. PhD stipends pay less than unskilled labor, after you
subtract "tuition"

~~~
malloc47
If you consider the sheer number of hours I tend to spend on my dissertation
work compared to the stipend I get, I'm paid criminally less than minimum
wage. But you're not given the leeway to focus "exclusively" on a single
research contribution in a focused manner in other higher-paying options.

Even if you're not taking out a loan in the monetary sense, you're taking out
a loan from your long term earnings, one that has little chance of being
repaid, to put your mental assets/skills to a non-remunerable task, and get a
certification that you did so. The problem is that the option to continue
doing this (tenure-track academic jobs) are limited and (naturally) highly
contested.

However, you make a good point--there's an underlying and insidious
opportunity cost that is often unknowingly sacrificed: that of atrophying
skill sets. It's easy for a PhD to be a hugely insular experience, if you let
it, and if you take the easy way out and don't stretch your engineering skills
(speaking in terms of CS here, since that's what I know), you're in for a rude
awakening if you determine that academia is not for you. If you're not
careful, you'll get good at writing papers, but might actually get /worse/ at
writing portable, readable, and maintainable code. And as brilliant as your
papers may be, if you can't ship good code, you're going to have trouble in
industry.

The good thing, again at least for CS students like me, is that the "fun and
enriching" environment of academia means a lot of opportunity for starting
companies, creating libraries/frameworks, working on side projects, and doing
contract work, so there's no reason you have to atrophy. Which is something
that, sadly, the visions of the tenure-track academic job are engineered to
beat out of you.

~~~
tomrod
> If you consider the sheer number of hours I tend to spend on my dissertation
> work compared to the stipend I get, I'm paid criminally less than minimum
> wage.

That may be so. Are you familiar with the concept of a wage being equivalent
to the marginal product of labor (or value of last hour worked)? :).

I'm with you. I'm working on my dissertation at the moment.

------
zeteo
It will no doubt be shocking news to Mr. Weissmann to find out that factors
such as a desire to learn more or to make new contributions to human knowledge
can motivate aspiring PhD candidates. It's also rather ironic to see such
analyses promoted by someone who chose a career in the notoriously
unprofitable field of journalism.

~~~
jseliger
_It will no doubt be shocking news to Mr. Weissmann to find out that factors
such as a desire to learn more or to make new contributions to human knowledge
can motivate aspiring PhD candidates._

"A desire to learn" and "Make new contributions to human knowledge" are
laudable goals that I admire. But, even leaving aside the important question
of whether grad school _as it is currently structured_ is a good way of
pursuing either, it's hard to make new contributions to human knowledge when
you're having trouble making enough money to support yourself, and it's
frustrating to see your new contribution made when your buddy is working for
Google and writing software that millions of people use every day—and getting
paid well for it.

It seems not unreasonable to me to balance life / career goals with learning
and wealth. The opportunity costs of grad school are incredibly steep. If you
are the rare person who doesn't care _at all_ about material possessions or
the physical quality of life, then by all means go to grad school. But if you
go expecting a tenure-track job at the end—which most people seem to—then
you're making a mistake. I am not at all opposed to someone who simply says,
"I don't care _at all_ about income."

~~~
zeteo
I've been to graduate school and disagree with your comment about expecting a
tenure-track job. When you get to know them, PhD students are not poor deluded
souls slaving away in the misguided expectation of a plush, secure position at
the end. They are rather intelligent, motivated individuals, who choose to
work on projects that are more interesting/important than optimal ad placement
or crafty financial swaps, and who are prepared to sacrifice some Caribbean
cruises and latest model cars in return.

~~~
jseliger
_I've been to graduate school and disagree with your comment about expecting a
tenure-track job. When you get to know them, PhD students are not poor deluded
souls slaving away in the misguided expectation of a plush, secure position at
the end._

I have too (see here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/what-you-
should-kno...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-
before-you-start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-
opportunity-costs/) for some comments, mostly job-related), and I think most
grad students—at least during the first half of their experience—do think
they'll be the exception.

 _They are rather intelligent, motivated individuals, who choose to work on
projects that are more interesting/important than optimal ad placement or
crafty financial swaps, and who are prepared to sacrifice some Caribbean
cruises and latest model cars in return._

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Most seem to be pointlessly delaying
adulthood. Note that there are exceptions.

Without data the rest of this discussion might be pointless, but the
prevalence of articles warning against PhDs seems to me to point in an
important direction.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Ah, right, because doing anything financially sub-optimal is _delaying
adulthood_.

~~~
jseliger
Can you cite a sentence in which I said that?

------
jurassic
Awareness of the opportunity cost and likely outcomes has been hitting me hard
lately as I consider dropping out of my top-5 science (not CS) program 2 years
in. I've gotten to a comfortable place with python/numpy/matplotlib and am
wondering how hard it would be to break into web development as somebody who
has only programmed in a scientific setting. Besides Python, I also know
enough R and statistics to build linear regression models, do significance
testing, make pretty plots with ggplot2, and other things you learn in a first
year grad data analysis class.

Those of you in the gallery: Have you or somebody you know successfully made
the transition from (non-computer) science into a tech career? In the current
economy, what are the chances you'd hire a highly motivated science dropout
with programming competence and basic stats knowledge? Would something like
Dev Bootcamp be worthwhile for somebody like me?

I hate buzzwords like "data scientist", but I think that might be my best
angle. What I'd really like is to apprentice in a Django shop, or possibly
wear a little of both hats as a dev and a "data scientist".

~~~
timr
_"Have you or somebody you know successfully made the transition from (non-
computer) science into a tech career? In the current economy, what are the
chances you'd hire a highly motivated science dropout with programming
competence and basic stats knowledge?"_

I did it, have worked with others who have done it, and would now hire people
who did. The important part is your ability to program. There are tons of PhD
students (even in CS), who can't (or won't) write code. There are even more
who write horrible, unmaintainable code. You have to be better than those
folks.

Also, do not be deceived by "data science": it's mostly a bullshit term, and
translates roughly to _"programmer who knows basic statistics"_ , rather than
_"scientist who knows some programming"_. Nobody wants to hire you if you
can't implement your theories in a production context.

The bottom line is that if you're a good coder, nobody cares how you wasted
your youth.

~~~
begurken
_Also, do not be deceived by "data science": it's mostly a bullshit term, and
translates roughly to "programmer who knows basic statistics"_

This is utter rubbish; I really wish people would keep quiet about things they
know nothing about. I suggest that you have never actually discussed a domain
with a data scientist if you think it's "basic statistics".

In our dev. shop, we have a lot of great programmers, but none of them can
touch our data scientist when it comes to working out what our tens of
millions of users are actually doing and what their salient attributes are.

As for the data scientist needing to 'implement their theories', that's what
the developers are for. The data scientist does the analysis, then works with
the developers to implement systems that incorporate the results. Neither
group is capable of the other's work.

~~~
timr
_"I suggest that you have never actually discussed a domain with a data
scientist if you think it's 'basic statistics'."_

Utter rubbish, perhaps. But since I've actually done the job, I do happen to
know something about the subject. It's a marketing term, not a term of art.

The vast majority of "data science" performed at web companies boils down to
knowledge of summary statistics and probability theory, a smattering of basic
statistical models, and (most importantly) the ability to write code. There's
not much that would challenge an advanced undergraduate, let alone a doctoral-
level statistician.

------
confluence
The problem here is merely a misunderstanding of career statistics. The
statistics for success in academia are thoroughly against any one Ph.D. The
competition is too high, the rewards are too low, and the competitors are too
desperate. This is not a place where you wish to compete - unless you have
some kind of overwhelming advantage - aka really, really brilliant - you know
who you are.

For everyone else - look straight at industry - where the competition is a
hell of a lot lower, the salaries much higher, and the competition is really
not that bright. If you are getting a Ph.D - and you know you're not a genius
- be looking at getting a cushy engineering job at a large firm.

The benefits are great, the salaries are great, the job security is great and
you can always jump back into academia. It's also the closest analogue to
academia as you'll get, next to research labs.

Don't ever compete on the same terms as the people around you. Don't play a
game where you will lose - a game where you are probably outclassed. Go look
to where you can charge monopoly pricing and extract as much as you possibly
can.

Competing for limited resources is a losers game - hell, competition SUCKS
BALLS (just ask any Chinese manufacturers you know :) - monopoly is where it's
at (just ask AAPL/GOOG/MSFT/TSLA).

Separately - people should go out and learn some basic statistics,
microeconomics (macro is pretty fucking useless), game theory and psychology.
These will help you to avoid getting stuck in what can appropriately be called
real life versions of the "Hunger Games"
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games>).

Reminds me of Tony Hsieh talking about poker strategies, and the conclusion of
the movie WarGames:

 _> Through reading poker books and practicing by playing, I spent a lot of
time learning about the best strategy to play once I was actually sitting down
at a table. My big "ah-ha!" moment came when I finally learned that the game
started even before I sat down in a seat.

In a poker room at a casino, there are usually many different choices of
tables. Each table has different stakes, different players, and different
dynamics that change as the players come and go, and as players get excited,
upset, or tired.

I learned that the most important decision I could make was which table to sit
at. This included knowing when to change tables. I learned from a book that an
experienced player can make ten times as much money sitting at a table with
nine mediocre players who are tired and have a lot of chips compared with
sitting at a table with nine really good players who are focused and don't
have that many chips in front of them.

In business, one of the most important decisions for an entrepreneur or a CEO
to make is what business to be in. It doesn't matter how flawlessly a business
is executed if it's the wrong business or if it's in too small a market.

Imagine if you were the most efficient manufacturer of seven-fingered gloves.
You offer the best selection, the best service, and the best prices for seven-
fingered gloves--but if there isn't a big enough market for what you sell, you
won't get very far.

Or, if you decide to start a business that competes directly against really
experienced competitors such as Wal-Mart by playing the same game they play
(for example, trying to sell the same goods at lower prices), then chances are
that you will go out of business.

In a poker room, I could only choose which table I wanted to sit at. But in
business, I realized that I didn't have to sit at an existing table. I could
define my own, or make the one that I was already at even bigger. (Or, just
like in a poker room, I could always choose to change tables.)

I realized that, whatever the vision was for any business, there was always a
bigger vision that could make the table bigger._

Source: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hsieh/tony-hsieh-
zappos-c...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hsieh/tony-hsieh-zappos-ceo-
del_b_589543.html)

 _> Instead, Falken and David direct the computer to play tic-tac-toe against
itself. This results in a long string of draws, forcing the computer to learn
the concept of futility. Joshua obtains the missile code but before launching,
it cycles through all the nuclear war scenarios it has devised, finding they
too all result in stalemates. The computer concludes that nuclear warfare is
"a strange game"; having discovered the concept of Mutually Assured
Destruction ("WINNER: NONE"), therefore "the only winning move is not to
play."_

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames>

In summary:

Competition is M.A.D.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction>), the only winning
move is not to play!

And long live monopoly!

~~~
zissou
Couldn't agree more! I'm an economics Ph.D. dropout who focused primarily on
microeconomics and game theory (because like you said, current macro theory
[see: DSGE] is completely bogus) and I think your points about finding
monopolies is a great one. I left my Ph.D. early because it was a losing game
as I wanted to be learning more computer science since it was a necessary
skill to obtain in addition to a microeconomic/econometric education to master
the "data science"-esk skills I wanted to in order to ensure I properly
aligned myself for the future.

Although I haven't made the move to industry yet, I did recently get myself a
nice little research gig doing big data work in a lab at one of those
universities in Cambridge.

~~~
fnbr
Hey, I'm an undergrad considering a phd in Econ. Could I email you some
questions about your experience?

I'd also love to hear about the big data work that you do.

------
kyllo
As far as desirable traits, a job can be: 1\. Interesting 2\. Secure 3\.
Lucrative

You get to pick two at most, and that's if you're lucky--most people only get
to pick one, or none.

Jobs in academia are certainly no exception to this rule.

~~~
malandrew
OT, but I find it amazing that the triangle of desirable traits applies in so
many places. There's the obvious "faster, cheaper, better. pick any two" and
yesterday I heard another one "sane, smart and beautiful, pick two", which I'm
sure has a corollary like "handsome, sensitive and rich, pick two". It's as if
Brook's "no silver bullet" can be applied to just about everything our life
(or it's just that easy to pick three desirable traits that are often mutually
exclusive of one another)

~~~
javert
That "amazing triangle" idea is just nonsense.

For example, computers have gotten faster, better, AND cheaper over time.

There definitely are women who are sane, smart, and beautiful. Are you kidding
me? Just walk around any research university where they're doing graduate-
level research and you will see lots of them.

As for the other gender triangle, pg is definitely handsome, sensitive and
rich, so there's your disproof.

The "no silver bullet" thing is talking about something totally different. And
it's an observation specific to software engineering (or, possibly, other
specific domains, considered individually). There is a silver bullet for
vaccinating against polio, but not for classroom teaching techniques.

~~~
huherto
The point that breaks the triangle(rectangle?) is if you add whether or not
she is interested on you.

~~~
ssw1n
Add this point before yours: whether or not she is taken already.

If you find a smart, sane and beautiful woman doing graduate research, it is
highly probable that she is already married or planning for marriage with her
boyfriend/partner as soon as she is out of school. (Well, this is from my
experiences in Science and Engineering departments. Might be different for
other fields.)

------
geebee
One thing this article leaves out is the sky high attrition rates in PhD
programs. The grim statistics presented are for the people who actually
finish. Overall attrition rates for PhDs in engineering, the best of the
bunch, are about 35%. It only gets worse for science and humanities. Keep in
mind that attrition rates for elite law or medical schools are generally less
than one half of one percent. So it is no exaggeration to say people fail out
of elite PhD programs at roughly 100 times the rate for elite professional
schools.

It does frustrate me to watch congress base public policy on the notion of a
shortage of scientists and engineers when the evidence clearly does not
support that assertion.

~~~
prewett
I'm not sure that all of them fail out. When I got my masters, the prevailing
wisdom seemed to be that you had a better chance of being accepted if you
applied for a Ph.D. and then quit with a Masters, which is what I did. Also,
many of the other posters here decided that the job prospects were terrible
and quit.

~~~
geebee
You are right that "mastering out" is not the same thing as failing out, so I
may be overcounting here. Universities do also use the trick of admitting
aspiring PhD students as MS students first, so that it doesn't affect their
numbers when they fail to enter the doctoral program later. So there is also a
possibility of undercounting as well.

I need to think a little more about this, but you're certainly correct in
pointing out that it is more complicated that what I wrote - especially in
engineering or CS, where an MS makes sense as a terminal degree goal.

------
suyash
The article fails to compare Computer Science PhD's who are in high demand and
job openings for them far exceed the supply of CS PhD grads.

~~~
acadien
According to the American Physical Society the same is true for Physics PhDs.
Sure we're tiny relative to the life sciences, but we've got 4% unemployment
one year after graduation (data from 2010, 2012 isn't available yet).

<http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf>

I'm extremely wary of this guy's data part of which come from his "own
calculations". Bleh.

------
hexonexxon
Canada is handing out citizenship for anybody with a Ph.D right now, so are a
lot of other countries. If you don't want to move write books or self publish
ebooks, or write articles for industry journals or mailing lists and watch
offers come in. This is what a girl I know with a doctorate in anthropology
did: write endless articles for some academic publication, she had a job offer
in Israel after the first few months because another graduate somewhere was
doing research into what she was writing about.

~~~
btilly
That's an exaggeration for Canada.

As <http://www.workpermit.com/canada/points_calculator.htm> says, a PhD is +25
points and you need 67 to get in. It helps a lot, but far from a guarantee.

~~~
zzleeper
Not even that.. "A two-year university degree at the Bachelor's level AND at
least 14 years of full-time study = 20 points"

So just doing a bachelor's will give you 80% of the PhD points..

------
ssawyer06
I can only speak to electrical engineering and computer science since that's
my field. I've been in the working world for 7 years, and here's what I've
found...

First of all, I don't know any good engineers who are unemployed, regardless
of their level of EE/CS degree. If you have an EE/CS degree, and you're having
trouble securing a paycheck, this might not be the field for you. Sorry.

That said, if "getting a job" is your goal, a BS is all you need. A 5-year
BS/MS program is a great deal if your school offers it. Otherwise, I'd look
for a job with tuition benefits. I was able to get a Master's part-time at
night, and it was completely paid for by my first employer. In my experience,
an MS is definitely worth getting, as it will give you a slight salary
increase, possibly a better job title, and is probably just expected at good
companies.

A PhD in engineering is for teaching or being a research engineer (i.e. at a
government/corporate lab or a university). I honestly believe you should only
get an engineering PhD if you think (1) you're really smart, and (2) you can
study at a top-tier university. If you're not an elite engineer, I don't see
the point of a PhD. Work experience will look better on a resume than a thesis
with an advisor no one's heard of. And a research job won't pay more, but it
will require a bigger brain.

------
druiid
I'm wondering if this same graph can be applied to non-PhD track students,
meaning people coming out of STEM programs with a Bachelors, or are you
basically getting nothing by even bothering coming out of STEM without a
PhD/Masters?

------
cinfinity
"Employment at graduation" is not a particularly meaningful metric, because
STEM PhDs who are not employed at graduation usually just means that they
haven't gotten a post-doc. They will take a few months and find a job in the
tech industry.

~~~
mdda
In addition : The end-date of a PhD is indeterminate (at least in the UK),
since one doesn't know for sure whether the thesis defense will require any
re-writing, etc. So it's difficult to have a job fixed up completely on the
day the magic letter arrives.

------
xijuan
Reading the article and then reading the comments. I start to feel very
confused. Do we need a huge debate about this? Some of us just want a higher
degree and we just want to go to graduate school to do research. For me, I
also love the people I have met in graduate school. It may turn out to a wrong
decision? But we will never know that because we could not go back and re-make
those decisions. Even if somehow one day I knew for certain that going to grad
school was a wrong decision, so what? It was something I wanted to try and I
tried it. I think I would regret more if I didn't try something I really
wanted...

------
Osmium
The article is written from an American perspective where PhDs (5? 6? years)
are typically several years longer than, say, in Britain (where they're 3/4
years). So, a question: do you think it's possible to have the best of both
worlds? Do a shorter PhD for the intellectual benefit without sacrificing too
much opportunity cost in industry?

I've chosen to do a PhD because I enjoy research and it gives me the time to
learn a host of other skills too. I should have just turned 25 when I finish,
all going well, with a whole bunch of stuff to add to my CV (not just papers,
but the more intangible stuff too--going from a shy undergrad to someone who
can present at international conferences, foster collaborations between
different groups at different institutions, program relatively competently,
use very delicate/expensive equipment responsibly etc.) Though it feels worth
it to me it's also difficult to get perspective from "within" the PhD, so I'm
asking anyone reading this from a more objective point of view: do you think
it's all worth it? Or would it have been better to go into industry at the end
of my undergrad? Obviously it varies from person to person, but I'm just
trying to get a sense for where other people stand on this.

~~~
sijk
I'm doing a PhD in NZ (also 3-4y). It's nice to hear someone who has similar
reasons to mine for doing a PhD. Like you, I'm hoping to get the best of both
worlds.

For me, my (engineering) PhD is a chance to take on an entire project. I get
to do system-level design, hardware, software, signal processing, user
interface, the lot. The thought of spending four years in a job at the bottom
of the ladder doing small, well-defined tasks that my manager told me to do
didn't really appeal. Instead I get to manage a project, make real decisions,
and learn to deal with the consequences of those decisions. I'm not doing it
for the sake of any opportunities that _having_ a PhD might bring so much as
the opportunities presented by _actually doing_ the PhD.

------
hakaaaaak
In Computer Science, at least, outside of teaching, a Ph.D and a masters for
that matter is required for only a small percentage of positions, and here's
some evidence:
[http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=%22computer+science%22+and...](http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=%22computer+science%22+and+%22Ph.D%22%2C+%22computer+science%22+and+%22masters%22%2C+%22computer+science%22+and+%22degree%22&l=)

Relative graph to assure you that the dip at the end is just due to less data
collected recently:
[http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=%22computer+science%22+and...](http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=%22computer+science%22+and+%22Ph.D%22%2C+%22computer+science%22+and+%22masters%22%2C+%22computer+science%22+and+%22degree%22&l=&relative=1)

I have only would have wanted to apply for one position in my life so far that
required a Ph.D, and that company did not end up doing well. I also managed a
Ph.D before (from China) and, in my opinion, he was no more productive than
others on the team that had neither Masters or Ph.D. That doesn't prove
anything, I know. But, although I have a lot of respect for education, I don't
think it is worth it typically.

------
fbeeper
IMHO this numbers must be compared with employment rates of people who haven't
got into a PhD. We may discover a similar (or even more significant) downfall.
I think that it is not an awful market specifically for young scientists, its
an awful market for everybody.

------
insaneirish
Most jobs, even technical ones, truly do not require a Ph. D. This is just the
market sorting things out. Why have zero (or negative) income to get post
baccalaureate education if you can go work somewhere (for money) and learn on
the job?

~~~
hyperbovine
Physical and intellectual freedom are worth more to me than money.

~~~
scarmig
Who's more likely to have physical and intellectual freedom:

1) A recent PhD with $40,000 to his name

2) A Google engineer who graduated from undergrad at the same time and has
$400,000 to her name

~~~
hyperbovine
The answer is 1), but anyways:

1) Most engineers do not work at Google, and 2) I have plenty of friends who
do/did, and, guess what?: They still write code all day! Most of which does
not do neat things like drive cars, but rather: increases AdWord click-through
rates! Or: manages address book contacts. Fun!

I don't care how much free pizza and foosball you offer me, nothing can match
the freedom of pursuing my own interests.

~~~
amirmansour
Could not have said it better myself.

------
Create
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813519>

practicing what was called "the mushroom theory of management." It was an old
expression, used in many other corners of corporate America. The Eclipse
Group's managers defined it as follows: "Put 'em in the dark, feed 'em shit,
and watch 'em grow."

"For everyone else - look straight at industry"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_management>

