

If you're not going to become a professor, then why bother pursuing a Ph.D.? - Firebrand
http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir-epilogue.htm

======
ef4
"my six years of Ph.D. training have made me wiser, savvier, grittier, and
more steely, focused, creative, eloquent, perceptive, and professionally
effective than I was as a fresh college graduate"

This statement is essentially a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Anything that _didn't_ leave you wiser after six years would be a pretty
terrible way to spend time. Heck, simply being alive for six years probably
makes you somewhat wiser.

~~~
pgbovine
yikes -- i never meant for anyone to read the epilogue without context (or see
it posted standalone to HN). the rest of the book talks about how i cultivated
all of those traits throughout the past six years.

also, that's sort of why i had the parenthetical following that statement ...

(Two obvious caveats: Not every Ph.D. student received these benefits—many
grew jaded and burned-out from their struggles. Also, lots of people cultivate
these positive traits without going through a Ph.D. program.)

~~~
jboggan
I gained all of these above qualities by working for 6 years, becoming jaded
and burnt out, leaving the PhD program, and then finally repurposing myself.
Other than the projects you specifically worked on and the papers you
published what can you say the greatest advantage over someone in my situation
would be?

I understand the grind as a tool for personal sharpening better than a
successful graduate would because it is all I have to take from the experience
- no plaudits, no social or familial approval, no resume bullet (rather more
like a gaping resume maw, depending upon the attitude of the person reading
it).

~~~
beambot
_"What can you say the greatest advantage over someone in my situation would
be?"_

I can't speak directly for pgbovine, but I had a similar experience as in his
book (finished fall 2011). I also can't compare to your situation since I
don't know you. But I share pgbovine's sentiment: The PhD wasn't necessarily
fun, but it was personally fulfilling. It also left me with a deep sense of
accomplishment and appreciation for "just how far the rabbit hole goes." I
often describe research as: 80% banging head against a wall, 10% cursing, 10%
progress.

Some of my recent work is more akin to "engineering consulting." I've found
this job to be vastly different from research -- implementing solutions that
are mostly-known rather than exploring uncharted territory. It's probably
closer to 30% banging head on a wall and 70% progress, without any cursing
(and saner hours with better pay). YMMV.

------
pgbovine
wow didn't expect to see this on here, especially with that particular post
title!

just to provide some context, this page is the epilogue of a ~100-page memoir
of my Ph.D. experiences [1], so parts of it might not make any sense as a
standalone article.

[1] <http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir.htm>

~~~
befon
This is less related to the current thread but along the book you have not
mentioned any deep social relations created during those years. Was that
intentionally dropped or there were none because of the load? do you have any
recommendations on the subject?

~~~
pgbovine
great question -- i should add a book FAQ soon. yes, i focused the book
exclusively on research and not on my personal life. (also note that i didn't
talk about classes, teaching, qualifying exams, or other non-research things)

------
ryanjmo
So, I have a Ph.D. and I always ask myself why I got it, because now I just
build websites.

Basically, what I feel like I got most out of it, was that it was a good life,
that I ended up really enjoying. I did theory and I felt like my professors
let us kind-of do whatever we want. We got paid enough money to live and I had
a lot of time to enjoy my hobbies. I learned to play tennis and surf (I went
to school in LA). But I would figure things out and work when I was inspired.

That is pretty much how I live now and it is still great!

~~~
throwaway1979
Heh ... I have one too. I spent pretty much all my time trying to graduate.
With the exception of my first year ... now that was fun!

Some days I feel a bit demented. I was certainly sharpened but the experience
feels a bit like opening Pandora's box. Anyone else feel like that?

------
bfrs
_"Defaults aren't usually in the best interests of those on the bottom (e.g.,
Ph.D. students), so it's important to know when to reject them and to ask for
something different. Of course, there's no nefarious conspiracy against
students; the defaults are just naturally set up to benefit those in power."_

That is very reminiscent of Nietzsche.

Also worth reading, when it comes to the question of to do or to not to do a
PhD is: <http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>

~~~
mjb
That Greenspun essay makes me angry every time I read it. The kind of
clubhouse mentality of "we don't invite girls to our club because they
wouldn't be stupid enough to join our dumb club anyway" is nothing but thinly
veiled paternalism. He makes a good point about pay, but the way he frames it
as a paternalistic pat on the head to women is insulting, at best.

~~~
anothermachine
You should rebut Greenspun's arguments, not slander him by words in quotes and
pretending they paraphrase what he wrote.

How is this paternalistic or uninviting to women?

> A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as
> become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and
> keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American
> Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be
> surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads
> against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year
> post-doc job?

------
tibbon
In most (all?) science fields, without a PhD you're stuck pretty close to the
bottom. Its impossible to be anything much above lab tech/lab manager without
a PhD in biological sciences. Some people want to work in the private sector
for pharma companies for example...

~~~
ktizo
You can just go off and do some damn good scientific work and then publish.
You don't really need permission to do science, if what you are doing is good
work. The college environment just gives you time and space and environment in
which to do that and a social cover for your interests. The only major
downside to just looking into things in your own time is that many people seem
to find it an extremely odd thing for someone to do, unless they are doing it
within the confines of a suitably sanctioned institution.

~~~
infinite8s
Well, you do have the problem in most science fields (except the theoretical
sciences) where it costs a lot of money to run experiments, so it's not just
something you can do in your kitchen.

~~~
kanzure
> Well, you do have the problem in most science fields (except the theoretical
> sciences) where it costs a lot of money to run experiments, so it's not just
> something you can do in your kitchen.

Are you certain? See <http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio/FAQ/News>

~~~
janardanyri
This is very cool. I love to see the general trend of bigger and more
expensive science being bucked here.

In general, though, we're still chasing the long tail of knowledge. Nobody's
going to build a cutting-edge particle collider, space probe, or Inca ruin in
their spare time.

Arguably microbiology is a lot more like computer science than other
experimental sciences economically, at least in certain respects; for example,
once you've got something interesting, you can probably execute a fairly cheap
reproductive process and get a whole bunch more of it. (Well, this is cheap
compared to reproducing a particle collider, at least.)

Fun to think about.

~~~
infinite8s
That's true, but when you start talking about reproduceable science instead of
just tinkering, you need to be very careful about contamination,
repeatability, etc. This is very difficult to achieve without expensive lab
equipment (although part of that expense is due to economies of scale - if
everyone started buying centrifuges and gram scales, maybe they wouldn't cost
thousands of dollars).

------
mjb
I have a PhD, and left grad school directly after graduating because I had no
real interest in pursuing a career in either research or teaching. I also
joined an industry that is only peripherally related to the field I studied,
and don't use much of the knowledge I gained on a day-to-day basis. However, I
don't regret doing the PhD, and would recommend a similar path to people in
the same position as me.

Like the author, I learned a great deal during the years of my (European-
style, not American-style) program. I learned how to explain complex ideas to
experts and laymen alike. I learned how to present data to make a compelling
argument, both in text and in graphics. I learned how to read complex
technical writing and extract the author's point. I learned how to ask a
series of questions that got to the core of a complex matter. There are all
soft skills - but I have found that the complement the set of skills that I
got from the subsequent years in industry very well.

I also had three years to meet and talk to some extremely smart people, which
has helped me in several big ways and many small ways in the years since I
graduated. Maybe the biggest reason I don't regret doing a PhD was that I got
to spend two years gratifying my intellectual curiosity about a topic that I
was really interested in. Few people get such an opportunity, and for those
who enjoy that kind of thing it's an opportunity not to be missed.

~~~
otoburb
It took you only two years to get your PhD?! I thought the average duration is
around 4-6 years. Congrats!

~~~
elemeno
It's not too uncommon, I think, that the first two years of a PhD program
award you a masters and then another two years (on average) to get your PhD.

IIRC, there are a few types of Masters like an MPhil which are pretty much
labels that you were in a PhD program but didn't finish your PhD.

------
anusinha
This article is long and makes a lot of good points about things that you can
gain from receiving doctorate. It sort of obscures one point that I think is
the most important thing.

You learn an incredible amount about what you're studying and what you're
interested in, and an academic environment is where some people learn best.

~~~
tensor
Regarding your last comment, "an academic environment is where some people
learn best", I would put forth that an academic environment is useful for
_all_ people.

There are very few environments in the world that give you the kind of access
to information that an academic environment gives you. Being a graduate
student at a major university gives you access to nearly every journal article
in the world, numerous domain experts, and advanced labs for the physical
sciences. There are few to no industry jobs that provide this level of
information access to someone right out of undergrad.

That said, graduate school is not for everyone. If your goal is to learn, and
learn how to learn, then graduate school might be for you. If your goal is to
make money, or learn enough to make money or produce popular apps, then
graduate school may not be appropriate.

It's also the case that for some areas, like computer science, there is an
increasing amount of free resources that one can make use of outside of
graduate school. Many journal articles are free, and one can always buy and
read through textbooks outside of school.

~~~
_delirium
On the latter point, many public university libraries also allow anyone to
come in and read books, download journal articles, sometimes even ILL.

The main question in CS, imo, outside of certain capital-intensive areas
(robotics, HPC), is learning styles. Do you learn better taking formal
courses, having a supervisor oversee your project, having formal evaluation
milestones (quals, proposal, thesis, defense)? Some people do, some don't.

I do think the process of doing research and thinking of your goal in terms of
"research contribution" rather than "product" is valuable for many
intelligent/curious people. I'm less sure (despite being an academic myself)
that the formal academia route is the best way for everyone, though. Imo the
most valuable part of academia is the interaction with a research community in
an area that interests you: work on a project, collaborate with some people,
submit papers to conferences, get reviewer feedback, revise things, present
papers, chat at the conference banquet, get inspired with new problems or
ideas, etc., etc. You don't strictly have to be an academic to do any of that,
especially in CS, although a large proportion of people who do are. Some of it
is just culture I think: I think a lot of people outside academia who could
submit interesting conference papers just don't even have that possibility on
their horizon as something they could do, or would want to do.

~~~
tensor
These are all good points that I generally agree with. It is also the case,
however, that experiences do vary. For example, my supervisor was hands off to
the point where I had to largely fend for myself. The quals and proposals were
more things that got in the way of research rather than helped. This was the
case so much that I ended up doing my proposals long after research was
underway.

The thesis and defence is useful in the same way that publications are.
However, even there, if you get a bad committee with political or personal
axes to grind, it can be very much not that helpful. My experiences with
publications are the same. I've had good rejections that help me improve the
work as well as several bad rejections (from conferences where you cannot
respond) where the reviewer simply did not understand the research.

In short, for some people a PhD is very hands on rather than overly formal.

------
simonbrown
> Imagine how disconcerting it would be if medical or law school graduates
> couldn't get jobs as doctors or lawyers, respectively.

The latter happens.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grace-nasri/law-schools-
feel-t...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grace-nasri/law-schools-feel-the-
heat_b_1297823.html)

I'm not sure about the US but the former happens in the UK:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9274753/Up-
to-1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9274753/Up-to-1000-new-
doctors-could-face-unemployment.html)

Perhaps not to the same extent, though.

~~~
cageface
In fact it's become quite difficult to land a job as a recent law graduate if
you didn't go to a first-tier school, at least in the U.S.

There's a huge glut of unemployed lawyers, most of whom racked up a lot of
debt getting their degrees.

~~~
sciurus
Yep, and many of the schools provide horribly misleading statistics about
their graduates' careers.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewanted=all)

------
apdinin
I got my PhD in English so when there's an emergency and someone yells: "Is
anyone a doctor!?!?!" I can reply: "I am!" And then I start reciting one of
John Donne's Holy Sonnets. (Bonus points for anyone who can guess which one.)

~~~
gruseom
Batter my heart, three-person'd God?

~~~
apdinin
Solid guess... but the answers the judges were looking for were either "What
is Holy Sonnet X?" or "What is Death Be Not Proud?"

But I'll give the points anyway for bothering to answer.

~~~
gruseom
Gargh. That was my first guess and then I changed it.

(They are the only two I've heard of.)

------
gatlin
Environment. Working to contribute to human knowledge in a place focused on
research first, commercialization second sounds very rewarding and effective.

~~~
aggie
This is true to some extent; unfortunately in many cases the focus is on
career advancement before contribution to human knowledge.

------
apaitch
I think that spending 4-6 years doing research in an area you love is
something anyone would be interested in. In addition, going into it with the
decision that you don't want to have a career in academia would free you up
from much (though of course not all) of the "game." The OP echoed this
sentiment in the memoir. You can go to conferences without worrying about
proper "networking" and just talk to people. You can focus on research that
interests you even if it's not a "hot" or "prestigious" field among academics,
as long as your results are publishable. You still have to bend to the system
in some regards if you want to graduate, but I think not having to worry about
securing a professorship would really take a lot of the weight off. In fact, I
would consider doing a PhD under these conditions :)

------
jmpeax
Also, if you're planning to work in research, then having a doctorate is a
plus in grant applications.

------
zura
Professorship is a position in academic organizations. The declared reason of
Ph.D is to become a scientist, to learn and prepare to be a researcher. After
you're a researcher, it is not necessary to get involved in other parts (and
bureaucracy) of academic life.

------
theaeolist
I hugely enjoyed the full memoirs but there is one conclusion which I strongly
disagree with. "Outputs trump inputs", the frantic scramble to do something. I
spent the first three years of grad school reading and talking to people. Then
I wroteone good paper which made my name. And when you have a name things are
easy.

I was certainly very lucky, but fully and deeply understanding my field helped
me do research which was considered by others interesting.

~~~
pgbovine
great insight!!! perhaps i should've added more clarification in that section.
i guess the way i worked best was to learn by producing; i wouldn't have had
the patience to do what you did (consuming deeply for three years -> producing
one great work). instead, i learned a great deal by producing a series of
failed and semi-failed projects, and eventually what i produced got reasonably
good.

------
softbuilder
A: To have something to lord over the other baristas.

------
stewie2
because I need financial support for my education. it's difficult for a master
degree to apply for TA and RA positions.

------
apas
Um, because, knowledge?

~~~
dhughes
I agree, why not do it "just because"?

~~~
flashingleds
'just because' doesn't seem like sufficient justification for spending 4-6
years working crazy hours for scant pay. It's a big sacrifice, so as other
have alluded to it is important to think hard about your reasons for getting
into it.

------
jacoblyles
Hubris, mostly.

------
ten_fingers
Yes, Ph.D. students can suffer. I got a Ph.D. in some applied math in
engineering, didn't suffer very much, saw some terrible suffering by others,
and can offer my brief advice here.

For the question "why bother pursuing a Ph.D.", I never had any desire for an
academic career but got a Ph.D. to learn material I believed would help my
career in business, the money making kind. The program did teach me some
powerful material and gave me some good practice in doing original work.

I've published in artificial intelligence, computer science, and applied math
of engineering.

Currently I'm working on the making money part. Some of what I learned in my
Ph.D. program -- both some powerful material and how to do original work -- is
crucial to the crucial core 'secret sauce' of my business work.

Scope. I restrict my comments here to technical fields, e.g., applied math,
engineering, computer science, applied physics. I can't comment on biomedical
fields.

For how I got a Ph.D. without undue "suffering", broadly at US research
universities in technical fields, the main requirement for a Ph.D. is enough
'research'; in case of any doubt, one way to 'prove' that your work is
'research' is to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal (or conference
proceeding); the usual criteria for publication are "new, correct, and
significant". It also helps if the work is novel and, for work in engineering
(and computer science, here and below), useful. It also helps to write and
present the information clearly, at least in part (snow jobs can be useful in
places).

My suggestion for research in engineering is to (1) accumulate some background
knowledge in some tools that can help in the research, (2) pick a good
problem, (3) have some bright ideas, (4) execute and graduate.

For more:

(1) Tools. A common recommendation in research (in technical fields) is to
'mathematize'. So the most valuable tools can be some useful math. I recommend
undergraduate abstract algebra, linear algebra, analysis, and optimization.
For graduate math, I recommend measure theory, functional analysis, ordinary
differential equations, probability (based on measure theory), stochastic
processes, mathematical statistics, and control theory. More is welcome in,
say, mathematical physics.

(2) Problem. I suggest for a problem, try to pick one so that the solution you
find will likely be seen by academics as useful outside academics. A big part
of success in research is problem selection. I picked my own problem and
declined ones suggested by faculty; I did like my problem better. If only
since the person who cares the most about your problem and Ph.D. is you, for
the sake of a good problem I suggest you at least try to pick your own
problem. Then, in picking a problem, look and think carefully and critically;
since that problem is like a horse you have to ride across the finish line,
pick carefully.

Next, with your problem in hand, I suggest you do the main original research
independently, that is, without faculty supervision.

So, keep your problem and work secret. Wait to tell others until you have the
main research nicely done and the time is right for you explain to others.

Reason for the independence and secrecy: You get to do your work without
interference or 'helpful suggestions' from others. Others can't 'share' or
steal your work. You get to hit bumps in the road, backtrack, make mistakes,
change your mind, have some better ideas, modify your problem, select what to
include or exclude, etc. without opening yourself to criticism from others.

If some faculty start to be too critical, then one solution is for you just to
publish what you have.

(3) Bright Ideas. Put your feet up, pop open a cold can of, perhaps,
caffeinated soda, review your math tools, review what is known about your
problem area, review your specific problem, and then start thinking.

Here is my non-standard suggestion for how to do much of the crucial thinking:
Do a lot of the thinking with just rough conceptual, heavily intuitive models
about how your subject works and what is likely true or false. Use at least
some simple facts, scenarios, etc. to test your models. E.g., think, "If this
is true, then likely that is true, and we can see from some simple cases that
that is not true." Or, "This looks like wild stuff, but maybe it's true, and
is there any solid reason to believe it's not true?".

Be quite willing, for maybe a few days, to consider some far out, radical,
seemingly impossible results, and then evaluate them as above.

Commonly play two separate roles, (A) dream up wild conjectures and (B)
(somewhat constructively) critique the conjectures.

Likely do most of this work just between your ears. It's better to identify
the main ideas between your ears than just to push symbols around on paper (or
a computer screen) without some clarifying ideas for why the symbol pushing is
promising.

Here's one trick: When you see something that works, maybe not even original,
take it apart into tiny pieces, accepting nothing as 'obvious', and see solid
theorems and proofs for every little step. Then formalize and generalize.
E.g., even if the case in R^1 is 'obvious', it may be that there is so far no
good R^n version but your breaking apart into little pieces shows you how to
do a good R^n version.

When you have something worth writing down, do so. When you have something
that looks like it can be solid, write out what you have carefully, likely as
theorems and proofs.

I do my more mathematical writing by typing Plain TeX into my favorite text
editor.

It's fun!

For a nervous, straight-A student, OCD, over achiever terrified of their own
shadow and any possible chance of criticism (not me, but I've seen such
people), relax, work quietly out of the view of others, and show colleagues
and/or profs only final, solid results, maybe already published.

Q. Why pick a problem that academics will believe is useful outside of
academics?

A. Because such a problem helps set aside that you are trying for academic,
pure as the driven snow, glory, and that lowers some standards and reduces
chances of jealously and criticism. You will be answering the common complaint
that academics is useless and have a fairly strong additional reason for the
work to be regarded as "significant". Also since you may be solving a
practical problem, if you pick a recent problem from practice, then likely
there is so far no clean solution for that problem published in academics; so
your solution can be seen as both "new" and "significant".

Q. Why present work as theorems and proofs?

A. Because 'mathematizing' a field is highly respected, and it's super tough
to argue with a carefully done proof. If you learn how to write proofs from
Birkhoff, Halmos, Rudin, Coddington, Bourbaki, von Neumann, Breiman, Dynkin,
etc., then that part of your work, heavily both in practice and in principle,
will be immune to serious criticism. The proofs in parts of computer science
can be okay but generally are a long way downhill from proofs from the names I
mentioned. Actually, only a little of computer science is good at
'mathematizing' their field, and the flip side of this situation can be an
opportunity for you. With solid theorems and proofs, it's easier for your work
to meet the criterion of "correct".

For getting research grants, that's asking for money. Generally it's easier
just to make the money in business.

For getting a good academic career, in practice the main technique is
politics. The main substantive technique is to become well known for doing
some research that is regarded as especially good. Then you can get a 'bidding
war' going on for your services from universities that want well known, highly
regarded faculty.

For business, say, an Internet based 'information technology' startup, pick a
problem where a much better solution will be very valuable and where you have
a good shot at doing some original research to get some 'secret sauce' for
such a solution. The solution can be "very valuable" from, say, a little money
from many sources or a lot of money from a few sources. Then do the original
research and implement it in software. For protection of your intellectual
property, keep your software locked up inside your servers, and don't let
users know what's going on behind the curtain.

Go live, get users and, hopefully, revenue, i.e., 'traction'. Grow. Smile on
your way to the bank.

In academics, commonly you can get some competent peer-review of your
original, technical work, but in business mostly you can't. Instead, it is as
if business believed in a Markov assumption: The core 'secret sauce' and the
future value of the business are conditionally independent given the current
level of traction. That is, the business world wants to evaluate projects much
as in accounting where for a startup they may be willing to use surrogate
measures such a traction. For the secret sauce, the business world has little
desire or ability to evaluate that, and the flip side of this situation can be
an opportunity for you.

