3 ms·

> We need big thinkers We need some, but there aren't anywhere near enough big-thinking jobs for all these PhDs. Yeah, man, jobs! It's all about jobs! Jobs job

by rquantz 11y ago

> We need big thinkers We need some, but there aren't anywhere near enough big-thinking jobs for all these PhDs. Yeah, man, jobs! It's all about jobs! Jobs jobs jobs! Steve Jobs! Jobs jobs! How about this? The world needs big thinkers in ways other than their capacity as economic actors. Einstein worked at a patent office. The work he did there (for the patent office) was not his primary contribution to the world at that time.

jmmcd 11y ago
Great! Meanwhile his PhD was not particularly "big thinking". So in Einstein's case I think we're both happy? As for jobs jobs, I think you missed the point. If we lie to PhD candidates about career prospects and train them in things that have a negative effect on their careers, then the best people won't undertake research.
cryoshon 11y ago
Yeah, I think the author forgot that: 1. Being smart isn't a product, and most people won't consider it a skill 2. Thinking big isn't a product, and most people won't consider it a skill 3. Thinking big is usually reserved for top level people, of which there are less than five You know what they call the big thinker who is looking for a job with his shiny new PhD? Unemployed.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > You know what they call the big thinker who is looking for a job with his shiny new PhD? In technical fields (which is what this article is about)? The ones who choose to stay in academia and are lucky enought to find a position are called "Professor". The unlucky or disillusioned ones -- as well as the (majority) of PhDs who never even intended to go into academia at any point during thier studies -- are called, variously, "Engineer", "Analyst", "Consultant", etc. and typically start in the low six figures (and not even in the bay area / NYC). They take a marginal hit to their lifetime earnings, but in most cases make decent salaries and get to work on more interesting problems (obv. interesting is subjective). > Unemployed. The unemployment rate for STEM PhDs is ludicrously low (FYI: if you google this, be aware that the Slate article by Jordan Weissmann is IMO purposefully misleading. See Table 1 of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/ and compare to his graphs. E.g., his graph seems to indicate that the unemployment rate for CS PhDs was over around 15% in 2001, but the NSF tables makes it clear that the rate was 0.9%, which is even more than what most economists refer to as full employment. In fact, in CS, the increase for 0.9% to 2% is almost entirely attributable to there being a lot more retired CS phds now than 10 years ago (for rather obvious reasons). So the stats he's using to tell his story are, at very best, unintentionally but absurdly non-representative of the actual state of affairs. It's like asking someone the day after they quit their job if they've started their new job yet and, when they say "hell no, taking some time off to recharge", assuming they're unemployable and/or don't have something lined up.)
Retra 11y ago
Without being employed to do this kind of work, your opportunities for networking and partnership are vastly diminished, which translates to less success. And that's ignoring the fact that competition demands ever-increasing capability. There's a huge difference in capability between amateurs and professionals in almost every field, and there are relevant reasons for that difference.

by rquantz 11y ago

jmmcd 11y ago

Great! Meanwhile his PhD was not particularly "big thinking". So in Einstein's case I think we're both happy? As for jobs jobs, I think you missed the point. If we lie to PhD candidates about career prospects and train them in things that have a negative effect on their careers, then the best people won't undertake research.

cryoshon 11y ago

Yeah, I think the author forgot that: 1. Being smart isn't a product, and most people won't consider it a skill 2. Thinking big isn't a product, and most people won't consider it a skill 3. Thinking big is usually reserved for top level people, of which there are less than five You know what they call the big thinker who is looking for a job with his shiny new PhD? Unemployed.

nmrm2 11y ago
> You know what they call the big thinker who is looking for a job with his shiny new PhD? In technical fields (which is what this article is about)? The ones who choose to stay in academia and are lucky enought to find a position are called "Professor". The unlucky or disillusioned ones -- as well as the (majority) of PhDs who never even intended to go into academia at any point during thier studies -- are called, variously, "Engineer", "Analyst", "Consultant", etc. and typically start in the low six figures (and not even in the bay area / NYC). They take a marginal hit to their lifetime earnings, but in most cases make decent salaries and get to work on more interesting problems (obv. interesting is subjective). > Unemployed. The unemployment rate for STEM PhDs is ludicrously low (FYI: if you google this, be aware that the Slate article by Jordan Weissmann is IMO purposefully misleading. See Table 1 of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/ and compare to his graphs. E.g., his graph seems to indicate that the unemployment rate for CS PhDs was over around 15% in 2001, but the NSF tables makes it clear that the rate was 0.9%, which is even more than what most economists refer to as full employment. In fact, in CS, the increase for 0.9% to 2% is almost entirely attributable to there being a lot more retired CS phds now than 10 years ago (for rather obvious reasons). So the stats he's using to tell his story are, at very best, unintentionally but absurdly non-representative of the actual state of affairs. It's like asking someone the day after they quit their job if they've started their new job yet and, when they say "hell no, taking some time off to recharge", assuming they're unemployable and/or don't have something lined up.)

Retra 11y ago

Without being employed to do this kind of work, your opportunities for networking and partnership are vastly diminished, which translates to less success. And that's ignoring the fact that competition demands ever-increasing capability. There's a huge difference in capability between amateurs and professionals in almost every field, and there are relevant reasons for that difference.