6 ms·

Look, a PhD is for one thing, and one thing only: Teaching you to be a researcher. You're basically an apprentice researcher, learning from your advisor and ot

by reuven 11y ago

Look, a PhD is for one thing, and one thing only: Teaching you to be a researcher. You're basically an apprentice researcher, learning from your advisor and others in the field the current state of affairs, the language they use, the questions that remain unanswered, and the methods you can use to answer new questions. A PhD is not proof that you're smart, or that you cannot get a job, or of anything else (positive or negative). It just proves that you've demonstrated an ability to do original research, and to survive a system that is often unfair in numerous ways. It also implicitly assumes that you're young -- and better yet, single and without kids. In that sense, it's sort of like a startup, in that it consumes as much of your time and energy as you're willing to give it. I went into my PhD program knowing that I wasn't going to be a researcher. I went in planning to learn new things, to meet new people, and to maybe try some new directions in my career. In the end, it took a very long time (11 years), cost my family and me a lot of time and money, and didn't directly affect my career. And yes, there were lots of tears along the way, as well as many angry words. I'm very happy that I finished it, rather than give up in the middle (which I considered on many occasions). I have a huge sense of accomplishment. I learned a ton, that's for sure. And we had an adventure living in Chicago, where I met many new friends. But I tell people, very seriously, that if they're thinking of doing a PhD, they should think very hard before starting it. It's a huge commitment of time and money, and especially in the computer industry, there are ways to do research nowadays that don't require the effective vows of poverty and servitude associated with graduate school.

Rainymood 11y ago
I hope you don't mind asking me what field your PhD was in?
- reuven 11y ago
  Oh, I'm open to any and all questions! I did it in a program called "Learning Sciences," which is a mix of computer science, cognitive science, and design, all for educational purposes. I studied at Northwestern University, just outside of Chicago.
  - turnip1979 11y ago
    Could you say a few words about your post-PhD career? I see from your profile that you are an independent consultant. How easy/difficult was it to get gigs? Did the PhD help/hurt in your opinion? Also, curious if you have worked as a regular software engineering employee? It is kind of difficult to be in your mid to late 30s as a fresh software engineer when many people your age have more years writing production code and being a team lead/manager. Curious if/how you dealt with that?
    - reuven 11y ago
      Well, I've been a consultant for 20 years. That started before the PhD, and has continued since then. And while my advisor didn't know about it at the time, I was also doing some consulting work during the PhD, so that my family (wife + 3 kids) could afford rent, food, and health insurance. My ability to get gigs was always pretty good -- but it really skyrocketed about 2 years ago. That's when I decided to explicitly pursue training in a few technologies (Python, Git, PostgreSQL, and Ruby) rather than "doing whatever they want, using whatever technology they want." That specialization, and my focus on training, has done wonders to my career; I'm earning more, having more fun, and doing more interesting work (I think) than when I was looking all over for development jobs. I still get to do software development, but now I do it for things I want, or when researching new topics for myself. I have a few SaaS ideas that I've been thinking about, but haven't had time, between writing books and doing courses. It's hard to say whether the PhD has helped me much. On the one hand, I put it on my ebook covers, since I figure it'll impress some people enough to buy the book. And to be honest, I have used (and continue to use) many of the techniques I learned in the LS program in my lectures, which I do think help to make me a more effective trainer. However, I think that people hire me not because of the PhD, but because I have built up a reputation -- and once you do a few successful courses for a company, they're very likely to hire you back. I did work as a regular employee for a bunch of years: I worked at HP's medical products group (spun off as Agilent, and then sold to Philips, both after I was there), and then for Time Warner. When I moved to Israel in 1995, I figured that this was a good chance to try my hand at consulting -- and I haven't had any regrets since. It's a sad, but true, state of affairs in the computer industry, in that people in their mid-30s who are qualified and bright have a hard time getting jobs. I'm fortunate in that I haven't had to deal with that. (And I'm now 45, so I'm definitely over the hill in terms of getting development jobs.) Consulting has provided me with something of a cushion there.
deepanjanroy 11y ago
> there are ways to do research nowadays that don't require the effective vows of poverty and servitude associated with graduate school. What would be some of these ways in your opinion?
- reuven 11y ago
  Any of the big companies -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon come to mind -- do tons of things that even 10 years ago would have been considered cutting-edge computer science research. Whether it's OS changes, algorithm development, database technologies, UI testing, or data science, those companies (among others) are working with far larger data sets than most university researchers can ever touch. Plus, they don't have to deal with the sorts of ethics committees that universities have in place. On this last point, I should mention that my dissertation research involved the creation of a collaborative Web application for people developing agent-based models. The IRB (ethics board) insisted that anyone who would want to use my Web site would need to fax a permission form to the university office. You can imagine how this would have killed any use of my site, and thus of my dissertation work. It took several months of pleading with them to get them agree that usage of the site wouldn't require a faxed form. Doing that same sort of work at Facebook et. al. would have been a non-issue. And yes, there are ethical and privacy issues associated with Facebook, Google, etc. I'm not ignoring them, merely pointing to the abundance of data and opportunities they have at their disposal. There are still advantages to a university laboratory, including the cushion that you have from real-world profitability. There's something nice about being able to spend months or years looking at a problem, without having shareholders looking over your shoulder. But universities have their own politics and problems, and they're far from the pristine labs we'd like to imagine.
  - sktrdie 11y ago
    Indeed. Look at the institution best paper awards: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions There are several companies (and not just universities) in the top 20. Microsoft leading.
mehrdada 11y ago
> But I tell people, very seriously, that if they're thinking of doing a PhD I simply tell them not to do it--in Computer Science--if they are genuinely good at getting things done (for some mediocre people good at playing a certain type of a game, grad school can be an okay career path), unless (1) they need a student visa, or (2) they definitely want to go into academia (which generally only makes sense in a top 5-10 ranked school). To me the litmus test is now this: do you need a particle accelerator (or equivalents) to conduct research in your field? If not, don't do a PhD.
- reuven 11y ago
  A friend of mine in my program kept asking me why I was doing a PhD. He called it an entrance card to the academic world, allowing you to apply for certain types of jobs. He kept wondering why I was subjecting myself to so much work, and difficult relations with my advisor, when I had a great career going beforehand. So yes, if you're not interested in doing academic research, then a PhD is a pretty hard sell.
- fmap 11y ago
  Computer science is a broad field and not all of us are doing our PhDs in software engineering. There are some things which you just can't do in the industry yet, since the technology is not at a point where it is commercially viable. The question you really need to ask is "will this project make money in 5 months?" If the answer is no, and you currently have no credentials, then it'll be a very though sell...
- turnip1979 11y ago
  I like the particle accelerator litmus test :p Also .. totally agree with the top 5-10 school. Universities do not typically "hire down". I heard an "unofficial list" during a faculty meeting my last year .. I was horrified! Here is the big problem IMHO: by the time you graduate with your PhD in a 6-8 year program, you are either close to or in your 30s (best case). You just spent a decade investing in a research career. Most scientists will tell you that research is not being supported the same as in the old days. I can't say about govt grants but industrial labs have definitely changed in the last 10 years (I'm thinking of IBM Research and Microsoft Research). There have been several lab closures in the recent past: MSR's Silicon Valley, Nokia Research in the Bay area, Intel Lab-lets (Berkeley, Pittsburgh, etc.). So basically, supply is steady and demand is decreasing. This generally doesn't bode well for the prospective PhD candidate trying to make a career in industrial research. The bar simply keeps getting higher to get one of these "coveted" positions. While it is true that PhDs can (and do) get hired at places like Google, Facebook or Wall Street, think about the almost decade spent on training that not only are you not using, at least a chunk of the technical content will be obsolete by the time you finish! Insane!! To succeed with a PhD, you need to be a great seller. This is sort of the same skill you need as an entrepreneur or a specific type of middle-manager (dreamer? not sure this has a clear job title). I always thought it was about the technical challenge of the work or the quality. I sadly have to come to realize that the marketing (the intro to your paper) matters as much as the rest.
peterkelly 11y ago
> Look, a PhD is for one thing, and one thing only: Teaching you to be a researcher. I disagree - there's tons of skills you learn in the process which are useful in other contexts - the most important, in my opinion, is learning how to write well and communicate complicated ideas to others. If you go into industry, then depending on what you studied and what kind of job you have, the knowledge of a given field (networking, graphics, compilers, computer vision etc) can be extremely helpful.
- hoorayimhelping 11y ago
  >the most important, in my opinion, is learning how to write well and communicate complicated ideas to others. you also learn this while working for a company, which has the added benefit of not treating you like an indentured servant.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Academics write well? Have you heard of the word 'academese'? Honestly, I suspect a PhD brainwashes you into becoming a bad writer. These days I'm impressed by any academic who's not a horrible writer.
  - reuven 11y ago
    There are several types of academic writers, for sure. Some are amazingly clear in their writing. Those people are fantastic, and really do help to advance the spread of new ideas. But some (many) use long words and convoluted sentences, seemingly for no reason other than to make their reader feel less intelligent. I know someone in the latter category; while he's a very bright guy, I haven't the foggiest idea what he's saying in any of his papers. Which does indeed demonstrate that a PhD doesn't necessarily make you a great writer. I had been writing professionally for a decade before I started my PhD, and this had far more to do with my clarity of writing than any feedback I got in grad school. And of course, don't forget the gibberish, automatically generated papers that were accepted: http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-research-papers-how-did-more-120-gibberish-computer-generated-studies-get-published-1558725 http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-research-papers-how-did-more-120...
  - 11y ago
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>But I tell people, very seriously, that if they're thinking of doing a PhD, they should think very hard before starting it. It's a huge commitment of time and money, and especially in the computer industry, there are ways to do research nowadays that don't require the effective vows of poverty and servitude associated with graduate school. There are!?
KineticLensman 11y ago
Largely agree, although, working for a PhD can have useful positive outcomes. My own story follows: I started the PhD in a UK university in the mid ‘1980s. I started it because it was the simplest course of action (staying at a comfortable uni) not because I wanted a career in academia, and I was fascinated by the subject (building a frame-based knowledge representation to support a first-order logic reasoner). Two other grads started at the same time, working on different aspects of the same project to get their PhDs. In retrospect it was a big mistake. The project devolved into uncontrolled software development (which I enjoyed) but we were in fact spending all our time building research tools (in C!) rather than using them to do research. Our mutual supervisor had no particular team leading experience and given that it had become a group project, we lacked the discipline of a proper software development lead. Our supervisor abruptly resigned in the third year to move to a new Uni and he didn’t offer to take us with him. I decided to cut my losses and took a research-programmer job in a different department of the same university. I used my spare time to write up my thesis to the extent that I could and submitted it as an M.Phil (so I did at least get a qualification from the whole experience). I then took a job at the advanced techniques department of a large UK engineering company, where I was introduced to Lisp-based tools that would have let me complete my PhD coding in months rather than years. And have worked in industry ever since. My message to prospective PhD students is to do the PhD for the right reasons. Make sure that you understand the approach your supervisor will want you to follow and check with their other students before taking them on. Ask what their track record is, in terms of whether their students complete the PhDs. Make sure you understand what tools you will be using, and whether they are fit for purpose (i.e., for getting research outputs), and whether there is a supportive community of users in the facility. The plus side is that I had a great time socialy, and learned software engineering the hard way, which led to a good job offer. But 25 years on, in industry, my actual qualifications are now irrelevant to my career development and progression.

by reuven 11y ago

Rainymood 11y ago

I hope you don't mind asking me what field your PhD was in?

reuven 11y ago
Oh, I'm open to any and all questions! I did it in a program called "Learning Sciences," which is a mix of computer science, cognitive science, and design, all for educational purposes. I studied at Northwestern University, just outside of Chicago.
- turnip1979 11y ago
  Could you say a few words about your post-PhD career? I see from your profile that you are an independent consultant. How easy/difficult was it to get gigs? Did the PhD help/hurt in your opinion? Also, curious if you have worked as a regular software engineering employee? It is kind of difficult to be in your mid to late 30s as a fresh software engineer when many people your age have more years writing production code and being a team lead/manager. Curious if/how you dealt with that?
  - reuven 11y ago
    Well, I've been a consultant for 20 years. That started before the PhD, and has continued since then. And while my advisor didn't know about it at the time, I was also doing some consulting work during the PhD, so that my family (wife + 3 kids) could afford rent, food, and health insurance. My ability to get gigs was always pretty good -- but it really skyrocketed about 2 years ago. That's when I decided to explicitly pursue training in a few technologies (Python, Git, PostgreSQL, and Ruby) rather than "doing whatever they want, using whatever technology they want." That specialization, and my focus on training, has done wonders to my career; I'm earning more, having more fun, and doing more interesting work (I think) than when I was looking all over for development jobs. I still get to do software development, but now I do it for things I want, or when researching new topics for myself. I have a few SaaS ideas that I've been thinking about, but haven't had time, between writing books and doing courses. It's hard to say whether the PhD has helped me much. On the one hand, I put it on my ebook covers, since I figure it'll impress some people enough to buy the book. And to be honest, I have used (and continue to use) many of the techniques I learned in the LS program in my lectures, which I do think help to make me a more effective trainer. However, I think that people hire me not because of the PhD, but because I have built up a reputation -- and once you do a few successful courses for a company, they're very likely to hire you back. I did work as a regular employee for a bunch of years: I worked at HP's medical products group (spun off as Agilent, and then sold to Philips, both after I was there), and then for Time Warner. When I moved to Israel in 1995, I figured that this was a good chance to try my hand at consulting -- and I haven't had any regrets since. It's a sad, but true, state of affairs in the computer industry, in that people in their mid-30s who are qualified and bright have a hard time getting jobs. I'm fortunate in that I haven't had to deal with that. (And I'm now 45, so I'm definitely over the hill in terms of getting development jobs.) Consulting has provided me with something of a cushion there.

deepanjanroy 11y ago

> there are ways to do research nowadays that don't require the effective vows of poverty and servitude associated with graduate school. What would be some of these ways in your opinion?

reuven 11y ago
Any of the big companies -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon come to mind -- do tons of things that even 10 years ago would have been considered cutting-edge computer science research. Whether it's OS changes, algorithm development, database technologies, UI testing, or data science, those companies (among others) are working with far larger data sets than most university researchers can ever touch. Plus, they don't have to deal with the sorts of ethics committees that universities have in place. On this last point, I should mention that my dissertation research involved the creation of a collaborative Web application for people developing agent-based models. The IRB (ethics board) insisted that anyone who would want to use my Web site would need to fax a permission form to the university office. You can imagine how this would have killed any use of my site, and thus of my dissertation work. It took several months of pleading with them to get them agree that usage of the site wouldn't require a faxed form. Doing that same sort of work at Facebook et. al. would have been a non-issue. And yes, there are ethical and privacy issues associated with Facebook, Google, etc. I'm not ignoring them, merely pointing to the abundance of data and opportunities they have at their disposal. There are still advantages to a university laboratory, including the cushion that you have from real-world profitability. There's something nice about being able to spend months or years looking at a problem, without having shareholders looking over your shoulder. But universities have their own politics and problems, and they're far from the pristine labs we'd like to imagine.
- sktrdie 11y ago
  Indeed. Look at the institution best paper awards: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions There are several companies (and not just universities) in the top 20. Microsoft leading.

mehrdada 11y ago

> But I tell people, very seriously, that if they're thinking of doing a PhD I simply tell them not to do it--in Computer Science--if they are genuinely good at getting things done (for some mediocre people good at playing a certain type of a game, grad school can be an okay career path), unless (1) they need a student visa, or (2) they definitely want to go into academia (which generally only makes sense in a top 5-10 ranked school). To me the litmus test is now this: do you need a particle accelerator (or equivalents) to conduct research in your field? If not, don't do a PhD.

reuven 11y ago
A friend of mine in my program kept asking me why I was doing a PhD. He called it an entrance card to the academic world, allowing you to apply for certain types of jobs. He kept wondering why I was subjecting myself to so much work, and difficult relations with my advisor, when I had a great career going beforehand. So yes, if you're not interested in doing academic research, then a PhD is a pretty hard sell.
fmap 11y ago
Computer science is a broad field and not all of us are doing our PhDs in software engineering. There are some things which you just can't do in the industry yet, since the technology is not at a point where it is commercially viable. The question you really need to ask is "will this project make money in 5 months?" If the answer is no, and you currently have no credentials, then it'll be a very though sell...
turnip1979 11y ago
I like the particle accelerator litmus test :p Also .. totally agree with the top 5-10 school. Universities do not typically "hire down". I heard an "unofficial list" during a faculty meeting my last year .. I was horrified! Here is the big problem IMHO: by the time you graduate with your PhD in a 6-8 year program, you are either close to or in your 30s (best case). You just spent a decade investing in a research career. Most scientists will tell you that research is not being supported the same as in the old days. I can't say about govt grants but industrial labs have definitely changed in the last 10 years (I'm thinking of IBM Research and Microsoft Research). There have been several lab closures in the recent past: MSR's Silicon Valley, Nokia Research in the Bay area, Intel Lab-lets (Berkeley, Pittsburgh, etc.). So basically, supply is steady and demand is decreasing. This generally doesn't bode well for the prospective PhD candidate trying to make a career in industrial research. The bar simply keeps getting higher to get one of these "coveted" positions. While it is true that PhDs can (and do) get hired at places like Google, Facebook or Wall Street, think about the almost decade spent on training that not only are you not using, at least a chunk of the technical content will be obsolete by the time you finish! Insane!! To succeed with a PhD, you need to be a great seller. This is sort of the same skill you need as an entrepreneur or a specific type of middle-manager (dreamer? not sure this has a clear job title). I always thought it was about the technical challenge of the work or the quality. I sadly have to come to realize that the marketing (the intro to your paper) matters as much as the rest.

peterkelly 11y ago

> Look, a PhD is for one thing, and one thing only: Teaching you to be a researcher. I disagree - there's tons of skills you learn in the process which are useful in other contexts - the most important, in my opinion, is learning how to write well and communicate complicated ideas to others. If you go into industry, then depending on what you studied and what kind of job you have, the knowledge of a given field (networking, graphics, compilers, computer vision etc) can be extremely helpful.

hoorayimhelping 11y ago
>the most important, in my opinion, is learning how to write well and communicate complicated ideas to others. you also learn this while working for a company, which has the added benefit of not treating you like an indentured servant.
tormeh 11y ago
Academics write well? Have you heard of the word 'academese'? Honestly, I suspect a PhD brainwashes you into becoming a bad writer. These days I'm impressed by any academic who's not a horrible writer.
- reuven 11y ago
  There are several types of academic writers, for sure. Some are amazingly clear in their writing. Those people are fantastic, and really do help to advance the spread of new ideas. But some (many) use long words and convoluted sentences, seemingly for no reason other than to make their reader feel less intelligent. I know someone in the latter category; while he's a very bright guy, I haven't the foggiest idea what he's saying in any of his papers. Which does indeed demonstrate that a PhD doesn't necessarily make you a great writer. I had been writing professionally for a decade before I started my PhD, and this had far more to do with my clarity of writing than any feedback I got in grad school. And of course, don't forget the gibberish, automatically generated papers that were accepted: http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-research-papers-how-did-more-120-gibberish-computer-generated-studies-get-published-1558725 http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-research-papers-how-did-more-120...
- 11y ago

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>But I tell people, very seriously, that if they're thinking of doing a PhD, they should think very hard before starting it. It's a huge commitment of time and money, and especially in the computer industry, there are ways to do research nowadays that don't require the effective vows of poverty and servitude associated with graduate school. There are!?

KineticLensman 11y ago

Largely agree, although, working for a PhD can have useful positive outcomes. My own story follows: I started the PhD in a UK university in the mid ‘1980s. I started it because it was the simplest course of action (staying at a comfortable uni) not because I wanted a career in academia, and I was fascinated by the subject (building a frame-based knowledge representation to support a first-order logic reasoner). Two other grads started at the same time, working on different aspects of the same project to get their PhDs. In retrospect it was a big mistake. The project devolved into uncontrolled software development (which I enjoyed) but we were in fact spending all our time building research tools (in C!) rather than using them to do research. Our mutual supervisor had no particular team leading experience and given that it had become a group project, we lacked the discipline of a proper software development lead. Our supervisor abruptly resigned in the third year to move to a new Uni and he didn’t offer to take us with him. I decided to cut my losses and took a research-programmer job in a different department of the same university. I used my spare time to write up my thesis to the extent that I could and submitted it as an M.Phil (so I did at least get a qualification from the whole experience). I then took a job at the advanced techniques department of a large UK engineering company, where I was introduced to Lisp-based tools that would have let me complete my PhD coding in months rather than years. And have worked in industry ever since. My message to prospective PhD students is to do the PhD for the right reasons. Make sure that you understand the approach your supervisor will want you to follow and check with their other students before taking them on. Ask what their track record is, in terms of whether their students complete the PhDs. Make sure you understand what tools you will be using, and whether they are fit for purpose (i.e., for getting research outputs), and whether there is a supportive community of users in the facility. The plus side is that I had a great time socialy, and learned software engineering the hard way, which led to a good job offer. But 25 years on, in industry, my actual qualifications are now irrelevant to my career development and progression.