4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
- NotSammyHagar 11y ago
  You can gain a lot of education working on a phd at a good school, even past your masters, and that can help if you are doing more sophisticated stuff. I found my phd helped a lot in my dev work at microsoft and google. Maybe someone with a lot strong BS or MS could have done it, but I benefited from my 8 years at grad school! I'm kind of embarrassed to admit how long it took, but I did finally finish :-)
noelsusman 11y ago
That's very short sighted. There are tons of industry positions in Computer Science that pretty much require a PhD if you want to be a competitive applicant. Research isn't about expensive equipment, it's about time. Sure, there's a lot of CS research you can do in your basement for small amounts of money (depending on the field), but you're never going to compete with people who spent all day every day doing research.
- NotSammyHagar 11y ago
  This is so true. Working on a relational database, especially a big team system, most people I have worked with did have phds.
andrepd 11y ago
There's a world outside of CS, you know?
EthanHeilman 11y ago
>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. As someone that did research outside of academia my litmus test was: Do I need a mentor to train me to be a great researcher? After doing research on my own for a while I discovered that yes I needed such a mentor. I optimized my search around finding the best mentor possible.
- alexvoda 11y ago
  What did you find were the reasons you needed a mentor?
  - EthanHeilman 11y ago
    1. Better communication in terms of writing and presentation (for my first talk I did three practice talks a day for a month with constant feedback and notes). 2. Understanding which problems to work on (Prior to grad school I spent over a year on a problem, when I published a solution I discovered that there was very little interest. I want to build things people use.). 3. Developing better research methods (How to approach and understand a problem. How to think about solutions and measure them.). 4. Honest, critical, and in-depth feedback on all of the above.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
j2kun 11y ago
> 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. This advice would apply to all mathematics research.
norswap 11y ago
A PhD gives you a lot of freedom (time) to work on something you consider interesting. It's not without other downsides (stressful), but it's a trade-off worth considering. Also, in Belgium where I'm from (but I believe more broadly, Europe), a PhD gives you slightly inferior wages to a junior position, so you don't lose out as much as in the US.

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.

NotSammyHagar 11y ago
You can gain a lot of education working on a phd at a good school, even past your masters, and that can help if you are doing more sophisticated stuff. I found my phd helped a lot in my dev work at microsoft and google. Maybe someone with a lot strong BS or MS could have done it, but I benefited from my 8 years at grad school! I'm kind of embarrassed to admit how long it took, but I did finally finish :-)

noelsusman 11y ago

That's very short sighted. There are tons of industry positions in Computer Science that pretty much require a PhD if you want to be a competitive applicant. Research isn't about expensive equipment, it's about time. Sure, there's a lot of CS research you can do in your basement for small amounts of money (depending on the field), but you're never going to compete with people who spent all day every day doing research.

NotSammyHagar 11y ago
This is so true. Working on a relational database, especially a big team system, most people I have worked with did have phds.

andrepd 11y ago

There's a world outside of CS, you know?

EthanHeilman 11y ago

>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. As someone that did research outside of academia my litmus test was: Do I need a mentor to train me to be a great researcher? After doing research on my own for a while I discovered that yes I needed such a mentor. I optimized my search around finding the best mentor possible.

alexvoda 11y ago
What did you find were the reasons you needed a mentor?
- EthanHeilman 11y ago
  1. Better communication in terms of writing and presentation (for my first talk I did three practice talks a day for a month with constant feedback and notes). 2. Understanding which problems to work on (Prior to grad school I spent over a year on a problem, when I published a solution I discovered that there was very little interest. I want to build things people use.). 3. Developing better research methods (How to approach and understand a problem. How to think about solutions and measure them.). 4. Honest, critical, and in-depth feedback on all of the above.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

j2kun 11y ago

> 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. This advice would apply to all mathematics research.

norswap 11y ago

A PhD gives you a lot of freedom (time) to work on something you consider interesting. It's not without other downsides (stressful), but it's a trade-off worth considering. Also, in Belgium where I'm from (but I believe more broadly, Europe), a PhD gives you slightly inferior wages to a junior position, so you don't lose out as much as in the US.