5 ms·

Academia, as a career path, is a non-starter for the huge majority of people who even want to go down that path. Universities are not growing at the same rates

Academia, as a career path, is a non-starter for the huge majority of people who even want to go down that path. Universities are not growing at the same rates that they were in the 60's and 70's. If you're a graduate student, not only are your classmates your competition, but every professor who supervises more than 1 PhD thesis is actually contributing to the overpopulation of PhDs. These two things in combination are why we have so many adjuncts on campus doing most of the teaching of undergrads. Even if the above weren't true, the path to a tenured position is not something I'd wish on a mortal enemy. Start off with several years in grad school making poverty-level wages. Add on 1-3 postdocs at a minimum, making probably 3/4 or less of what an assistant professor would. Then, there's the 6 year job interview (i.e. the tenure process). And, then, factor in that you don't get to choose where you live during all this. You have to go where the jobs are, and there might only be a handful of jobs in your subfield any given year. That all amounts to about 6-10 years of post-baccalaureate slog before you can even start a career and begin living like an adult. If you come out the other end without a job, then your next search becomes even harder. If you get the job, then, yes, congratulations, it's now very hard to fire you, but good luck finding another tenured position if you decide you want to move. Oh, and the people you work with, you're going to see most of them every day for the next 10, 20, or 30 years. In spite of all that, I might have actually ridden the train to the end, had I not realized that I was preparing to enter a field where I'd literally have to wait for someone to die before I got a job. Nobody told me any of this until I was already in grad school for a couple of years, and even then I ended up figuring most of it out on my own.

argonaut 11y ago
I will say that fortunately things are better in computer science academia. (Note I'm assuming you go to a top school for your PhD). The extreme competition is still there (even at a top 4 school), but: 1) it is common to skip a postdoc or only do 1 postdoc 2) the "backup" option is going to work for an industry research lab or a tech company for 200k+ per year. And if your field is one applicable to industry, like systems (databases, networking, distributed systems, OS) or AI/ML, you've also gained skills that actually do command a salary premium (although the premium does not come close to the opportunity cost of a PhD) and some job security.
- pmiller2 11y ago
  Yeah, I didn't mention that. Things are much better in a handful of technical fields, CS foremost among them. Math, engineering, physics, and economics all have some possibilities outside academia. Most other fields, you might as well cross off those years on your CV if you're looking to industry. Also, if you spend more than 1 year "out of the game," forget about ever getting back on the academic track.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    Yeah. My impression is that spending a few years in industry research (and publishing) still leaves the door open for the academic track, although this is all hearsay.
  - indubitably 11y ago
    Are you in HR?
  - skosuri 11y ago
    I've spent a couple of years out of the game and was fine. It is on the rare side though.
  - skosuri 11y ago
    I've spent a couple of years out of the game and was fine. It is on the rare side though.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> Universities are not growing at the same rates that they were in the 60's and 70's. If you're a graduate student, not only are your classmates your competition, but every professor who supervises more than 1 PhD thesis is actually contributing to the overpopulation of PhDs. I must say, I quite disagree with what seems to be a generally negative tone on HN towards academia. Basic research is fundamentally important, more than that there are extremely talented people who should be doing it - rather than allow themselves to have their time wasted by some corporation that does absolutely nothing beneficial for civilization. Obviously it's a problem if these people are disenfranchised, not sufficiently funded or otherwise aren't able to do what they wanted to do and for those reasons are turned away from Academia (btw tenure track is not the sole option for doing fundamental research). But on here it seems the entire critical conversation is centered, on job options, salary, competition, and all the other things are really evidence of someone too deeply emersed in the corporate culture. If you are doing good research - competition doesn't matter, if you care significantly about the research salary doesn't matter all that much. There are surely negative aspects but statements like these: > That all amounts to about 6-10 years of post-baccalaureate slog before you can even start a career and begin living like an adult. Sound almost like corporate salesmanship for getting talented people out of Academia, into useless soul-destroying jobs.
- lukasLansky 11y ago
  The fact that the notion of salary leads you to "corporate culture" suggests true relationship between work conditions in corporate and academia. There is nothing inherently corporate about good reward for work. Fundamental research is important and should attract top talent - but saying that individuals should correct errors of society leads to ugly, ugly effects like resentment and elitism. There is no alternative to correcting incentives. As soon as people start to connect "good salary" with "academic culture", everything will be OK.
- foldr 11y ago
  Most basic research is not beneficial to civilizaton. We fund it knowing that a small fraction of it will prove to be immensely useful. (And of course, without being able to know which fraction that is in advance.)
analog31 11y ago
In my experience as a gradual student, the academic job situation for PhDs was widely known, at least in my field -- physics. That was in the early 90s. I know that a lot of people entered grad school with the stated goal of pursuing an academic career, but I wonder if that is more of a rationalization than a definite objective. My guess is that people are motivated simply by an interest in the subject matter, and in getting more education. In my own case, my dad, and my grandfather, both had PhDs, and almost all of my close relatives have advanced degrees of some sort. There was a strong family "culture" that valued education for its own sake, along with a sense of education being the thing that "they can't take away from you," developed through the experiences of the Great Depression and the world wars. Those are the kinds of motivations that aren't really influenced by job market statistics.

argonaut 11y ago

I will say that fortunately things are better in computer science academia. (Note I'm assuming you go to a top school for your PhD). The extreme competition is still there (even at a top 4 school), but: 1) it is common to skip a postdoc or only do 1 postdoc 2) the "backup" option is going to work for an industry research lab or a tech company for 200k+ per year. And if your field is one applicable to industry, like systems (databases, networking, distributed systems, OS) or AI/ML, you've also gained skills that actually do command a salary premium (although the premium does not come close to the opportunity cost of a PhD) and some job security.

pmiller2 11y ago
Yeah, I didn't mention that. Things are much better in a handful of technical fields, CS foremost among them. Math, engineering, physics, and economics all have some possibilities outside academia. Most other fields, you might as well cross off those years on your CV if you're looking to industry. Also, if you spend more than 1 year "out of the game," forget about ever getting back on the academic track.
- argonaut 11y ago
  Yeah. My impression is that spending a few years in industry research (and publishing) still leaves the door open for the academic track, although this is all hearsay.
- indubitably 11y ago
  Are you in HR?
- skosuri 11y ago
  I've spent a couple of years out of the game and was fine. It is on the rare side though.
- skosuri 11y ago
  I've spent a couple of years out of the game and was fine. It is on the rare side though.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

> Universities are not growing at the same rates that they were in the 60's and 70's. If you're a graduate student, not only are your classmates your competition, but every professor who supervises more than 1 PhD thesis is actually contributing to the overpopulation of PhDs. I must say, I quite disagree with what seems to be a generally negative tone on HN towards academia. Basic research is fundamentally important, more than that there are extremely talented people who should be doing it - rather than allow themselves to have their time wasted by some corporation that does absolutely nothing beneficial for civilization. Obviously it's a problem if these people are disenfranchised, not sufficiently funded or otherwise aren't able to do what they wanted to do and for those reasons are turned away from Academia (btw tenure track is not the sole option for doing fundamental research). But on here it seems the entire critical conversation is centered, on job options, salary, competition, and all the other things are really evidence of someone too deeply emersed in the corporate culture. If you are doing good research - competition doesn't matter, if you care significantly about the research salary doesn't matter all that much. There are surely negative aspects but statements like these: > That all amounts to about 6-10 years of post-baccalaureate slog before you can even start a career and begin living like an adult. Sound almost like corporate salesmanship for getting talented people out of Academia, into useless soul-destroying jobs.

lukasLansky 11y ago
The fact that the notion of salary leads you to "corporate culture" suggests true relationship between work conditions in corporate and academia. There is nothing inherently corporate about good reward for work. Fundamental research is important and should attract top talent - but saying that individuals should correct errors of society leads to ugly, ugly effects like resentment and elitism. There is no alternative to correcting incentives. As soon as people start to connect "good salary" with "academic culture", everything will be OK.
foldr 11y ago
Most basic research is not beneficial to civilizaton. We fund it knowing that a small fraction of it will prove to be immensely useful. (And of course, without being able to know which fraction that is in advance.)

analog31 11y ago

In my experience as a gradual student, the academic job situation for PhDs was widely known, at least in my field -- physics. That was in the early 90s. I know that a lot of people entered grad school with the stated goal of pursuing an academic career, but I wonder if that is more of a rationalization than a definite objective. My guess is that people are motivated simply by an interest in the subject matter, and in getting more education. In my own case, my dad, and my grandfather, both had PhDs, and almost all of my close relatives have advanced degrees of some sort. There was a strong family "culture" that valued education for its own sake, along with a sense of education being the thing that "they can't take away from you," developed through the experiences of the Great Depression and the world wars. Those are the kinds of motivations that aren't really influenced by job market statistics.