5 ms·

In practice, it's hard to completely change course and take on even more risk once you are finished with your Ph.D. Often it's the dropouts that start companies

by andres 19y ago

In practice, it's hard to completely change course and take on even more risk once you are finished with your Ph.D. Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them. In Physics, a Masters typically means 2 years of coursework and passing some set of exams. Most of us join a research group about 1 year into grad school but it's hard to do real research until your classes are done.

electric 19y ago
"Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them." I don't agree with your statement. I think we hear more stories of dropouts starting companies because they are rare and make interesting stories. For instance: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli . .
- andres 19y ago
  Since there are a lot more degree holders than dropouts, it's probably mathematically true that there are more PhDs starting companies. I wonder what percentage of dropouts start companies vs. percentage of PhDs. That is basically what I was driving at in my original post. If you are a PhD candidate 3 years into grad school are you more likely to start a company by dropping out or by staying in school?
mechanical_fish 19y ago
Often it's the dropouts that start companies... It is probably easier to start a company on the side as a grad student than to wait until you graduate. Grad student salary sucks, but the flip side is that it can be a pretty awesome day job. The guy who pointed out that 50% of the average grad student's 60-hour week is spend playing WoW is pretty much on the money. You can go months at a time doing only 20 hours of research a week, or even 10, and still not get fired. Of course, you're not getting paid much, but you're surrounded by lots of other smart young people who aren't getting paid much either, so it's kind of fun. And you certainly aren't going to graduate if you don't do a lot of work -- but if your preferred exit plan is to found a startup and drop out, who cares about that? It's actually rather hard to fire a grad student. The adviser pays the student very little, but in return (s)he is expected to graduate the student. A student who is fired by Professor X three or four years into a Ph.D. program is well and truly screwed. They might sue. They will certainly tell every grad student they know, and they in turn might tell all the first-year students, who will avoid working for Professor X like he had the plague. So, once you've gotten established as a student in a research group, it's not so hard to spend six months or a year doing only 20 hours worth of work per week. Your adviser will roll her eyes a lot, but she's not likely to take action until you've accumulated a really solid, long-term record as a slacker.
- timr 19y ago
  "It's actually rather hard to fire a grad student. The adviser pays the student very little, but in return (s)he is expected to graduate the student. A student who is fired by Professor X three or four years into a Ph.D. program is well and truly screwed. They might sue." ...which is why the question rarely arises. The faculty have devious ways of eliminating students that don't make the grade. Why fire people, when you can just collude to make their lives so miserable that they choose to quit? Do it properly, and the other students will just assume that the problem is a personal issue. If you're a successful researcher, it won't scare anyone away from your lab.
  - mechanical_fish 19y ago
    +1, painfully true. :) This is, indeed, the technique, and I have seen this done more than once.
  - asdflkj 19y ago
    Can you elaborate a little on these devious ways?
    - timr 19y ago
      The basic principle is that your advisor has control over everything, and you have control over nothing. Need an important collaboration for your next paper? That won't happen without your advisor's support. The same goes for access to specialized equipment or supplies (the budget can become very tight when your PI doesn't like you). At most schools, your PI also controls your funding; you can expect to TA more often if s/he doesn't like you. Your PI knows the weaknesses in your research and knowledge better than anyone, and can use this to your disadvantage. I've witnessed faculty who aggressively attack their own students during examinations (a truly disastrous scenario). More often, advisors will simply fail to defend their poor students from unfair attacks by other faculty. Departmental lectures, defenses, oral exams, etc. are remarkably subjective affairs, and one bad comment can snowball into an event that will add years to your time in grad school. Another very common tactic is for the PI to hand out the best research projects to favored students. There's nothing so demoralizing as watching a first-year grad student get an publication in Science or Nature (by being assigned to an already successful project), when you've worked for years on failing experiments. I've seen this happen too many times to count. Like I said, there's no way to list all of the different ways that your PI can make your life painful. It's just an extremely unbalanced, unregulated power relationship, and with any creativity at all, an advisor can use that power to destroy you.

by andres 19y ago

electric 19y ago

"Often it's the dropouts that start companies and the PhDs that join them." I don't agree with your statement. I think we hear more stories of dropouts starting companies because they are rare and make interesting stories. For instance: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warnock 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_M._Jacobs 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Samueli . .

andres 19y ago
Since there are a lot more degree holders than dropouts, it's probably mathematically true that there are more PhDs starting companies. I wonder what percentage of dropouts start companies vs. percentage of PhDs. That is basically what I was driving at in my original post. If you are a PhD candidate 3 years into grad school are you more likely to start a company by dropping out or by staying in school?

mechanical_fish 19y ago

Often it's the dropouts that start companies... It is probably easier to start a company on the side as a grad student than to wait until you graduate. Grad student salary sucks, but the flip side is that it can be a pretty awesome day job. The guy who pointed out that 50% of the average grad student's 60-hour week is spend playing WoW is pretty much on the money. You can go months at a time doing only 20 hours of research a week, or even 10, and still not get fired. Of course, you're not getting paid much, but you're surrounded by lots of other smart young people who aren't getting paid much either, so it's kind of fun. And you certainly aren't going to graduate if you don't do a lot of work -- but if your preferred exit plan is to found a startup and drop out, who cares about that? It's actually rather hard to fire a grad student. The adviser pays the student very little, but in return (s)he is expected to graduate the student. A student who is fired by Professor X three or four years into a Ph.D. program is well and truly screwed. They might sue. They will certainly tell every grad student they know, and they in turn might tell all the first-year students, who will avoid working for Professor X like he had the plague. So, once you've gotten established as a student in a research group, it's not so hard to spend six months or a year doing only 20 hours worth of work per week. Your adviser will roll her eyes a lot, but she's not likely to take action until you've accumulated a really solid, long-term record as a slacker.

timr 19y ago
"It's actually rather hard to fire a grad student. The adviser pays the student very little, but in return (s)he is expected to graduate the student. A student who is fired by Professor X three or four years into a Ph.D. program is well and truly screwed. They might sue." ...which is why the question rarely arises. The faculty have devious ways of eliminating students that don't make the grade. Why fire people, when you can just collude to make their lives so miserable that they choose to quit? Do it properly, and the other students will just assume that the problem is a personal issue. If you're a successful researcher, it won't scare anyone away from your lab.
- mechanical_fish 19y ago
  +1, painfully true. :) This is, indeed, the technique, and I have seen this done more than once.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  Can you elaborate a little on these devious ways?
  - timr 19y ago
    The basic principle is that your advisor has control over everything, and you have control over nothing. Need an important collaboration for your next paper? That won't happen without your advisor's support. The same goes for access to specialized equipment or supplies (the budget can become very tight when your PI doesn't like you). At most schools, your PI also controls your funding; you can expect to TA more often if s/he doesn't like you. Your PI knows the weaknesses in your research and knowledge better than anyone, and can use this to your disadvantage. I've witnessed faculty who aggressively attack their own students during examinations (a truly disastrous scenario). More often, advisors will simply fail to defend their poor students from unfair attacks by other faculty. Departmental lectures, defenses, oral exams, etc. are remarkably subjective affairs, and one bad comment can snowball into an event that will add years to your time in grad school. Another very common tactic is for the PI to hand out the best research projects to favored students. There's nothing so demoralizing as watching a first-year grad student get an publication in Science or Nature (by being assigned to an already successful project), when you've worked for years on failing experiments. I've seen this happen too many times to count. Like I said, there's no way to list all of the different ways that your PI can make your life painful. It's just an extremely unbalanced, unregulated power relationship, and with any creativity at all, an advisor can use that power to destroy you.