4 ms·

I have many friends in PhD programs, including CalTech, Stanford, and Berkeley, pursuing CS, Genetics, Biomededical Engineering, and EE. To characterize their

I have many friends in PhD programs, including CalTech, Stanford, and Berkeley, pursuing CS, Genetics, Biomededical Engineering, and EE. To characterize their program is “fun” is a gross mischaracterization, and demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the rigors involved in any technical/science/engineering PhD pursuit. PhD programs are hard. They’re often lonely. They’re frustrating. They’re tedious. And there’s a tremendous amount of pressure. And it’s academia: highly bureaucratic and political and often unfair. Unless you possess a serious passion for the subject, you’re unlikely to survive. On the other hand, my friends getting the PhDs in subjects such as education (Stanford) and conservation biology (Mississippi State) have described it as the highlight of their life. After their first two years, they’re basically getting paid to do whatever they want. They audit classes. Apply to grants. Travel. And they write.

BeetleB 8y ago
>PhD programs are hard. They’re often lonely. They’re frustrating. They’re tedious. And there’s a tremendous amount of pressure. And it’s academia: highly bureaucratic and political and often unfair. >Unless you possess a serious passion for the subject, you’re unlikely to survive. This is mostly a recent phenomenon in engineering. I went to a top school and left almost a decade ago. While advisors like what you described existed, roughly half of them were not like that. It really was fun, and relatively relaxed.
gh02t 8y ago
> Unless you possess a serious passion for the subject, you’re unlikely to survive. I mean, should you really get a PhD without a serious passion for the subject? I won't disagree one bit that it's not for everybody. Speaking as someone wrapping up an engineering PhD from a good school though, I enjoyed it quite a lot and I think most of the people I work with enjoyed doing their PhD. It was not easy, but it was interesting and rewarding. The environment varies a lot depending on the school and the adviser. Some programs are indeed quite toxic, but there are also plenty that are challenging, but fulfilling and nurturing.
- projektir 8y ago
  > I mean, should you really get a PhD without a serious passion for the subject? I'm not sure why passion is particularly important. I would rate work ethic, diligence, attention to detail, and some character (i.e., not lying in studies) as more important than passion. Generally, making people jump through hoops to get something done doesn't actually get you the best people. It gets you the people who are good at gaming such systems, and people who don't know what they are getting themselves into.
  - gh02t 8y ago
    A PhD is a pretty deep dive into a subject, if you don't have passion you're gonna burn out. Of course other things are important, but if you don't have passion for the subject you're gonna be miserable. And I don't really see it as jumping through hoops. A good PhD program has a few checkpoints to pass, but everything else is up to you. I strongly disagree that you don't get good people, at least not the ones who finish. People who don't know what they are getting in to or are only good at "gaming the system" tend to wash out pretty quickly, usually because they are miserable and burn out. It varies from industry to industry, though... maybe other engineering fields are worse than the ones I'm familiar with. A lot of people make the mistake that you have to have a PhD to prove you're "smart", which is wrong. But that doesn't mean that only people with nothing better to do get one.
throwaway080383 8y ago
The irony of this reply is that I did do a PhD, in pure math at a top 10 school, and while I might describe it as hard, lonely, frustrating, tedious, and high pressure, I would also describe it as having been fun. Certainly more fun than my current job at $BigNameTech. Thanks for the lecture about my Serious Misunderstanding, though.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  Perhaps you would have gotten your thought across more effectively had you said something like "more fun in my opinion". I tried a PhD in ECE before dropping out with an MS, and the last word I would use to describe my experience is "fun".
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    Yeah, fair enough. It's more like it could be more fun, if you're obsessed with the field, and your advisor isn't terrible, and your program doesn't encourage cutthroat competition (by e.g. admitting more students than the faculty can realistically support), and you're willing and able to live a Spartan lifestyle (in particular, no financial dependents), and ... I'm lucky in a lot of ways and I sometimes forget that.
    - temp20160423 8y ago
      I think your previous answer using the word "fun" was spot-on. I have a non-CS PhD that's not really related to what I do today. I would describe what I did previously as "fun"; despite the intensity and worse WLB than life in a big-tech company, you're ostensibly choosing projects that you and your adviser consider fun. In bigtech, you have a lot less freedom to choose what to do. Seriously, if you don't consider your PhD fun, you should just drop out now; if you plan on just going to industry later to make money (esp as a SWE), there's no reason to get a PhD.
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      It’s interesting, of course, that a similar set of caveats apply to working for early-stage startups - not that this forum would attack anyone for calling working for one fun.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
I got a CS PhD at Caltech. It was fun. Experiences vary a lot with who your advisor is and what topic you're researching. The work could be frustrating and tedious, but I never felt overly pressured and the people running the bureaucracy always just made problems disappear for me.
gaius 8y ago
They’re often lonely. They’re frustrating. They’re tedious. And there’s a tremendous amount of pressure. highly bureaucratic and political and often unfair. So, just like working for any Fortune 500 company then.
jseliger 8y ago
On the other hand, my friends getting the PhDs in subjects such as education (Stanford) and conservation biology (Mississippi State) have described it as the highlight of their life. After their first two years, they’re basically getting paid to do whatever they want. They audit classes. Apply to grants. Travel. And they write. I wonder if they have family money. This is actually not a snide comment. The people I knew who did a PhD and liked it had enough money, typically from families and sometimes from a spouse, to not worry about money, or five+ years at substandard wages. I worked part-time as a grant-writing consultant, so I was fine, but I saw financial privations all around me. To the point I wrote this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-opportunity-costs https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... Granted, science PhDs are often better funded and more lucrative post-degree, but even among people in the sciences financial factors often loomed.
- at-fates-hands 8y ago
  > I wonder if they have family money. Not a snide comment. I had two friends who entered into PhD programs, one for Math, the other for engineering. Both dropped out for financial reasons. One was married and was getting a lot of pressure from his new wife about starting a family, settling down, getting a real job that pays better than what the college was paying him. The other had been on his own since he was 16. Bad family situation, he was raised by his grandparents. One of the sharpest guys I knew. Just burned out from trying to work three jobs and keeping up with the program. It was just too much and he needed to get a job that paid him better so he didn't have to work 70 hours a week to get by. The funny part was five years later, he landed at Google, was making a lot of money, and was planning on going back with help from Google to finish his degree.

BeetleB 8y ago

>PhD programs are hard. They’re often lonely. They’re frustrating. They’re tedious. And there’s a tremendous amount of pressure. And it’s academia: highly bureaucratic and political and often unfair. >Unless you possess a serious passion for the subject, you’re unlikely to survive. This is mostly a recent phenomenon in engineering. I went to a top school and left almost a decade ago. While advisors like what you described existed, roughly half of them were not like that. It really was fun, and relatively relaxed.

gh02t 8y ago

> Unless you possess a serious passion for the subject, you’re unlikely to survive. I mean, should you really get a PhD without a serious passion for the subject? I won't disagree one bit that it's not for everybody. Speaking as someone wrapping up an engineering PhD from a good school though, I enjoyed it quite a lot and I think most of the people I work with enjoyed doing their PhD. It was not easy, but it was interesting and rewarding. The environment varies a lot depending on the school and the adviser. Some programs are indeed quite toxic, but there are also plenty that are challenging, but fulfilling and nurturing.

projektir 8y ago
> I mean, should you really get a PhD without a serious passion for the subject? I'm not sure why passion is particularly important. I would rate work ethic, diligence, attention to detail, and some character (i.e., not lying in studies) as more important than passion. Generally, making people jump through hoops to get something done doesn't actually get you the best people. It gets you the people who are good at gaming such systems, and people who don't know what they are getting themselves into.
- gh02t 8y ago
  A PhD is a pretty deep dive into a subject, if you don't have passion you're gonna burn out. Of course other things are important, but if you don't have passion for the subject you're gonna be miserable. And I don't really see it as jumping through hoops. A good PhD program has a few checkpoints to pass, but everything else is up to you. I strongly disagree that you don't get good people, at least not the ones who finish. People who don't know what they are getting in to or are only good at "gaming the system" tend to wash out pretty quickly, usually because they are miserable and burn out. It varies from industry to industry, though... maybe other engineering fields are worse than the ones I'm familiar with. A lot of people make the mistake that you have to have a PhD to prove you're "smart", which is wrong. But that doesn't mean that only people with nothing better to do get one.

throwaway080383 8y ago

The irony of this reply is that I did do a PhD, in pure math at a top 10 school, and while I might describe it as hard, lonely, frustrating, tedious, and high pressure, I would also describe it as having been fun. Certainly more fun than my current job at $BigNameTech. Thanks for the lecture about my Serious Misunderstanding, though.

Cyph0n 8y ago
Perhaps you would have gotten your thought across more effectively had you said something like "more fun in my opinion". I tried a PhD in ECE before dropping out with an MS, and the last word I would use to describe my experience is "fun".
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  Yeah, fair enough. It's more like it could be more fun, if you're obsessed with the field, and your advisor isn't terrible, and your program doesn't encourage cutthroat competition (by e.g. admitting more students than the faculty can realistically support), and you're willing and able to live a Spartan lifestyle (in particular, no financial dependents), and ... I'm lucky in a lot of ways and I sometimes forget that.
  - temp20160423 8y ago
    I think your previous answer using the word "fun" was spot-on. I have a non-CS PhD that's not really related to what I do today. I would describe what I did previously as "fun"; despite the intensity and worse WLB than life in a big-tech company, you're ostensibly choosing projects that you and your adviser consider fun. In bigtech, you have a lot less freedom to choose what to do. Seriously, if you don't consider your PhD fun, you should just drop out now; if you plan on just going to industry later to make money (esp as a SWE), there's no reason to get a PhD.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    It’s interesting, of course, that a similar set of caveats apply to working for early-stage startups - not that this forum would attack anyone for calling working for one fun.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

I got a CS PhD at Caltech. It was fun. Experiences vary a lot with who your advisor is and what topic you're researching. The work could be frustrating and tedious, but I never felt overly pressured and the people running the bureaucracy always just made problems disappear for me.

gaius 8y ago

They’re often lonely. They’re frustrating. They’re tedious. And there’s a tremendous amount of pressure. highly bureaucratic and political and often unfair. So, just like working for any Fortune 500 company then.

jseliger 8y ago

On the other hand, my friends getting the PhDs in subjects such as education (Stanford) and conservation biology (Mississippi State) have described it as the highlight of their life. After their first two years, they’re basically getting paid to do whatever they want. They audit classes. Apply to grants. Travel. And they write. I wonder if they have family money. This is actually not a snide comment. The people I knew who did a PhD and liked it had enough money, typically from families and sometimes from a spouse, to not worry about money, or five+ years at substandard wages. I worked part-time as a grant-writing consultant, so I was fine, but I saw financial privations all around me. To the point I wrote this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-opportunity-costs https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... Granted, science PhDs are often better funded and more lucrative post-degree, but even among people in the sciences financial factors often loomed.

at-fates-hands 8y ago
> I wonder if they have family money. Not a snide comment. I had two friends who entered into PhD programs, one for Math, the other for engineering. Both dropped out for financial reasons. One was married and was getting a lot of pressure from his new wife about starting a family, settling down, getting a real job that pays better than what the college was paying him. The other had been on his own since he was 16. Bad family situation, he was raised by his grandparents. One of the sharpest guys I knew. Just burned out from trying to work three jobs and keeping up with the program. It was just too much and he needed to get a job that paid him better so he didn't have to work 70 hours a week to get by. The funny part was five years later, he landed at Google, was making a lot of money, and was planning on going back with help from Google to finish his degree.