6 ms·

I read the whole article, including the "why not to get a PhD part." I still thought it was way too kind to the "get a PhD" side of the equation. PhDs represent

I read the whole article, including the "why not to get a PhD part." I still thought it was way too kind to the "get a PhD" side of the equation. PhDs represent a tremendous opportunity cost, and I have not seen good evidence that they causally improve outcomes in the vast majority of cases.

ianai 8y ago
They don’t make sense from a cost/benefit outside of the people actually able to find work in that one specific area and beat out all competition. There are simply more candidates than high paying phd jobs. A masters tends to have a more dependable ROI. But all things considered, I say modern academia is a shadow of what it claims to be.
chrisseaton 8y ago
How are you measuring outcomes? Just salary? Because how would you empirically measure anything else?
- ianai 8y ago
  Salary, salary regressed on all factors of things (age,sex,years in industry, etc). Once the equation is properly balanced the marginal impact of a PhD is less than the marginal impact of just those added years in the field. And don’t forget to factor in the opportunity cost of accruing student loan debt (which can’t be defaulted!) against lost yearly income.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Right, but there are outcomes beside salary aren't there?
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Pedantically: yes, but almost all of them have salary as a prerequisite. Practically: no, not really.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        My PhD and the research I do now based on it give me a huge amount of personal satisfaction and are a big part of my quality of life. I'm comparing the work I did before my PhD (because I worked after my degree before a PhD) and seeing what my friends think about work compared to me. Yeah if you're looking for more money, maybe don't do a PhD. If you're looking for the time and space to find satisfaction by working on a unique problem, then it's hard to find something that gives you that in our industry to the same degree.
        ianai 8y ago
        So that’s the pitch they make in the PhD programs. But what they leave out are the negative associations with a PhD. You will immediately be over qualified for large swaths of work. And unless you can immediately land that dream job by, amongst other things, beating out all competition for that work - you will enter the work force with 0 applicable work experience. Hiring managers can be downright blind about anything that isn’t direct work experience in something you’d only gain experience from already having experience in that labor market.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        mmt 8y ago
        > And unless you can immediately land that dream job I'm not sure it has to be immediately, but your point still stands, and it's often ignored by proponents, which is that merely acquiring a graduate degree does not automatically guarantee all those intangible benefits. One has to actually secure employment with those benefits. Whether that's easier than finding employment with salary benefits instead (or in addition) seems to be still an open question.
        ianai 8y ago
        Life is short and the basics of survival require daily purchases. So while someone can take a cruddy job while still looking for a better job, all that time does add up to the opportunity cost of going for a PhD. Agree, it’s very much an open question.
privateSFacct 8y ago
The opportunity cost is a LIFE cost. Friends getting phd's - poorer, later start in life to almost everything (family, house etc) and the job market is not great.
- _jal 8y ago
  Of the people I know who have or are finishing PhDs, about half are happy with the choice. The commonality seems to be that the happy ones really love their chosen field - they'd rather play and work on whatever topic than anything else. One is making absurd gobs of money, but she also really loves her niche. Another, less universal aspect is that many folks I know who went for one have attenuated interest in typically 'normal' life-goals - one or more of things like marriage, kids, 2.4 picket fences, etc. are either not part of the plan or substantially less important to them than to other people. (Though this may be bias introduced by me, because I also fit that description, and family-less folks over a certain age tend to find each other.)
Nimitz14 8y ago
This may shock you, but some people prefer doing research to working a normal job and earning lots of money. Those are the types of people that should and will do PhDs (there are unfortunately a lot who think like you and still try and do a PhD for god knows what reason).
- TTPrograms 8y ago
  You don't need a PhD to do research. All information is free now. It's fully possible for individuals to self teach in a working environment and be capable of performing effective research with 2-4 years of good experience after undergrad. To assume that the only way to accomplish this is via PhD is silly. This is especially the case when talking about computer science fields, where the barrier to entry is basically owning a cell phone.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Hypothetically speaking you're right. You can teach yourself everything you need to know even if that means sitting down and going through MIT OCW with all the textbooks in the syllabi. But practically speaking, in the real world we reside in, approximately no one authors peer reviewed research without at least being in graduate school. You frequently see "talks" at conferences given by non-PhDs, but it's exceptionally rare to find math or computer science research published in reputable journals or conferences by non-PhDs. The dirty secret is that the formal barrier to entry was never really the problem. It's extraordinarily difficult to learn how to conduct meaningful research. The structure of a PhD is imperfect, but it places you in direct collaboration with an experienced researcher who can mentor you. Half of the entire work of a PhD program is precisely learning how to learn on your own so you can find interesting research questions. I don't think it's productive to talk about what's merely possible. A more realistic barometer is what's plausible. Anyone who can bootstrap themselves up to original research in math or computer science through independent study is extremely gifted. You don't want to set a goal that requires you to be extremely gifted right from the start.
    - TTPrograms 8y ago

ianai 8y ago

They don’t make sense from a cost/benefit outside of the people actually able to find work in that one specific area and beat out all competition. There are simply more candidates than high paying phd jobs. A masters tends to have a more dependable ROI. But all things considered, I say modern academia is a shadow of what it claims to be.

chrisseaton 8y ago

How are you measuring outcomes? Just salary? Because how would you empirically measure anything else?

ianai 8y ago
Salary, salary regressed on all factors of things (age,sex,years in industry, etc). Once the equation is properly balanced the marginal impact of a PhD is less than the marginal impact of just those added years in the field. And don’t forget to factor in the opportunity cost of accruing student loan debt (which can’t be defaulted!) against lost yearly income.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Right, but there are outcomes beside salary aren't there?
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Pedantically: yes, but almost all of them have salary as a prerequisite. Practically: no, not really.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      My PhD and the research I do now based on it give me a huge amount of personal satisfaction and are a big part of my quality of life. I'm comparing the work I did before my PhD (because I worked after my degree before a PhD) and seeing what my friends think about work compared to me. Yeah if you're looking for more money, maybe don't do a PhD. If you're looking for the time and space to find satisfaction by working on a unique problem, then it's hard to find something that gives you that in our industry to the same degree.
      - ianai 8y ago
        So that’s the pitch they make in the PhD programs. But what they leave out are the negative associations with a PhD. You will immediately be over qualified for large swaths of work. And unless you can immediately land that dream job by, amongst other things, beating out all competition for that work - you will enter the work force with 0 applicable work experience. Hiring managers can be downright blind about anything that isn’t direct work experience in something you’d only gain experience from already having experience in that labor market.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        mmt 8y ago
        > And unless you can immediately land that dream job I'm not sure it has to be immediately, but your point still stands, and it's often ignored by proponents, which is that merely acquiring a graduate degree does not automatically guarantee all those intangible benefits. One has to actually secure employment with those benefits. Whether that's easier than finding employment with salary benefits instead (or in addition) seems to be still an open question.
        ianai 8y ago
        Life is short and the basics of survival require daily purchases. So while someone can take a cruddy job while still looking for a better job, all that time does add up to the opportunity cost of going for a PhD. Agree, it’s very much an open question.

privateSFacct 8y ago

The opportunity cost is a LIFE cost. Friends getting phd's - poorer, later start in life to almost everything (family, house etc) and the job market is not great.

_jal 8y ago
Of the people I know who have or are finishing PhDs, about half are happy with the choice. The commonality seems to be that the happy ones really love their chosen field - they'd rather play and work on whatever topic than anything else. One is making absurd gobs of money, but she also really loves her niche. Another, less universal aspect is that many folks I know who went for one have attenuated interest in typically 'normal' life-goals - one or more of things like marriage, kids, 2.4 picket fences, etc. are either not part of the plan or substantially less important to them than to other people. (Though this may be bias introduced by me, because I also fit that description, and family-less folks over a certain age tend to find each other.)

Nimitz14 8y ago

This may shock you, but some people prefer doing research to working a normal job and earning lots of money. Those are the types of people that should and will do PhDs (there are unfortunately a lot who think like you and still try and do a PhD for god knows what reason).

TTPrograms 8y ago
You don't need a PhD to do research. All information is free now. It's fully possible for individuals to self teach in a working environment and be capable of performing effective research with 2-4 years of good experience after undergrad. To assume that the only way to accomplish this is via PhD is silly. This is especially the case when talking about computer science fields, where the barrier to entry is basically owning a cell phone.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Hypothetically speaking you're right. You can teach yourself everything you need to know even if that means sitting down and going through MIT OCW with all the textbooks in the syllabi. But practically speaking, in the real world we reside in, approximately no one authors peer reviewed research without at least being in graduate school. You frequently see "talks" at conferences given by non-PhDs, but it's exceptionally rare to find math or computer science research published in reputable journals or conferences by non-PhDs. The dirty secret is that the formal barrier to entry was never really the problem. It's extraordinarily difficult to learn how to conduct meaningful research. The structure of a PhD is imperfect, but it places you in direct collaboration with an experienced researcher who can mentor you. Half of the entire work of a PhD program is precisely learning how to learn on your own so you can find interesting research questions. I don't think it's productive to talk about what's merely possible. A more realistic barometer is what's plausible. Anyone who can bootstrap themselves up to original research in math or computer science through independent study is extremely gifted. You don't want to set a goal that requires you to be extremely gifted right from the start.
  - TTPrograms 8y ago