16 ms·

What You Need to Know Before Considering a PhD

• pvaldes 8y ago
  Your PhD will cost you the life of your firstborn: http://www.johnskylar.com/post/107416685924/a-career-in-science-will-cost-you-your-firstborn http://www.johnskylar.com/post/107416685924/a-career-in-scie... Postdocs definitely deserve be paid (and treated) better.
• account2 8y ago
  I have several questions regarding this: 1) Do FAANG companies hire non-PhDs for machine learning positions? Most seem to require a MS or PhD 2) What are the interview questions like at FAANG companies for machine learning positions? Is the interview different if you don't have a PhD? 3) For non-PhDs applying, what are the math requirements for the job? 4) For people that have a PhD working in ML at a FAANG, do you feel like you use your PhD level skills day-to-day?
  • sdrothrock 8y ago
    I'd like to know a variation on this: > 4) For people that have a PhD working in ML at a FAANG, do you feel like you use your PhD level skills day-to-day? 5) For people who work with a mix of PhDs and non-PhDs in the same field, do you notice a difference in output quality?
    • david-gpu 8y ago
      5) No, but I am obviously biased due to not having a PhD. I doubt you are going to get an unbiased answer from anybody; everybody wants to believe they made the right choice.
      • sdrothrock 8y ago
        > I doubt you are going to get an unbiased answer from anybody; everybody wants to believe they made the right choice. I'm not sure where choices come in here. I specifically mentioned a mixed team; the choices have already been made, so the performance of the existing team is what I'm asking about. As far as not getting an unbiased answer, that's why I'm asking HN at large -- hopefully there are enough people in enough environments to give an interesting and informative combination of answers. :)
    • nl 8y ago
      5) For people who work with a mix of PhDs and non-PhDs in the same field, do you notice a difference in output quality? No, individual differences outweigh any pattern that I've seen.
  • david-gpu 8y ago
    I work at NVidia as a GPU architect doing ML applied research. I'm not a hiring manager, but I have interviewed a bunch of people. 1) Having a PhD will make it easier to get an interview, but it is not necessary. Relevant experience counts just as much. I only have an MSc. 2) That will vary a ton from one team to another and from one position to another. The interviewers are not going to change their questions depending on your education. 3) The same requirement as for PhDs. It will depend on the role, but in general I expect people value hands-on experience more than theory. Except for some particular hiring managers with strong opinions, a PhD is not going to be a hard requirement for nearly any job. However, a PhD in a relevant area is going to be useful, just like any other relevant experience you may have.
    • seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      The best machine learning researcher I know has a MsC in EE. This is at a research lab that begins with an M.
      • copperx 8y ago
        MIT Media Lab, obviously.
  • throwawaymath 8y ago
    > 1) Do FAANG companies hire non-PhDs for machine learning positions? Most seem to require a MS or PhD That depends on what you mean by "machine learning positions" and what your bar for normalcy is. For research roles - these generally have distinct titles like "Research Scientist" or "Quantitative Researcher" - it is extremely difficult to get an interview without a PhD, let alone an offer. It happens, but rarely, because there are many capable people with PhDs and other relevant experience applying for the same roles. If instead you relax the bar to also include software engineers who work with research scientists on model implementation and optimization then yes, people with "only" an MSc are routinely hired for these positions. These engineers are still credited on papers published as a result of their collaboration, and they still need to have a firm understanding of how the models work. The difference is that they don't tend to have leadership roles and don't develop novel theory - they are responsible for supporting the core research team and helping the research output become production ready software. Both of these types of roles require strong coding skills, but the "hard" research roles require significantly stronger mastery of linear algebra and probability theory. As an example, compare the roles for Research Scientist[1] and Research Engineer[2] at Facebook. You'll find a similar bifurcation at other industry labs like Google, Microsoft and IBM. If you have the opportunity to do either and you're optimizing your career for wealth maximization or research impact, it's better to obtain a role as a research scientist. That being said most PhDs do not end up at Google Brain or FAIR, so it's not a cut and dry decision. You can't just choose to trade n years of your life and an easier-to-obtain role on the periphery of research for the ability to do theoretical research at the best tech companies in the world later on. ________________________________ 1. https://www.facebook.com/careers/jobs/a0I1H00000Mp2ZCUAZ/ https://www.facebook.com/careers/jobs/a0I1H00000Mp2ZCUAZ/ 2. https://www.facebook.com/careers/jobs/a0I1H00000LJm3MUAT/ https://www.facebook.com/careers/jobs/a0I1H00000LJm3MUAT/
    • account2 8y ago
      Thanks. Can you list what courses one should focus on as a baseline to do research in ML? You mentioned Probability theory & Linear algebra, but what specific topics in those areas should one learn? Any other fields of math?
• dannykwells 8y ago
  A little disappointed with the one-sided point of view here - the author states "...I deeply admire everyone I’ve listed, and I am not arguing that a PhD is never useful or never works out well" but never really gives examples of skills that PhDs do provide. And there are absolutely career paths where a PhD is not required, but since many of the practitioners have one, can often be selected for (data science, biotech, biostats, lots of engineering research etc.) So without a PhD you might have a harder time rising as far as you would like in one of these positions (again being realistic that it's not all about talent, it can often be politics/perceived competence, which a PhD can augment). It's just important to be honest about both pros and cons when writing advice articles like this.
  • azhenley 8y ago
    Sadly, there is a weekly post on HN that hates on PhDs and grad school. I have tried my best to comment on each one and try to give a different perspective: In CS you can earn over 50k a year with your stipend plus summer internship, you have a lot of unstructured time to explore your interests, and there are a lot of tenure-track positions without doing a postdoc.
  • sulam 8y ago
    This really depends on the role, the company and the culture. I am arguably the most senior engineer where I work (out of over 500 engineers) and I don’t have a college degree. We have many PhDs on staff. What matters at many companies and in many roles are results.
• michaericalribo 8y ago
  This gets it right, I think. And I say that as someone who does not regret taking five years to get a PhD. A PhD is too long, narrow, and frustrating to do just to get a slightly fatter paycheck. For some reason, that deep dive clicked with me, and I’m grateful for all the personal growth that came from that. But for the vast majority of people, I think it could easily end as an exercise in frustration.
  • chrisseaton 8y ago
    Five years is a super long PhD. If you can get it done in two or three years it makes more sense.
    • bbeekley 8y ago
      I assume the 5 years means starting with a Bachelors. At least in the US, it's fairly unheard of to finish a PhD in 3 years or less.
      • trentlott 8y ago
        Yeah. As a chem PhD, the average tends toward 4.5-5.5ish. Between classes, teaching, and genuinely getting things done, it's not a fast experience. Also, you probably arent making a ton more unless you go for an industry job...which is a little bit the opposite of the Platonic independence supposedly at the heart of the training method. But very few people I know want to be a PI.
    • apo 8y ago
      There are fields in the sciences (e.g., biology) where the PhD routinely takes 5-6 years on top of a bachelors, and you won't be hirable at the PhD level in academia and some parts of industry until after at least two multi-year postdocs.
      • hpcjoe 8y ago
        Physics as well. When I finished up in the 90s, the market was flooded with applicants from the former soviet union as well as locals. I remember speaking to people I knew on hiring committees who told me of 1000+ applicants per open tenure track position at tier 2 and tier 3 schools. Around that time I was looking at the postdoc train, saw where it (didn't quite) led, and chose a different path.
• apo 8y ago
  I grossly underestimated how much I could learn by working in industry. I believed the falsehood that the best way to always keep learning is to stay in academia, and I didn’t have a good grasp on the opportunity costs of doing a PhD. My undergraduate experience had been magical, and I had always both excelled at and enjoyed being in school. The idea of getting paid to be in school sounded like a sweet deal! Wholeheartedly agree. Aspiring PhDs discount what industry can teach them. The problem is compounded by undergrads who have zero industry experience when they graduate.
  • thebooktocome 8y ago
    It'd help if industry didn't treat undergrads as though their labor were worthless.
    • apo 8y ago
      That's a pretty broad brush to be painting with. What were the specifics of your situation?
      • thebooktocome 8y ago
        My situation is I'm in this conversation with a random online persona who thinks that aspiring PhDs are ignorant of industry.
  • trentlott 8y ago
    A PhD is nothing like undergrad. If you spend time working in a lab with grad students, listen to them. Heed their points about the field and their boss. Research is research, and maybe you'll have some idea of what the technical details of the field are. But the only way you know what your life will be like is to pay attention. It's not bad, but you're trading something real to have "Dr." on your magazine subscriptions. My biggest concern is more people getting PhDs, and the process becoming the New Bachelor degree, particularly in STEM.
  • stochastic_monk 8y ago
    I chose to do a PhD after several years in industry. I feel like was better prepared to produce than my colleagues without having done so were.
• jccalhoun 8y ago
  I have a phd in a Communication-realted field. I like my job at a community college but I am over-educated for it. However, I burned out on trying to get published. My advice is if you have doubt about going to grad school then don't. There are tons of people competing for every job. There is no guarantee you will get a job and there are fewer and fewer tenure track jobs. I was lucky to get out of adjuncting hell and I was lucky that I don't have a spouse or kids so I could afford to live on 24k for a few years.
  • throwawayjava 8y ago
    > There are tons of people competing for every (faculty) job. This is not at all the case in Computer Science. Especially permanent positions at CCs and lecturing at universities, there are more roles than people at the moment. Mostly because the worst-case alternative is taking one of the plentifully available 100k-200k industry jobs. Especially in ML. Generally, "don't get a Ph.D. planning that you'll be a professor" is good advice. CS at the moment is the exception that proves the rule. Especially outside of R1.
  • azhenley 8y ago
    If you don't have doubts about ANY major life choice, then you are the exception. My experience has been great. Straight out of grad school I got several tenure-track offers from R1 universities. I'm not a super star and graduated from an unranked department.
• jedberg 8y ago
  This is total anecdata, but out of my closest college friends, five of them went to get a PhD, while I went to industry. When they graduated, I was already making more than of all of them, with five years of industry experience. And I made more them them for the next thirteen years too. I never hit any magical ceiling where a PhD was necessary. In other words, don't do a PhD if you're in it for the money. It may open a few more interview doors for you, but honestly, at least in my experience, I wasn't even aware of which of my coworkers had PhDs. When I eventually found out, they were all just slightly older than me working at the same pay grade.
  • GuiA 8y ago
    I was in a PhD program, I dropped out. I have been working in R&D at a large company for a while now; many of my best colleagues have PhDs, many others do not. As far as my personal experience is concerned, a PhD has no bearing whatsoever on your capacity to do solid research. That said, I am seriously considering going back on the PhD route, because I think I’d like to spend more time teaching down the line. Kind of silly, but I have only a master’s and it seems like most higher ed institutions do not consider hiring you as a professor unless you have the magical piece of paper.
    • electricslpnsld 8y ago
      > a PhD has no bearing whatsoever on your capacity to do solid research Having worked in research at a few major tech companies now, when hiring research staff I’ve found they typical want someone in a strong position in the research community, typically evidenced by a strong publication record in the field they are recruiting in. While this can certainly be done without a PhD, I find it to be a bit rare. Our current research group is around 10 people (in a ~2K person company), 9 have PhDs.
    • azhenley 8y ago
      That piece of paper is actually the easy part of the entire process.
    • sytelus 8y ago
      > PhD has no bearing whatsoever on your capacity to do solid research In my experience this is not true except unless you are super genius. Most folks without PhD often keeps making same naive mistakes, for example, not studying previous state of the art, not recording experiments properly, heuristics instead of rigorous analysis and so on. PhD trains to avoid all these. It allows you to build network, identity great researchers in the field as role models and understand what scientific scrutiny entails. It is not unusual to identify paper written by someone not experienced vs someone experienced. For example, a person without PhD would often neglect to mention scale in the graphs, compute variances in findings, describe figures properly and so on. These might look minor cosmetic things but it often goes long way in overall rigor.
• nicodjimenez 8y ago
  A PhD is a license to do deep research. Deep research careers are very rare, but for the right kind of person, they're great. However, deep research by definition means it probably won't work, and there's just a lot more money in doing things that will probably work vs things that probably won't. So it helps to be extremely talented at deep research if you want to pursue the PhD. Also, most engineering PhD's are bogus because most engineering "research" is actually not deep research - it's building prototypes that aren't quite useful but not quite that novel or interesting either. If you're in a PhD program and you're not doing something really interesting and fundamental, you're definitely in a tough spot.
  • tha12 8y ago
    What do you consider to be deep research? I agree that engineering research is not actually deep, but once you eliminate that almost all of the current (applied, and maybe theoretical too) Machine Learning work for instance is also dismissed.
    • tomrod 8y ago
      > What do you consider to be deep research? As a guiding principle, I think deep research is answering questions that no one has approached in quite the same way before. In my own PhD work, I used the time to learn how to answer questions sufficiently (methodology) as well as how to recognize shape/distill questions in a way that they can be approached. Developing these skills don't require a PhD, but the dedicated time helped me. I've used these skills to learn deeply and answer questions to great extent in business roles and drive some solid change in a few large orgs. It doesn't mean I do a job better than someone without a PhD. Also, the PhD signals that I have answered some deep questions to the satisfaction of others that answer deep questions (PhD committee).
    • jingleheimer 8y ago
      That's why it's called Machine Learning and not Artificial Intelligence. It was an intentional differentiation to avoid the pure research academics who start every presentation with 'assuming infinite compute resources'. ML is an Applied Research discipline and all the better for it.
• phyzome 8y ago
  I'm glad the article mentions how abusive grad programs can be. That doesn't get a lot of airtime.
• azhenley 8y ago
  Don't do a PhD for the money (although it is more than adequate in STEM fields). Do a PhD for the jobs that it unlocks (professor or researcher, mostly) or the type of freedom that it provides (it was 6 years of mostly unstructured time that I got to explore things that interested me while being paid). If all else fails, you can still go join a big tech company and make more than enough money to live a good life. I'm a professor now and love it! Couldn't have happened without a PhD first.
  • dopeboy 8y ago
    I'm envious of that. I went through a master's program and I sorely miss that unstructured time to research and genuinely explore a topic. All of the learning I do these days is by force of business. I'm OK with that but it would be cool to get back to learning sometimes. Could you talk about what life is like as a professor? I looked at your research interests and they lean heavily on the applicable-to-industry side - is that by purpose? BTW - I think it's so cool that a professor is posting on HN. I think back to my professors and I couldn't imagine anyone of them being nearly as hip.
    • azhenley 8y ago
      Thanks for the kind words! My research interests are definitely on the applied side on purpose. Some of the major criticism of research is that it is too theoretical or doesn't help people, so I wanted to do the opposite. I study actual engineers and the problems they face while working. This was actually my interest long before grad school. I wanted to make tools, plugins, and languages that were easier for me to use. Being very applied has worked out well for me so far since many people can relate to what I do! I am a new professor but I can give you a short summary of what it is like. It is very unstructured. No one tells me how to spend my time, but I have to balance many different things: teaching a course, working on multiple research projects, writing multiple papers, writing grant proposals, reviewing papers for journals/conferences, traveling to conferences, recruiting and working with student researchers, etc. Some people like to describe it like running a startup.
      • 8y ago
• variational123 8y ago
  This is a rather narrow perspective focused on (and giving examples from) one subfield (deep learning) at one point of time (year 2018). Have factors like (i) commoditization of software + hardware, (ii) the limited mathematics required, (iii) many open problems, and (iv) a lot of industry funding made a PhD unnecessary for doing research in deep learning in year 2018?: Yes. But does this mean that a PhD (with several advanced courses and a few years of struggle solving hard research problems) won't be useful for doing Computer Science research for the next 30 years? The answer is probably "No". If you want a long-term, intellectually satisfying research career, whether in academia or industry, a PhD is extremely useful.
  • yiyus 8y ago
    Also, this field is quite easy to get into without any external support. You can become an expert in deep learning with a laptop and an internet connection. Most research fields will require a well equipped lab. You can usually find good labs in industry, but you won't have the same freedom to play with all those toys as you will have when pursuing a PhD.
• GlenTheMachine 8y ago
  I have a PhD in aerospace engineering. I loved grad school. Loved loved loved it. I wouldn't give up the worst day I had in grad school for almost anything. And I love having the skills it taught me. I am a much better engineer and researcher than I could possibly have been had I taken almost any other route. I was given freedom in grad school that just would not have been present in most industry jobs. I was given a hardware project - a submersible robot - that I was completely in charge of on day 1. I had to teach myself machining, how to do electrical and electonicd works, how to do embedded programming, how to tune a PID loop. How to work with other students. How to give a persuasive presentation. How to come uo with my own ideas, how to convince other people that they were worth pursuing, how to quickly become an expert in a topic. That being said, I am not under any illusions about the financial loss I experienced. I spent ten years making a pauper's wage, when if I had chosen to go into industry I would have been a software engineer... in the Valley... in 1993. I also was in a remarkable lab in grad school. It made top-ten lists of “coolest college lab”. And that wasn't hype. The caliber of student and of professor was off the charts. And they were not only smart, the vast majority of them were good people. A lot of places aren't like that. And as the srticle correctly said: a toxic graduate school environment is worse than most toxic work environments. In any practical sense, students don't have HR protections. If you can't get your advisor to write you a recommendation, getting into a different program is nearly impossible. You can be worked 100 hours a week. You can be blackballed for getting sick, for taking vacations, for taking maternity or paternity leave (even if it is - and it almost certainly will be - unpaid). The key is to find an advisor who is doing good work and who is sane and moral. If you can find that you're golden. If you can't you may be completely screwed.
  • majos 8y ago
    As a current PhD student in CS -- seconded. I'm fortunate to have a great advisor, and my research career so far has been largely fun and productive as a result. I have also seen equally (or more) talented and hard-working students have worse experiences because of worse advisors. It's just hard to become a good researcher without good mentorship. As far as practical advice for finding good advisors, track records of previous students can be a helpful first filter once you've made a list of people who wrote papers you like. Probably the most helpful thing is talking to current students at the admitted students day and listening to them. Bad advisors usually have at least one notable case, and there will probably be at least one person who'll take you aside and tell you about it. Listen to them carefully. Even great advisors can have at least one unsuccessful and bitter student through no fault of their own...but they usually don't show up to the admitted student events unless there's a real cause for animus.
• somberi 8y ago
  I am considering doing a Phd in a completely unrelated area when I turn 50 (45 now). Is there anyone in this thread done a phd that late? Obviously my motivation is different now to study - to really learn the subject. I am financially self sufficient and will continue to be, and hence making a living out of my phd is not a consideration. Edit: I would like to be able to study in a university setup (not distance education). Main reason is to soak in all the related conversations / workshops and also I like being in a young environment.
  • darkxanthos 8y ago
    I’m doing this with my masters right now. Taking distance courses in Operations Research at GA Tech. I’m 36 and have two years of part time grad school to go but it’s been an awesome experience. If it’s for you, im not sure why age matters?
  • jinonoel 8y ago
    A PhD is something I plan on doing much later in life too (35 now), a bucket list sort of thing once I've achieved financial independence and my kids are a bit older. The hard part I imagine will be hanging out with mid-20-year olds everyday when I'll be in my late 40s already :)
  • otoburb 8y ago
    >>I am financially self sufficient and will continue to be, and hence making a living out of my phd is not a consideration. I'm curious about this scenario from the advisor or departmental perspective: If a PhD candidate is financially self-sufficient, does this mean that a potential advisor has one less mouth to feed when competing for grants? How does the power dynamic change between advisor and financially independent PhD candidate? What if the PhD candidate is capable of funding a whole (or good portion) of a lab themselves - is there a conflict of interest somewhere there between donor vs. principal investigator vs. PhD-candidate roles? Do financially independent PhD candidates have more, less, or no competitive advantage during the selection and admissions process for an R1 institution? So many questions...
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• asafira 8y ago
  I often get asked about what my views on doing a PhD are (I am more-or-less finished with one now), and one of the ways I frame it is the following: You know how you've take a course before where the professor was just surprisingly awful at teaching? These professors are often some of the most knowledgeable people in a subfield of the subject you are taking, yet their teaching ability is severely lacking and you have to scramble to learn the material some other way (or just never learn it). During a PhD, there is a decent chance that your adviser is similarly a bad manager. Unfortunately, having a bad manager for 5-7 years of your life can be a fairly awful experience. You will work with someone who you, on the one hand, look up to, but on the other hand, who seems to not care at all about your mental health, your possible career desires outside of academia, your work/life balance, or the exact reason why this week was a rough week for research in your (human) life. I have a lot of other thoughts on the matter, but I thought I'd try to keep this post more concise =).
  • collyw 8y ago
    To be fair by the time you have finished a PhD you should be capable of learning / doing research by yourself. I don't have a PhD but learning by yourself is a vital skill for any competent software engineer.
  • Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
    not care at all about your mental health, your possible career desires outside of academia, your work/life balance, or the exact reason why this week was a rough week for research in your (human) life. I wouldn't call that being a bad manager, but rather being an asshole. As a professor, I often think that one of my biggest weaknesses is indeed management skills. After all, we suddenly find ourselves having to manage people without any training in the matter, and when our true call is typically science, not management. But at least I'm not an asshole.
• ibuildthings 8y ago
  First principles of doing a PhD and taking up an industrial jobs are quite different, which this article sidesteps. I am talking from the perspective of someone who did a PhD, postdoc and migrated to be a founder/CEO. A PhD system trains you to think about unsolved problems in an given domain deeply with a larger time runway. The end goal is not a tangible product that reaches millions of people, but rather a set of ideas that can take a crack at the unsolved problems in your field in a novel way. A good work should inspire others in the field, and eventually a larger audience to pick them up and expand and build on top of it. To give a small example, a majority of the fundamentals of machine learning was charted out by many, many PhD works over the last 40 years. Implementing a linear classifier is 2 lines of code in 2018, but many Bothans died to bring us this information :-) . The goals of industry are more immediate. Expect for a privileged few research labs in industry, your work is expected to be monetized, and rightly so. The goal is for you, if you run the business, else your management team to first figure out a problem of high relevance and monetary value. Build products/solutions for that problem, that can be used by someone who is less versed/ambivalent of your technical solutions. Efficacy of solving that particular problem often defines the merit of your contribution. The fundamental of choosing the PhD or industry should be taking stock of what kind of contribution you want to make as an individual. If it is a few set of ideas to science, which on a later date might become something fundamental in our understanding of the world, then PhD is a good path. If it is a set of contributions towards a product/solution that eases the pain of many users then go into the industry first.
• sytelus 8y ago
  This is quite an unfortunate article. Author goes on to list several folks who don’t have PhD but have “made it” and asserts that many people can do fascinating and cutting-edge work without PhDs. There are always outliers in stuff like this but ask yourself: How many people you know who don’t have PhD and have freedom to explore at work full time what truely interests them? Author has rather twisted view of the selection bias. People should do PhD if they are genuinely interested in doing scientific research. If you are doing PhD under pressure or in hope of getting better paying jobs you will be dissopointed. It is an arduous process and taking up your precious years but it gives you opportunity to have freedom to explore and work on your interests for rest of your life. You won’t be coming to office everyday doing assigned task on your backlog and reporting your status in scrum meeting. Instead you will be reading about new creative work that was literally published yesterday, mulling over that in lunch with colleagues and apply your original ideas to actually get published under your name. The downside could be lower pay and/or no stock bonuses for many outside of hot areas like AI. But in general, you have much better chance of doing cutting edge work that you are truely passionate about if you have PhD in that area.
  • AlunAlun 8y ago
    Your second paragraph sums everything up perfectly. I am a tenure-track lecturer, and love my job for all the reasons you mention, despite the relatively poor pay. I essentially have the freedom to work on whatever the hell I want; and that to me is priceless. I would also mention teaching: some academic staff hate it because it takes time away from research. This is true but my experience is that if you put time into being a good teacher then you get to take your pick of the brightest students to help you with your research, which can lead to interesting Masters projects which lead on to PhDs.
  • icelancer 8y ago
    > How many people you know who don’t have PhD and have freedom to explore at work full time what truely interests them? Author has rather twisted view of the selection bias. I don't have a degree and I have that. Also I know a lot of people with a PhD who do not have anything remotely resembling freedom. The author might be biased but it's good to hear it from that side once in awhile, rather than be deluged with "you can't do science without a PhD" and similar sentiments (I work parallel to academia and get plenty of shit from their ivory towerism, hence my comment).
• giardini 8y ago
  The first graph (titled "THIS IS YOUR EDUCATION, THIS IS YOUR SALARY") in the following article will disabuse one of the misdirected desire to get a PhD: "Career Guide for Engineers and Computer Scientists" by Philip Greenspun http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/
• arunmp 8y ago
  The Author is unfortunately right about the academic PhD program today, but mixes up two different things. A PhD is meant to teach you about what I call the "body of human knowledge" and to initiate you into it. Period. It does not matter if you can make a learning out of it, nor it helps you earn loads of money. All those hours of reviewing done by the DC members, journal reviewers etc. are done without the expectation of a single penny. It is done to place the PhD research in context among the world of human knowledge. Once you have done a PhD, you are supposed to get more confident dealing with unknown problems in general. Granted, other pressures like career, money and sometimes mere survival! take precedence after PhD but those are beyond the scope of your PhD. Of course, you can work on cutting edge problems without a PhD but probably do it better with PhD. A PhD teaches a lot of intangible things like being comfortable with unknown problems , working patiently towards an end goal, get over the fear of failure etc. One thing it does not teach is how to earn money :). In this context I would like to highlight unique cases where you do an "Industrial PhD" where you are working in a company and chose a relevant problem for a PhD. These have the "best of both worlds" and one is not bogged down with typical pressures in a regular PhD like those pointed by the author. That said, the final word is that a PhD is merely a conduit. Its more of what you chose to do with it than what it is , which matters at the end.
• fulafel 8y ago
  Mind the survivorship bias when reading all the comments from grad students and PhD's here. Drop outs are much less likely to open this comment section or post a comment.
• graycat 8y ago
  Part I. I'll try to give an answer and a response more generally to the material in the OP. Background. I got a BS in pure math with nearly a second major in physics and worked in computing and applied math for problems in US national security around DC. Jobs were very easy to get; at one time my annual salary was 6 times what a new high end Camaro cost; much of the work was challenging for both the computing and the applied math; I was learning a lot of both computing, e.g., algorithms in Knuth, and applied math on the job and also especially math in independent study on evenings and weekends. Soon I got a call from a college friend to join FedEx. I used my background in computing, with a little applied math, to write some software, in six weeks, to schedule the fleet. The results pleased the BoD, enabled crucial funding, and saved the company. Later the BoD wanted some revenue projections. I formulated and solved y'(t) = k y(t) (b - y(t)) for time t, revenue y(t) at time t, rate of growth y'(t) = d/dt y(t) at time t, and full revenue potential b. The BoD was pleased, and ..., to make a long story short, I saved the company again. Then I got a Ph.D. in applied math from the engineering school of a famous, high end research university. Now I'm doing an Internet startup, a Web site, basically a new and very different search engine -- for the, IMHO, very large part of search handled at best poorly by the existing Web sites and well known techniques. For the startup, my applied math background is crucial: The crucial, enabling core of the startup is some original applied math I derived based on some advanced pure math prerequisites I got both in grad school and in independent study. I already knew enough computing except had to learn how to bring up a Web site that has been easy for the user interface but due to the core math somewhat tricky on the server side. I learned Microsoft's Visual Basic .NET (for the programming language -- I like it), ADO.NET (for the Web pages), and ASP.NET for the (relatively meager) use of SQL Server. The main difficulty was working through 5000+ Web pages of documentation. The first code is the first production code, 100,000 lines of typing, 24,000 programming language statements, and lots of documentation. The code seems to run as intended, but I need to add some data. Some lessons: (1) Math. IMHO, the key to powerful, valuable, new applications of computing is applied math. That is, if we accept that the big opportunity is to exploit and apply current computing, then we might notice that whatever we code to put out data users will like, as information, entertainment, whatever, is necessarily mathematically something, understood or not, powerful and valuable or not. So, in some sense, from 100,000 feet up, it should help to proceed mathematically, with possibly advanced prerequisites, some new results focused on the application in mind, and complete with theorems and proofs. Just IMHO. But I don't know anyone with a yacht over 100' long that did that; I suspect that very few people agree with me. Maybe what I am saying is a hopeless wild goose chase or a great green field opportunity -- you judge. (2) Getting a Ph.D. In a nutshell, the three most important parts of getting a Ph.D., in no particular order, are research, research, and research. Yes, there can be courses, credits, grades, teaching assistant positions, weekly research seminars, qualifying exams, etc., but at a research university what can "cut through", dominate, and trump all or nearly all of that is research. The research should be publishable in a good peer-reviewed journal of original research; if there is any question, then send it in. The criterion for a Ph.D. dissertation may be something like "An original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication." -- so, in case of some doubt, publish the thing. The usual criteria for publication are that the work be (i) new, (ii) correct, and (iii) significant. Now for a non-standard observation and recommendation: Go for applied math in an engineering school. Start with a real problem, hopefully a significant real problem, likely from outside academics, hopefully identified before or early in the Ph.D. program. Do some new math to get the first good or a much better solution to the real problem. So, the math is "new" -- got (i)! Since the work is math, with theorems and proofs, it's easy enough to check for "correct" -- got (ii)! Since have the first good or much better solution for the real problem which is hopefully significant, get "significant" -- got (iii). Note: The math may not, just as stand alone pure math, be seen as significant -- so, likely have not proved the Riemann hypothesis, shown that P = NP, etc. But compared with a lot of pure math, are already ahead by one point -- have one real world application! In my case, I started with a problem I had identified in industry before grad school. I found an intuitive and rough solution on an airplane ride. In my first year in grad school, one course I took let me make solid math out of my intuitive solution; I did that independently in my first summer, walked out of the library with an 80 page manuscript that had all the actual research for my dissertation. Then I encountered some of the nasty nonsense as in the OP: There was a prof who didn't like me. He thought of rows, columns, and layers, lines, stay within the lines, rules, etc. and resented that I'd basically written my dissertation independently within 12 months of arriving on campus and before taking the qualifying exams. Well, a course had a question but no answer. I did a good enough literature search and saw that likely there was no answer known -- since it was a very narrow question, it was easy to do the literature search. I got a reading course approved to address the question and write a paper, maybe just expository and maybe without a solution. Just before getting the reading course approved, in a few evenings I found a rough solution. So, got the course approved -- shook hands with the prof. Then I cleaned up my first solution, mostly sitting beside my wife on our bed while she watched TV and I worked on the problem, and found a much better solution and a general result that was surprising, even shocking, and settled some related questions. That took two weeks into the reading course. I submitted my manuscript of about 20 pages, and I was done with the reading course. Fast course. The course also had three credits and gave me the last credits I needed for an MS. News of my work spread through the department; my favorite prof walked up to me in the hall, "I heard about your result. It also says that ....". Yup, clearly it did. The result was clearly publishable; later I did publish it -- no problem, accepted right away. The biggie, practical result was that suddenly I had a halo and a coat of Kevlar armor against any criticism; any of the faculty would have loved to have done what I did. To defend against the abuse as in the OP, I recommend -- do some publishable RESEARCH. (3) Handling Ph.D. Qualifying Exams. At least at one time, the Web page of the math department at Princeton stated, IIRC (if I remember correctly): "Students are expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own. Graduate courses are introductions to research by experts in their fields. No courses are given for preparation for the qualifying exams." In part, the qualifying exams are like a foot race, but in this race you can get a head start and be 1 foot from the finish line when the starting gun goes off. I consider that Princeton policy to be somewhat wise. So, prepare for the qualifying exams on your own (to be able to do this in math, a good ugrad pure math major should be sufficient to let you know how to study and learn, make good progress, and not get stuck or lost). To do this preparation, get the best, focused information you can on what will be asked. So, get recommended texts, copies of old exams, maybe chat with some profs and some students who have taken, hopefully passed, the exams, syllabi of any relevant courses, etc., maybe all before applying to the Ph.D. program. Then study. Use some judgment on how deep to cut and how many proofs to memorize -- cut deep enough but not so deep you take too long or just quit. Then show up as a first year Ph.D. student, do well in some courses, do well on the qualifying exams, complete your research, listen to Pomp and Circumstance, get your degree, and LEAVE. (4) Academic Career. If you want an academic career, then maybe don't leave the grad program so soon. Instead, publish some papers, get some streams of promising research going, meet people at research seminars and conferences, get known by the Editors in Chief of the journals or conferences where you publish, if invited to give a talk at a conference, do so, do the usual meet and greet and publicity, build your own professional network, etc., hopefully some of your profs will help you get some job interviews, etc. Learn how the academic games are played -- there are some really important academic games, and you very much should learn how they are played. Then you will be in an academic career. One possible prof slot is in a B-school. Consider that. Someone with a good applied math background has a heck of an advantage in a B-school. Papers that make progress on practical problems are commonly considered good research in B-schools. People who want to hire consultants tend to regard B-school profs as more practical , i.e., motivated by money, than more pure profs.
• the_rock_says 8y ago
  I'm in a similar boat thinking about getting a PhD in AI/ML. I have a masters degree and in 2 years of my current job (research based) have already published 2 conference papers one of which I'm a lead author. My work colleagues who aren't research oriented suggested me to get a PhD instead because of the effort I put in reading papers and spending hours on solving a problem. It makes sense to me at times because not many people in my company have a hardcore ML background and when I'm stuck reading a paper or solving a ML problem, it's difficult to find someone to discuss it with. I end up spending most time in figuring it out or eventually giving it up. This when I miss academia the most. I'm on H1B visa and have money constraints so giving up a 6 figure salary and living on stipend is something freaks me out. I'd really appreciate if anyone reading this comment have something to suggest. Thanks a lot HN community, you've been a great support.
  • Scea91 8y ago
    Is it possible for you to align PhD. and your current job? I am in a similar position as you. My PhD. topic is focused on the same research area as my job in tech company so I can do both together. If it is not possible I would advise not pursuing PhD. and continue self-learning. The opportunity cost of PhD. is not worth it in my opinion.
    • the_rock_says 8y ago
      Hey, thanks for your advice. I'm not sure if I can do that as my company's focus is completely different to an ML research required for a PhD.
• Scea91 8y ago
  It is even worse in Europe where you are often required to have Master's degree before you can even start a PhD. People in my country usually start PhD. at 25 and take at least 6 years to finish, because the universities use them as cheap workforce and aren't incentivised to allow students graduate quickly.
  • jcelerier 8y ago
    > People in my country usually start PhD. at 25 and take at least 6 years to finish, uh ? which country are you in ? In france like you said you have to do a master before BUT a phd is only 3 years. I'm 26 and I finished my phd - had my defense earlier this year when I was still 25.
    • Scea91 8y ago
      To be fair, my university also advertises PhD. as a 3 year program. Yet the median time at my department is over 6 years. It was wrong from me to generalise to whole Europe. I didn't want to be too specific in my comment. On the other hand, the upside is that we do not have to pay a single dollar for education here as opposed to US.
  • MandieD 8y ago
    My husband is a German who did a Mech E PhD, and indeed was 31 when he finished, despite going through the pipeline completely on schedule. Back then, German students finished high school (Gymnasium) at 19, then did a Diplom (think combination bachelors/masters) which took 5 years. In his particular institute, the better you were, the LONGER it often took because the professors found stuff they wanted you to help with unless you were really good at boundaries. My husband took 7 years; a very kind, very bright friend of his needed 8.5.
  • AlunAlun 8y ago
    This used to be the situation in Europe but it got out of hand, as a result all new PhDs in Europe must be advertised as three year programs, and completed in four at a maximum.
• andreyk 8y ago
  As I posted in response to the author on Twitter - while generally agreeable, it would be nice if the post had a disclaimer that this is "What (bad stuff about doing PhDs) You Need to Know Before Considering a PhD". There are plenty of positives that one also needs to know when considering a PhD this article does not list... see the ensuing discussion here https://twitter.com/andrey_kurenkov/status/1034215110967840768 https://twitter.com/andrey_kurenkov/status/10342151109678407...
• kalal 8y ago
  To me, this is whether you have good people around or not. PhD usually comes with good advisers who help you think in different ways than you have done before. However, such good advisers can be also at a company + you work on practical an modern problems (usually). For that you don't need PhD. In any case, once you ask whether you should do PhD or not it feels like you don't want to be left out. In that case, just do it.
• peterlk 8y ago
  I was once told by a professor who I respected very much how he gives advice to prospective PhDs. When someone asks "should I get my PhD?" the answer is always "no". Because the only people who will enjoy grad school are the ones who will do it anyways. I have found this to be good advice for people who are thinking of starting companies too.
  • SamTheDev 8y ago
    I didn't get the logic behind this advice ! if they would enjoy it, shouldn't the advice be to do it ?
    • oarfish 8y ago
      If they know they'll enjoy it, they'll do it and not ask for validation before.
  • albertzeyer 8y ago
    Yes, this is a good advice. I never asked anyone whether I should do a PhD. I always knew that I want to do it. And I'm doing it right now, and I really enjoy it. (Speech recognition, Translation, Deep Learning; RWTH Aachen University, Germany.)
  • pbnjay 8y ago
    My answer is always "no" as well - for many of the reasons outlined in this essay. But really, most of the students who have asked me this question just want someone to say "yes" and don't end up listening to my reasons for "no" anyway.
  • azhenley 8y ago
    This advice definitely rings true. However, I can't help but think that this mentality does scare away certain personality types that would otherwise make for great researchers. I fall into the category of people who ignored advice and did it anyway, but I try to be welcoming to other types too.
  • konschubert 8y ago
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• jokoon 8y ago
  There is a big difference between a degree and an education. To me, a degree is worthless, it is just a piece of paperwork. It's difficult to view things differently. A solution would be to have a letter of recommendation and appreciation from a school. As long as you are pursuing any education, you should either get the degree automatically, or just get some certificate that you went in some school. It should be up to schools to select their students, merit in education doesn't seem to work, as it doesn't anywhere anyway.
• SimplyUnknown 8y ago
  The focus I dislike most about this article is that a PhD is considered a means to an end. The author compares that opportunity (financial, mental, physical) is lost that is somehow to be compensated by having a PhD as opposed to people that don't have one (big surprise, it isn't). Also, the metric of success seems to be here how much you earn and how many startups you have founded. If these are your success metrics then don't ever even consider doing a PhD or moving out of Silicon Valley. There is of course value in the critique that PhD programs can be oppressive with a toxic culture and depression. One has to consider how big this risk is within your program and if one is willing to take it. Thinking you can tackle these issues within your department is beyond naive. With regards to learning new stuff and finding and scoping interesting problems of your own: People don't seem to realize that it is your PhD program. You are in the lead of the direction your research is taking* . Advisors are there to advise you and not the other way around. If you are just following orders when doing a PhD you are doing it wrong. To conclude my tangent rambling, if you are going to do a PhD do it for the right reasons. Money, fame, titles and number of startups founded are IMHO not valid reasons to consider doing a PhD. If you are doing a PhD you can shape your research the way you want and be advised by your advisors, not the other way around. * Terms and conditions may apply. You are still (usually) working of course within a grant to solve one huge problem, but the way you solve it is mostly up to you.
• YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  >> I think for many top students (my former self included), getting a PhD feels like a “safe” option: it’s a well-defined path to doing something considered prestigious. A safe option? A (funded!) PhD is an opportunity to focus on a subject you are really interested in, that you probably can't work on outside of academia and spend a lot of time, three to four years, free of all other responsibilities but producing a short book at the end describing your work. It is the only three years in your life you can spend directing your own research, choosing your own goals and creating new knowledge with nothing but the power in your little hands and your little brain. "Safe"? There is nothing scarier than staring at the darkness of a new path to knowledge, stumbling around in the unknown trying to find your way where neither google, nor Stack Overflow have gone before and there's noone to hold your hand while you make it up as you go along. A PhD is an opportunity to become a world-class expert in your field. Not because you get an empty title at the end, but because if you do it right there should be literally no-one else on this sweet earth who knows more than you do about your chosen subject (well, except perhaps than your annoying thesis advisor who's always been there and done that and can nip your best ideas in the bud with but a couple of words. But I digress). A PhD should be a time for your mind to open wide, like a blooming flower, like the hippies of old thought LSD would do to them. It should be a time to become a strong man or woman of knowledge, to drag yourself over and above the mean and look at the stars and say "oh, sweet lord, I get it! I G E T I T !!". Well of course if you try to take the safe path you'll be bored out of your head and disappointed. What do you expect? "Safe"? "Prestigious"? It's not public office, man! It's a PhD! Focus on the knowledge! That's what it's all about. Yes, of course you'll learn a ton if you stay in industry, too. But, in industry, it's always someone else who chooses what you need to know. In a PhD, it's your game. A PhD is knowledge, coupled with freedom.
• sparso 8y ago
  I was a PhD student in the UK, it was always something I wanted to do and even had a publication during my undergraduate degree. I ultimately didn't complete my PhD for two reasons. Firstly my supervisors were scarcely available and neither focussed on my PhD subject, it was a bit of a side interest for them both. As I look back at it now I should have possibly seen the warning signs earlier. Secondly various delays on the project (including 6 months for a piece of hardware to be repaired under warranty by the manufacturer) meant that I had to find a job before I was able to complete the PhD. I did gather enough data to complete my PhD in my spare time, but once in full time work it was very hard to stay motivated to complete it in the evenings. So having an incomplete PhD, would I do it again? Probably. I would be a bit more cautious about the topic and ensure my supervisor(s) were focussed on the area before beginning. With hindsight I would be more aware of the risks associated with external sources (hardware) that could delay the project for whatever reason. What I did learn though was the ability to manage my own time and collate information from various data sources in order to back up my side of a discussion. The ability to manage my own time I think is something that separates me now from my peers who did not do a PhD, but I do find when applying for jobs that I lack the necessary years of commercial experiences for roles where the hiring manager does not understand the nature of working on a PhD. So whilst it was definitely a great learning experience, I think it has set back my career slightly. Do I regret doing a PhD? Absolutely not. Sure it was stressful and frustrating dealing with problems out of your control. But I learnt alot about myself and how to manage my own time, as well as how to stay motivated when presented with problems that are outside of your control.
• fnrslvr 8y ago
  If your FAANG research team employs just as many PhDs as non-PhDs, and we accept that there are a couple of orders of magnitude more non-PhDs in software engineering than CS PhDs looking for work in industry, then I don't rate my chances of getting recognized within the company for my robust knowledge of theory of computation and abstract algebra later down the road if I take that grad job I was offered by a tech giant. Also, it's not all that likely that a job as an engineer is going to keep me my theory knowledge or research skills fresh. The article makes a few resonant points, but overall I think the "you can get into research if you jump straight into industry" pitch it tries to make is very weak. As someone who very much wants to do research (mostly hard-to-monetize research about comparing exotic models of computation to one another, but I'll listen to a pitch for applied research too), I'd very much like to see someone lay out a highly plausible roadmap for getting into a research position without a PhD. I don't think this article is that.
• MikeTaylor 8y ago
  There is only one good reason to do a Ph.D, and that is because you really really want to invest 10,000 hours of your life into researching a topic that you love deeply for itself. I have a Ph.D in vertebrate palaeontology, which I got because I loved the work; I know a lot of other palaeo Ph.Ds who did the same. But in my experience, everyone who attempts a Ph.D for any other reason -- for prestige, to improve job prospects, whatever -- either craps out of the course (best case) or endures a miserable five years (or often much longer). Bottom line: do a Ph.D if and only if you want to do the work. Don't do one in order to get the qualification. Focus on the journey, not the destination.
• lbriner 8y ago
  This raises the significant issue again that colleges are attempting to do two things, in most cases they only do one of them well: Academia and Industry readiness. At my university, I learned very little in my degree that was noticeably useful in industry but then academia is not supposed to be about industry, usually, but about increasing knowledge that may or may not have an application. In the college I attended before university, I learned an enormous amount of information useful for Industry but it didn't give me much of a leg-up for the work I was about to do at university. Most industry work I have seen is not massively academic and does not require academic qualifications. In certain jobs, however, they make a point of requiring qualifications when they could probably run some tests instead to demonstrate that you understand the basics of comp-sci or whatever else.
• throwawayaug28 8y ago
  Am I the only one that finds it questionable to write this kind of "career advice", when the author clearly has a conflict of interest? The author is running a business whose main purpose is to sell educational content marketed towards people that want to learn Machine Learning (and claiming you don't need a PhD to do it). I only have a good impression of fast.ai, but perhaps the author is not in the best position to give career advice on this topic? The author didn't even do a PhD in ML/CS, but in mathematics which arguably less applied/practical.
  • elmozyz 8y ago
    There is an obvious conflict of interest but it doesnt make his views invalid. Several other PhDs have said pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I dont see much more utility for working in industry beyond a Masters. You really should have the skills to learn anything else by the time you complete a thesis.
  • bobmarley1 8y ago
    Both their classes are offered online for free, I fail to see the conflict?
• emersion 8y ago
  When I asked one of my professors about doing a PhD he told me: "Doing a PhD is like getting married: choose your advisor wisely". It seems that good advisors are a key factor of a successful PhD.
• bitxbit 8y ago
  I am sure I am in the minority here but I believe there are way too many people getting PhDs just to get a job. I am not blaming the candidates/graduates because that's what the job market requires these days but there is something seriously wrong with that picture. It takes a lot of public capital and goodwill to support PhD programs and in many aspects PhDs have become glorified professional degrees. I also see a lot of half-baked thesis that would not have passed muster two decades ago but advisors are more interested in building his/her brand within public and private domains.
• pimmen 8y ago
  I have a colleague who is an ML PhD student part time and works as an engineer part time, but his research (NLP with a focus on text classification) aligns well with his job such that the company supports him writing on his thesis and going on conferences on company time. He's doing a presentation in two weeks about a paper he's written, on company time. I have no idea how have managed to swing that, and if this arrangement will last for long. He's only been employed here for about a year.
• keeptrying 8y ago
  Having seen what a PhD did to the mental health of a lot of my friends, I would heavily advice people considering one to figure out how they’ll mentally cope. Have a plan and resources commited to how you’ll deal with the depression. This means actually building out a support network and asking them if they’d be available to talk during such a situation. Not easy but yeah weigh the cognitive costs!
• sandwall 8y ago
  PhD in Nuclear Engineering (Medical Physics) -- I wouldn't trade my years of study (play) for anything. I was blessed with a wonderful committee chair (and great committee members! beware! choose wisely, these people can make or break you!) who allowed his students time and space to reach _Intellectual Maturity_ -- This is when a student should graduate, not after x publications or after y objectives. A Doctor of Philosophy should be an individual capable of critical thinking, developing their own experimental process, and helping others do the same. Unfortunately, many professors are just running a race chasing publications and grants while their students are employees, not apprentices in the art and practice of science.
• bane 8y ago
  Something that I've found deeply troubling with the PhD education and training and how it interfaces in industry, having worked with a very large number of PhDs over the years, is the seeming inability for PhD-level staff to simply edit their work and ship things on time. I know this is a large generalization, but I could comfortably say this is a predominant trait among maybe 70-80% of the folks I've worked with. On the surface it seems like there's something in the training for PhD staff that seems to kill the ability to self-regulate that's a very good thing when pursuing the unknown, but an excruciating pattern to deal with in industry where budgets and shipping times are primary importance. Seeing this in action, and knowing I have no interest in working in academia, has been the primary reason I haven't pursued one myself. I don't want to be "broken" by training. I get to pursue all of the R&D I can handle already working in an R&D lab -- with the usual publication, patent, ship to customers that it all entails. So I'm not starving for interesting things to pursue.
• bobmarley1 8y ago
  I wonder how this applies to Part Time PhDs. They are exceedingly rare in the US and it usually comes down to having a very supportive Job and an unusually open minded Advisor, I've seen people at UNC and Duke doing part time CS PhDs. It also seems much more common in the UK/EU. I know Oxford, ICL and others offer part time programs. Seems to have all the upside and none of the downside, you keep your industry pay, continue racking up experience and after a few more years than normal get a PhD to hang on your wall.
• harveywi 8y ago
  My personal grave warning to doughy-eyed youngsters wishing to get a PhD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8720640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8720640
• mendeza 8y ago
  I don't see how this article addresses the person's question that if you want to work in machine learning, should you do a PhD? From my experience, companies want a few years(3+) of software engineering experience and a graduate degree of some sort, whether a masters or PhD. From my experience after getting a masters, Ive gone through the hassle of interviewing and be turned down bec they are looking for more experienced people for ML Eng and I only had 1 year of professional eng experience.
• logifail 8y ago
  I think it's completely and utterly wrong that one person (the advisor) should ever have such absolute power over another (the student). Just as the OP describes, if the advisor is great, it's fantastic. If they aren't, you are in a world of pain. I don't regret choosing to do a PhD, but I deeply regret choosing my advisor.
• pbhat 8y ago
  PhD in Computational Biology here. Currently in industry and loving it. Love the experiences shared here. I see a lot of them are centred around pay (PhD vs. non-PhD). I think it is important to remind ourselves that seeing earnings as a race against others and against time rules us out from doing anything interesting in life.