4 ms·

I'd add that a PhD in the sciences is like getting punched in the face by mother nature every day with a, "hah! try again!". The rigorous thought process that c

by entee 8y ago

I'd add that a PhD in the sciences is like getting punched in the face by mother nature every day with a, "hah! try again!". The rigorous thought process that cultivates by the end is hard to replicate without those very hard constraints. It's possible to do, I've met tons of people who have that same rigor without having wasted the time in a PhD, but it's quite an effective method. When I've worked with non-PhDs in a science environment, it's the rigorous breakdown of experimental approach that's often missing. Unless the individual had a really strong track record demonstrating this skill, I'd heavily favor PhDs for biotech/science positions on a leadership track. That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :)

veritas_veritad 8y ago
> That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :) I dare you to write a study to excavate and delineate the potential effects of this bias on hiring.
rxhernandez 8y ago
I haven't seen that at all. To preface the rest, most of everyone I've worked with over the past 6 years had a PhD in electrical engineering, physics or chemistry from top 10 universities (about 20+ people). Maybe 30% had the ability to pick apart an experiment rigorously, most of them would hand wave themselves through the steps in experiments leaving obvious gaping holes that required unnecessary iterations on the experiment. I rarely trusted experimental results unless it came from those 30% of people. Frankly, I have come to see a PhD as expensive piece of paper that is unique in that it indicates you're not a complete idiot. Moreover, I only have a bachelor's, but I had 6 years of training and humiliating embarrassments from those 30% of people, which I believe strongly contributed to my experimental rigor. I dont know that every person with a PhD has dealt with that kind of pain and would be biased against people that haven't dealt with that pain.
- hnuser355 8y ago
  I mean PhD might be a piece of paper but most people I know who do them in marketable fields don’t pay tuition and get paid assistantships
  - rxhernandez 8y ago
    When I say expense, I mean your time, your youth and the fact that you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time period; all of which are very expensive things to ask of anyone.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dxbydt 8y ago
      > you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of fuckyou money. Its a different number for different people. Say that number is 5. I will give you many examples below. Every example is a real living person. I personally know every one of these people. (enterprise programmer in stodgy bank in usa) 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 (enterprise programmer in stodgy bank in poor country) 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + ... + 0.5 = 5 ( steady progress in startup until faang acquired it) 0.5 + 0.8 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.3 + 6 > 5 ( many failed startups in valley until 1 success) 0.5 + 0.8 + -2 + 0.5 + 0.7 + -2 + 0.5 + 20 >> 5 ( phd student whose invention was purchased by salesforce ) 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 15 >> 5 ( phd student who ended up in fang ) 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 2 + 3 > 5 etc.
      - rxhernandez 8y ago
        I mean if we're going by anecdotes: - I made more on my first day of work than almost any of my professors will make on their last day work. - I also personally know 3 PhDs at tech companies in the Bay that make substantially less than me despite being 4-6 years older than me. - I am also acquainted with two people that made an obscene amount of money from their tech skills; one maxed out at a high diploma and the other a PhD. - The other 20 or so PhDs I know don't make substantially more than I do. - I've also seen a few PhDs at my last company end up as systems engineers which is incredibly depressing because they could have been employed in that same role if they stopped at a bachelors.
- entee 8y ago
  It’s true, some people don’t. I went to a top program though even there I’d say we graduated some that weren’t great critical thinkers. That said I’d say that the closer you are to a “wet” bench in a basic science the more likely you build those skills. The more time spent dealing with in silico data or with theory the less feedback from cold hard reality you get. Nature doesn’t care if you graduate. I’d also say that 30% is still not a bad ratio and better than most training sources on average. Still it’s not a perfect screen by any means.

by entee 8y ago

veritas_veritad 8y ago

> That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :) I dare you to write a study to excavate and delineate the potential effects of this bias on hiring.

rxhernandez 8y ago

I haven't seen that at all. To preface the rest, most of everyone I've worked with over the past 6 years had a PhD in electrical engineering, physics or chemistry from top 10 universities (about 20+ people). Maybe 30% had the ability to pick apart an experiment rigorously, most of them would hand wave themselves through the steps in experiments leaving obvious gaping holes that required unnecessary iterations on the experiment. I rarely trusted experimental results unless it came from those 30% of people. Frankly, I have come to see a PhD as expensive piece of paper that is unique in that it indicates you're not a complete idiot. Moreover, I only have a bachelor's, but I had 6 years of training and humiliating embarrassments from those 30% of people, which I believe strongly contributed to my experimental rigor. I dont know that every person with a PhD has dealt with that kind of pain and would be biased against people that haven't dealt with that pain.

hnuser355 8y ago
I mean PhD might be a piece of paper but most people I know who do them in marketable fields don’t pay tuition and get paid assistantships
- rxhernandez 8y ago
  When I say expense, I mean your time, your youth and the fact that you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time period; all of which are very expensive things to ask of anyone.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dxbydt 8y ago
    > you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of fuckyou money. Its a different number for different people. Say that number is 5. I will give you many examples below. Every example is a real living person. I personally know every one of these people. (enterprise programmer in stodgy bank in usa) 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 (enterprise programmer in stodgy bank in poor country) 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + ... + 0.5 = 5 ( steady progress in startup until faang acquired it) 0.5 + 0.8 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.3 + 6 > 5 ( many failed startups in valley until 1 success) 0.5 + 0.8 + -2 + 0.5 + 0.7 + -2 + 0.5 + 20 >> 5 ( phd student whose invention was purchased by salesforce ) 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 15 >> 5 ( phd student who ended up in fang ) 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 2 + 3 > 5 etc.
    - rxhernandez 8y ago
      I mean if we're going by anecdotes: - I made more on my first day of work than almost any of my professors will make on their last day work. - I also personally know 3 PhDs at tech companies in the Bay that make substantially less than me despite being 4-6 years older than me. - I am also acquainted with two people that made an obscene amount of money from their tech skills; one maxed out at a high diploma and the other a PhD. - The other 20 or so PhDs I know don't make substantially more than I do. - I've also seen a few PhDs at my last company end up as systems engineers which is incredibly depressing because they could have been employed in that same role if they stopped at a bachelors.
entee 8y ago
It’s true, some people don’t. I went to a top program though even there I’d say we graduated some that weren’t great critical thinkers. That said I’d say that the closer you are to a “wet” bench in a basic science the more likely you build those skills. The more time spent dealing with in silico data or with theory the less feedback from cold hard reality you get. Nature doesn’t care if you graduate. I’d also say that 30% is still not a bad ratio and better than most training sources on average. Still it’s not a perfect screen by any means.