4 ms·

Nice read. Speaking as a PhD I am okay with the PhD certificate having no value (you don't deserve extra earnings for having the certificate). It was my inten

by jmount 16y ago

Nice read. Speaking as a PhD I am okay with the PhD certificate having no value (you don't deserve extra earnings for having the certificate). It was my intent to learn some valuable things during the degree process, and I did.

levesque 16y ago
I agree with the argument that PhD's might be underpaid a bit, but I think the author is exaggerating when he says that universities exploit them to get cheap research done, or that there are too many PhD's being produced by the system in general (as if this had a strongly negative impact on our society?)
- Lewisham 16y ago
  I read a much longer article about this, and I wish I knew where it was, but the oversupply problem is far more pronounced in the humanities, where the average time to graduate is peaking towards 10 years, yet all the PhD confers is the ability to teach, where we know there are few jobs. I think that such a system is, in essence, exploitative. The problem is far less in Computer Science, where your skills transfer over to The Real World relatively easily, and companies like Microsoft and Google value them. This means the potential job pool is much bigger. As a CS PhD student, of course I feel underpaid. Universities have reached a point where they can convince students that what they are doing is being paid for being taught, which must be a great deal, right? However, everyone else calls this "on the job training" or "starting at the bottom of the ladder" and they get paid better for it. However, I think about the benefits I get (work when/where I like, use whatever language I like, nap when I like, release all my work as open-source, never feel like I'm waking up to "work", don't have to worry about mundane but potentially catastrophic life things like health insurance), and it does even out somewhat.
  - qdie 16y ago
    you mean this one?http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html
  - jdhopeunique 16y ago
    Given that there is an oversupply problem in the humanities, why don't humanities professors get paid substantially less than science professors? In my experience, there seems to be little difference in pay between humanities professors and science professors.
grav1tas 16y ago
Exactly my sentiments. I'm currently in a PhD program, but not because I intend to be in academia. I love the field I'm studying, and I just felt like doing it instead of joining the workforce. I'll probably learn a cool thing or two. Why not? There are a decent number of ding dongs in PhD programs too. The level of ding dong-ery doesn't seem to change wherever you go.
- Saad_M 16y ago
  For me earning a PhD was not about the money or wealth creation. It was about the chance to work on a exciting research project that could make a real difference and contribution to scientific knowledge. Besides, in the UK at least the scholarship funding is not bad at all. I found the £12K per year tax free funding was easily enough to be comfortable on whilst doing my research.
  - grav1tas 16y ago
    Agreed. PhD's in the US that pursue the hard sciences and engineering are generally funded fairly well.
    - RK 16y ago
      I think you could say that they are funded well, in the sense that no one should be paying out of pocket, but that is different than saying that they get paid well. It depends a lot on school, location, and (possibly) subject.
      - grav1tas 16y ago
        I think the typical engineering PhD major makes close to the equivalent of 12,000 Pounds. It's usually around 16-18 starting from what I know. When you're doing something that benefits mostly yourself (getting a degree), making that kind of money is getting paid well, in my opinion.
- jforman 16y ago
  The answer to "why not?" is pretty simple: opportunity cost. I spent three years in a computational biology PhD program before getting an e-mail from a college friend looking for people to join a new startup (where I am now a co-founder). I enjoyed the research I was doing, but I asked myself: should I really spend three more years here toiling away at very cool but very obscure science just to purchase a lottery ticket? Where if I lose the lottery (which is the most likely result by far) I will have languished in postdoc roles until I burnt out past my prime? You have a lot of energy between age 25 and 35. I decided to apply that energy to something where the expected value of total reward (both intellectually and monetarily) is much higher.

by jmount 16y ago

levesque 16y ago

I agree with the argument that PhD's might be underpaid a bit, but I think the author is exaggerating when he says that universities exploit them to get cheap research done, or that there are too many PhD's being produced by the system in general (as if this had a strongly negative impact on our society?)

Lewisham 16y ago
I read a much longer article about this, and I wish I knew where it was, but the oversupply problem is far more pronounced in the humanities, where the average time to graduate is peaking towards 10 years, yet all the PhD confers is the ability to teach, where we know there are few jobs. I think that such a system is, in essence, exploitative. The problem is far less in Computer Science, where your skills transfer over to The Real World relatively easily, and companies like Microsoft and Google value them. This means the potential job pool is much bigger. As a CS PhD student, of course I feel underpaid. Universities have reached a point where they can convince students that what they are doing is being paid for being taught, which must be a great deal, right? However, everyone else calls this "on the job training" or "starting at the bottom of the ladder" and they get paid better for it. However, I think about the benefits I get (work when/where I like, use whatever language I like, nap when I like, release all my work as open-source, never feel like I'm waking up to "work", don't have to worry about mundane but potentially catastrophic life things like health insurance), and it does even out somewhat.
- qdie 16y ago
  you mean this one?http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html
- jdhopeunique 16y ago
  Given that there is an oversupply problem in the humanities, why don't humanities professors get paid substantially less than science professors? In my experience, there seems to be little difference in pay between humanities professors and science professors.

grav1tas 16y ago

Exactly my sentiments. I'm currently in a PhD program, but not because I intend to be in academia. I love the field I'm studying, and I just felt like doing it instead of joining the workforce. I'll probably learn a cool thing or two. Why not? There are a decent number of ding dongs in PhD programs too. The level of ding dong-ery doesn't seem to change wherever you go.

Saad_M 16y ago
For me earning a PhD was not about the money or wealth creation. It was about the chance to work on a exciting research project that could make a real difference and contribution to scientific knowledge. Besides, in the UK at least the scholarship funding is not bad at all. I found the £12K per year tax free funding was easily enough to be comfortable on whilst doing my research.
- grav1tas 16y ago
  Agreed. PhD's in the US that pursue the hard sciences and engineering are generally funded fairly well.
  - RK 16y ago
    I think you could say that they are funded well, in the sense that no one should be paying out of pocket, but that is different than saying that they get paid well. It depends a lot on school, location, and (possibly) subject.
    - grav1tas 16y ago
      I think the typical engineering PhD major makes close to the equivalent of 12,000 Pounds. It's usually around 16-18 starting from what I know. When you're doing something that benefits mostly yourself (getting a degree), making that kind of money is getting paid well, in my opinion.
jforman 16y ago
The answer to "why not?" is pretty simple: opportunity cost. I spent three years in a computational biology PhD program before getting an e-mail from a college friend looking for people to join a new startup (where I am now a co-founder). I enjoyed the research I was doing, but I asked myself: should I really spend three more years here toiling away at very cool but very obscure science just to purchase a lottery ticket? Where if I lose the lottery (which is the most likely result by far) I will have languished in postdoc roles until I burnt out past my prime? You have a lot of energy between age 25 and 35. I decided to apply that energy to something where the expected value of total reward (both intellectually and monetarily) is much higher.