8 ms·

I'm sure the reasons for this trend are incredibly complex, but I suspect that undergraduate degrees are increasingly failing to accurately signal competence, p

• awat 6y ago
  Your point about PhDs is spot on. I’m increasingly seeing job postings with PhD asks for software and ent architecture roles that don’t seem to articulate the need for the PhD. Anecdotally it seems PhDs are also getting dragged into the credential race.
  • klipt 6y ago
    Maybe that will at least encourage some US universities to offer shorter PhDs like in Europe, where one year masters degree followed by two years PhD for a total of three years postgraduate isn't uncommon.
    • llamaz 6y ago
      2 year PhDs? That sounds like a Master of Philosophy. Maybe in Europe PhDs are easier because you require the extra step of habilitation.
      • unishark 6y ago
        As I understand it, in Europe they give phd students canned projects to work on, which are designed to only take a couple years. It's just the whole plan of how long they want it to take. In the US doing a project of that size may be enough to get by at some schools, but it generally isn't supposed to be.
        • akjssdk 6y ago
          I am not sure what you are referring to, but a PhD in Europe takes 3/4 years. They are generally organised such that you are tied to a single supervisor/research group, which might be where the confusion comes from? They are by no means canned projects, at least as far I know.
          • bonoboTP 6y ago
            There are various arrangements within the continent of Europe, lots of variation even within countries and fields.
        • bonoboTP 6y ago
          It's absurd to try to say how it is in Europe. You can't even say how it is overall in Germany. There are various different arrangements with companies, research centers like Max Planck, universities, some are full (state) employee positions, some are half, some give stipends, some take 3 years, some 4 or 5, some make you teach courses, some don't. Depends on country, field, particular university or company, even the department. So you can't generalize over a whole continent.
    • evandijk70 6y ago
      That really depends on the country. For exact sciences in the Netherlands, two year master degree followed by a 4 year PhD degree are the norm.
      • read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Same in Austria.
    • roel_v 6y ago
      I have never heard of 2 year phds anywhere in Europe and I'm in European academia, working a lot in European projects so I have quite a bit of exposure to academic cultures across the continent. Nominal time is 4 years, 3 years is already something special. And a masters doesn't count towards this, not having a masters is basically not having finished your studies, nobody I know would hire a phd student straight out of their bachelors.
    • probablypower 6y ago
      This comment doesn't seem grounded in reality. In Europe it is far more common to have 1.5-2 year masters degrees (half a year saved by overloading) followed by a 3-4 year PhD. It is almost a universal truth that a PhD shouldn't take less than 3 years unless there are exceptional circumstances. I honestly can't believe any credible university is turning bachelor degree students into doctors within 3 years. Would love to see an example.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • MrPowers 6y ago
        Even Terence Tao needed 4 years to get his PhD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao I don't know any three year examples. I'm sure there are PhD degree mill spots that'll give you the degree in a couple of years if you pay enough.
        • newen 6y ago
          I know a few people who finished in 3 years from top universities. It’s possible but something of a stars aligning situation.
    • b3kart 6y ago
      Yeah, this is completely inaccurate, as other comments are also saying. Indeed, PhDs are shorter in Europe, but getting a PhD in 2 years is not just uncommon, but next to impossible. Credible universities won't even let you defend that early (bar exceptional circumstances). Never mind 3 years, most students go well into their 4th (occasionally 5th) year to finish. The difference with the US being that in Europe the funding typically runs out after 3/4 years, so after that students have to "improvise".
  • bananaface 6y ago
    Hiring someone who's spent ten years in academia to design the architecture of real-world systems sounds like a very reliable way of getting terrible architectures. What are they smoking, are people with actual experience just way too expensive? PhDs seem to me to be for quantifiable knowledge. They imbue highly specialised skills and imply a huge understanding of technical literature. But they structurally can't imbue skills that are nebulous. They can only teach things that are either consensus, or easy to evaluate academically.
    • murgindrag 6y ago
      You're confusing a Ph.D with an extension of a BS. A Ph.D requires independent creation of new knowledge, and being able to go deep in a field. That's neither consensus, nor easy to evaluate academically. It's far more nebulous than most industry work. In many cases, they also require deep algorithmic and mathematical maturity. A freshly-brewed Ph.D isn't going to be an expert in the mechanics of software engineering (e.g. setting up CI/CD, microservices, etc.), but will outclass most people with BS degrees in other areas. 5-10 years down-the-line, they will pick up the applied skills, while the BS won't pick up the theoretical skills. Ph.D is also a signalling mechanisms: They were admitted, and they finished. I'm not arguing for or against Ph.Ds, but your stereotypes seem grounded in, well, nothing. Ph.Ds have their problems, but those ain't them.
      • bananaface 6y ago
        The knowledge created by a PhD by definition has to be evaluated academically. If it can't be evaluated by peers, it can't be published. I don't mean this in a superficial sense, I mean: there's no way for a PhD to be certified for investigating the kind of knowledge that's difficult to verify in that context. They can investigate it, but the system is only allowed to give them a qualification for academically verifiable results. It cannot verify esoteric knowledge (unless it can use consensus as a proxy). Sure, they'll pick that stuff up with experience. We might be talking past each other. I read it as: they're hiring graduates. That might not be what OP meant.
        • 6y ago
• raverbashing 6y ago
  Agreed in most part The only winning move is not to play. See what's best for you and don't worry about the alleged perks of a "better university" so much (especially not so much as to get into crippling debt) Universities want your money but it's not educational quality that's bringing students, it's the fluff, the facilities and the "connections". Meanwhile some janitors are making more than some faculty members. And you can definitely build a stem career without a PhD, don't buy into the hype
• acwan93 6y ago
  I remember hearing this back in high school: Bachelors are the new high school diploma, cause “everyone” has a diploma Masters are the new Bachelors, cause you need one to live a comfortable lifestyle PhDs are the new Masters, to stand out amongst the rest Of course, I don’t agree with some of that statement, but it does hold some truths.
  • MattGaiser 6y ago
    Some 90% of people have a high school diploma now. All it means at this point is that you were not thrown out of school or locked in jail, and even then a lot of those people have it. If someone said "I have a high school diploma" to you, what could you reasonably infer about their skills and abilities? Next to nothing.
  • imtringued 6y ago
    The value from a degree arises from the fact that it is difficult and you can fail to acquire one. If everyone has a degree then not only does the signaling component of the degree disappear, the competitive advantage is also disappearing because everyone has the same baseline of competence. Electrical engineering or software engineering might be lucrative industries but only because companies can't fill all their openings. Once there are more workers than jobs we get the usual "McDonalds" hiring patterns.
    • watwut 6y ago
      This sounds like the actual problem is lack of jobs and bad economy. The employers are increasingly picky in their selection of people and people compete for increasingly higher degrees. If economy was good, employers would have to be less picky, leading to people more likely to decide they dont need to compete over signaling.
      • TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
        It was actually getting better too until COVID. The labor market was tight and wages were rising, even in more rural areas.
• bananaface 6y ago
  How much of this is just that most people coming out of these institutions are not prepared for the jobs they're applying for? A programmer with two years experience in industry is probably better than the same programmer coming out of a two-year masters. Like, from what I can tell, most BSc graduates... suck. They're not able to program professionally, they damage your codebase. The credential just isn't a signal of adequate ability. Any hiring managers able to chip in here?
  • nemo44x 6y ago
    It’s a spectrum. Some are brilliant and incredibly motivated while being humble and open to learning. Others not so much. I’d say the majority aren’t very good out of the box. And I include myself in that category when I started in the industry. Mentoring is important and finding the people in your org that enjoy doing that and are good at it is the challenge. I’ve also found as a manager you need to find some quick wins for the new professional. Low risk things that get them experience with you services and systems. Here is what I find most difficult for new devs in the workforce: understanding what the business does. Going beyond the technical abstractions and understanding the nuance of the business. Our best devs are in lockstep with the business side of things. They know how to translate business requirements into technical requirements. And they understand at a higher level how the business functions.
    • bananaface 6y ago
      Are you just drawing from devs you've worked with/hired? (Not meaning to be rude, just that they're already going to be way above average.)
      • nemo44x 6y ago
        Yeah it's all anecdotal. I haven't conducted a study across the industry or anything. Just my experience and observations/thoughts.
  • 908B64B197 6y ago
    >A programmer with two years experience in industry is probably better than the same programmer coming out of a two-year masters. There's a possibility the programmer who did the masters was simply unable to get a job after his BSc. >Like, from what I can tell, most BSc graduates... suck. They're not able to program professionally, they damage your codebase. The credential just isn't a signal of adequate ability. Any hiring managers able to chip in here? You can't expect college hires to be productive on day one. There's a learning curve between programming in college and programming professionally. If you want guys that have already completed this learning curve, you need to hire them with a few years of experience. But keep in mind that right after college is the only time where almost everyone will be on the job market at the same time. After that, some of the best engineers simply disappear. FAANGs hire them and they basically never actively look for a job after that. [0] [1] https://www.inc.com/magazine/20070501/column-guest.html https://www.inc.com/magazine/20070501/column-guest.html
• DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  On your last point, I would like to comment so anyone coming here feeling discouraged: I am at a mid-sized biotech and manage a team of 15, one has a masters, and all the others started right out of college with BS degrees. I look for right out of college BS degree holders! The key to finding these types of jobs is moving to a city with a robust industry because it means there is a ton of upper level jobs that need supporting help. My company is headquartered in Cambridge, MA, but the main campus is now in Norwood, MA (30 min outside Boston). There are more jobs than you'd expect within 1h rail commute of cheap housing. If you're about to graduate with a BS in biochem, chem eng, or mol. bio, drop me a line. I would love to help you discuss your career!
  • jseliger 6y ago
    There are more jobs than you'd expect within 1h rail commute of cheap housing The Boston area has among the most restrictive zoning regimes in the country and that's consistently driven up the cost of housing: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-19/how-to-block-multi-family-housing-boston-style https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-19/how-to-bl... The cost of housing is driving up the cost of salaries. Until Boston/Cambridge/Somerville and so forth build more housing, housing is going to remain very expensive relative to locations that have legalized the building of housing.
• grumple 6y ago
  I agree that the signaling ratio of undergraduate degrees is low, but I suspect that's been true for a long time. The education is too unfocused, and employers no longer want to train people. So any degree must have you work-ready. General education is great for conversational ability, but useless for work, especially in STEM. As for requiring PhDs - I have built my career without a CS degree at all. But I've worked with a lot of PhDs, and I think the signaling ratio they offer isn't any better than undergraduate degrees, I've worked with too many semi-competent, lazy PhDs to let them hold much weight with me. Some of the best people I've worked with were those who dropped out of their PhD programs; it seems these people didn't care for the academic publishing circus, but were passionate about the work. But again, it's a poor signal. The best signals are work experience and references - which doesn't help much for entry-level positions. But it does lend credence to programs that incorporate co-ops and other work-like experience.