3 ms·

This is easy to mock -- and others already are -- but there is some element of truth. I've always said that the PhD gave me two valuable things: 1) the demonst

by timr 5y ago

This is easy to mock -- and others already are -- but there is some element of truth. I've always said that the PhD gave me two valuable things: 1) the demonstrated ability to complete a large, self-directed project from beginning to end, starting with ambiguous, poorly defined goals. 2) a herculean tolerance for bullshit. Both can be earned elsewhere, but the PhD was definitely a fast path. The first one is still quite rare, in my experience, and I'd call it a "hard skill".

hiptobecubic 5y ago
I don't know if anyone can call getting a PhD a "fast path" to these things. It's just a "virtually guaranteed" path. For example, at Goog most PhDs are hired at L5 "senior" positions. BSc (and many MSc) are typically hired at L3. Assuming they are the kind of person who could have done a PhD, they will get to L5 within 4-5 years, fewer for some, with a job ladder (read "promotion criteria") that reads almost exactly like point 1) and a committee of 10 tired, skeptical people they've never met before deciding whether they've demonstrated it for "sufficiently long" to warrant promotion. All the while, the BSc is making more than your advisor and gaining experience that is 100% relevant to their career. Not to say that PhD vs "a few years in industry" are equivalent in all respects, of course, but I would not at all say that the PhD is the fast path towards the skills you're calling out here.
wott 5y ago
> the demonstrated ability to complete a large, self-directed project from beginning to end I am not sure this (both the self-direction criterion and the 'complete to the end' criterion) applies to a majority of PhDs .
- timr 5y ago
  Yeah, I hesitate a little there. There are a lot of PhD programs and doctoral students. Most of them are bad. But that's true of everything. If we focus on the positive outcome for a good student, those are the two things I think distinguishes someone from a doctorate from someone without.
- lmeyerov 5y ago
  Yep. Professors are not only able to get an answer, but able to define the problem. It varies by region and domain for when that is meant to be true, so you need to understand the system a bit better. Ex: US CS PhDs from the Top 30 are generally like this and a quick CV scan and conv can help verify they achieved that. Conversely, many EU CS PhD stage programs are shorter and for more prepackaged concepts, so the same level of experience does happen.. but later. Ex: US bio fields often are 'one big paper' for a PhD, so you can be assured of grit and uncertainty tolerance. But for the same reason, you don't know independence until the post doc.

by timr 5y ago

hiptobecubic 5y ago

I don't know if anyone can call getting a PhD a "fast path" to these things. It's just a "virtually guaranteed" path. For example, at Goog most PhDs are hired at L5 "senior" positions. BSc (and many MSc) are typically hired at L3. Assuming they are the kind of person who could have done a PhD, they will get to L5 within 4-5 years, fewer for some, with a job ladder (read "promotion criteria") that reads almost exactly like point 1) and a committee of 10 tired, skeptical people they've never met before deciding whether they've demonstrated it for "sufficiently long" to warrant promotion. All the while, the BSc is making more than your advisor and gaining experience that is 100% relevant to their career. Not to say that PhD vs "a few years in industry" are equivalent in all respects, of course, but I would not at all say that the PhD is the fast path towards the skills you're calling out here.

wott 5y ago

> the demonstrated ability to complete a large, self-directed project from beginning to end I am not sure this (both the self-direction criterion and the 'complete to the end' criterion) applies to a majority of PhDs .

timr 5y ago
Yeah, I hesitate a little there. There are a lot of PhD programs and doctoral students. Most of them are bad. But that's true of everything. If we focus on the positive outcome for a good student, those are the two things I think distinguishes someone from a doctorate from someone without.
lmeyerov 5y ago
Yep. Professors are not only able to get an answer, but able to define the problem. It varies by region and domain for when that is meant to be true, so you need to understand the system a bit better. Ex: US CS PhDs from the Top 30 are generally like this and a quick CV scan and conv can help verify they achieved that. Conversely, many EU CS PhD stage programs are shorter and for more prepackaged concepts, so the same level of experience does happen.. but later. Ex: US bio fields often are 'one big paper' for a PhD, so you can be assured of grit and uncertainty tolerance. But for the same reason, you don't know independence until the post doc.