> "Many" is a weasel word Yes. > Adds color Dude. Sometimes is also a qualifier. It's right there in my original quote. WTF is this conversation even about a

> "Many" is a weasel word Yes. > Adds color Dude. Sometimes is also a qualifier. It's right there in my original quote. WTF is this conversation even about anymore? This is getting unbelievably pedantic. Look, it's a thing at the 3 institutions I advise for their CS faculty to make below-market wages and for their graduates to make above-average wages. I think this pattern of facts is uniquely common at lower tier LACs with CS PhD on faculty. Those institutions pay uniquely low rates for CS faculty, but the value of LAC-style 1:1 mentorship from a CS PhD is enormous and consistently results in better than average placements. I didn't claim this is the base case. I used conditioning words. Sometimes. Up to. From first post on-wards. you can call me a liar. Whatever. This is real phenomenon. These situations exist. You've even conceded my fundamental point about this subset of CS PhDs AFAICT: that the jobs are plentiful and not particularly attractive. Next, you claimed Stanford MBAs make more than Stanford CS PhDs because some Stanford CS PhDs choose academia (and, yes, the Stanford CS PhDs who choose industry make more than their MBA counter-parts; go look at levels.fyi). That's all fine and well. Probably true. here's the thing, though. My top-most post in this thread explicitly preconditioned this branch of the conversation on "CS PhDs who choose industry". So at this point I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Clearly, we're so far down-thread that the plot is completely lost. The pedantry is trying my patience. Go back and read my original post. Is there any aspect of that basic thesis that you actually disagree with in a substantive way?