3 ms·

I still did it very early in my career. If I’d left it another ten years I’d have wasted a lot of time, and wouldn’t have been able to get the career I have. A

I still did it very early in my career. If I’d left it another ten years I’d have wasted a lot of time, and wouldn’t have been able to get the career I have. And I recommend things because of my experience not despite it.

bumby 4y ago
I'm assuming this recommendation comes because you were not doing research prior to your PhD and you wanted to? In other words, you think PhD is about building a skillset and not signaling? That may be where we're talking from two different angles. Much of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that you need a PhD to do research (i.e., it's vocational in nature). My claim is that you do not, but that it's possible people will pursue a PhD for other reasons (because it's more about signaling than many realize).
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > My claim is that you do not Yes, some people are naturally talented enough to do research without training, or with training other than a PhD. But if you aren't exceptional, then promoting this is not realistic and is setting people up for disappointment. Some people can learn to play an instrument without a teacher... most would be better served with some structure and guidance for an experienced tutor.
  - bumby 4y ago
    You seem to imply that a PhD program is the only way to have researchers get tutored/trained. I.e., that PhD programs have a monopoly on developing the skillset; I'm saying they have a monopoly on the credential but not the skillset. Maybe I've had good employers but there's always been an emphasis on training junior employees in research, regardless if they had a PhD or not. Maybe that's the seat of our difference in opinion. I think the idea that a PhD program is the only adequate training for research is flawed. Most of the researchers (PhD and otherwise) have a fairly methodical approach to the endeavor. If there's a method/process, it can be taught. The non-PhDs that I know doing research did not have some innate talent for research, but were taught by other more senior researchers. IMO, most research is borne from the combination of a solid grasp of a problem that needs to be solved, taking the time to build deep understanding of the topic, and then following a methodical approach to testing a hypothesis. None of that takes exceptional talent or half a decade in a PhD program to learn. (I say this as somebody who's been through a PhD program that I enjoyed. It's not from any bitterness). The biggest hurdle for many seems to be funding and resources, rather than some exceptional talent. And to that end, I'd concede that a PhD credential can open up doors for resources, but I hold that as distinct from the skills required from research. If you're talking about the exceptional, once-in-a-generation breakthroughs, sure, I can see why a PhD program with an exceptional advisor may be necessary. The the vast, vast majority of research is small and incremental.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      I think I'm pretty qualified to talk about training people outside a PhD. I had a high-school intern who worked with me and hit the top of Hacker News with a new compiler optimisation she invented. I still think a PhD is the best for most people in most cases, if you want to be doing genuine research.
      - bumby 4y ago
        I'm interested enough that I could change my mind (although I thought it was curious that you said "I can't be convinced"). But your responses are somewhat vague and defensive in the tone of "I know what I'm talking about" without the specifics as to what I'm actually asking. To be specific, what do you think an PhD course offers that training through other means does not? For example, what do you define as "genuine research"? How does the training differ? IMO, employment research offers many advantages. For one, it forces somebody to focus on the application and how it would genuinely be of value, so that one doesn't get bogged down into "neat" but ultimately impractical efforts that are little more than academic exercises. IMO, it opens the projects up to more interesting problems because they don't get cornered into the "publish or perish" paradigm. People easily get paid 3-4x (or more) what they would as a TA. They have daily access to experts in their field rather than relying on piecemeal meetings with their advisors. It also tends to open one up to larger resources for their investigation; for example, the people in PhD programs at my last job were given ample access to multi-million dollar rocket test stands and the anonymized data from them; if that were a university resource it would be hard to gain that same level of recurring access. Now I'll grant that there are certain PhD programs that are better suited to specific types of fundamental research that would otherwise be difficult to get funding while an employee. Nuclear physics would be one example. But I would venture that the majority of research is on the applied sciences/engineering side.

bumby 4y ago

I'm assuming this recommendation comes because you were not doing research prior to your PhD and you wanted to? In other words, you think PhD is about building a skillset and not signaling? That may be where we're talking from two different angles. Much of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that you need a PhD to do research (i.e., it's vocational in nature). My claim is that you do not, but that it's possible people will pursue a PhD for other reasons (because it's more about signaling than many realize).

chrisseaton 4y ago
> My claim is that you do not Yes, some people are naturally talented enough to do research without training, or with training other than a PhD. But if you aren't exceptional, then promoting this is not realistic and is setting people up for disappointment. Some people can learn to play an instrument without a teacher... most would be better served with some structure and guidance for an experienced tutor.
- bumby 4y ago
  You seem to imply that a PhD program is the only way to have researchers get tutored/trained. I.e., that PhD programs have a monopoly on developing the skillset; I'm saying they have a monopoly on the credential but not the skillset. Maybe I've had good employers but there's always been an emphasis on training junior employees in research, regardless if they had a PhD or not. Maybe that's the seat of our difference in opinion. I think the idea that a PhD program is the only adequate training for research is flawed. Most of the researchers (PhD and otherwise) have a fairly methodical approach to the endeavor. If there's a method/process, it can be taught. The non-PhDs that I know doing research did not have some innate talent for research, but were taught by other more senior researchers. IMO, most research is borne from the combination of a solid grasp of a problem that needs to be solved, taking the time to build deep understanding of the topic, and then following a methodical approach to testing a hypothesis. None of that takes exceptional talent or half a decade in a PhD program to learn. (I say this as somebody who's been through a PhD program that I enjoyed. It's not from any bitterness). The biggest hurdle for many seems to be funding and resources, rather than some exceptional talent. And to that end, I'd concede that a PhD credential can open up doors for resources, but I hold that as distinct from the skills required from research. If you're talking about the exceptional, once-in-a-generation breakthroughs, sure, I can see why a PhD program with an exceptional advisor may be necessary. The the vast, vast majority of research is small and incremental.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I think I'm pretty qualified to talk about training people outside a PhD. I had a high-school intern who worked with me and hit the top of Hacker News with a new compiler optimisation she invented. I still think a PhD is the best for most people in most cases, if you want to be doing genuine research.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I'm interested enough that I could change my mind (although I thought it was curious that you said "I can't be convinced"). But your responses are somewhat vague and defensive in the tone of "I know what I'm talking about" without the specifics as to what I'm actually asking. To be specific, what do you think an PhD course offers that training through other means does not? For example, what do you define as "genuine research"? How does the training differ? IMO, employment research offers many advantages. For one, it forces somebody to focus on the application and how it would genuinely be of value, so that one doesn't get bogged down into "neat" but ultimately impractical efforts that are little more than academic exercises. IMO, it opens the projects up to more interesting problems because they don't get cornered into the "publish or perish" paradigm. People easily get paid 3-4x (or more) what they would as a TA. They have daily access to experts in their field rather than relying on piecemeal meetings with their advisors. It also tends to open one up to larger resources for their investigation; for example, the people in PhD programs at my last job were given ample access to multi-million dollar rocket test stands and the anonymized data from them; if that were a university resource it would be hard to gain that same level of recurring access. Now I'll grant that there are certain PhD programs that are better suited to specific types of fundamental research that would otherwise be difficult to get funding while an employee. Nuclear physics would be one example. But I would venture that the majority of research is on the applied sciences/engineering side.