3 ms·

> But at the same time, I only work 4 days a week, 28 weeks of the year, and those days I'm done at noon. TBH I have no idea what number of "bullshit hours" I

> But at the same time, I only work 4 days a week, 28 weeks of the year, and those days I'm done at noon. TBH I have no idea what number of "bullshit hours" I work, but I spend the vast majority of my time working on things I'd probably be doing anyways. I certainly think what I'm working on is more interesting than what I'd almost certainly be doing if I had accepting one of my TT offers. > If it were, I think we'd see more people going this route, but I'm not aware of too many (well, any really). Can you point to anyone who has amassed a small fortune in industry and now is a successful independent researcher? This largely depends on how you define success. They certainly aren't doing things like putting together performance bonus packets or playing the peer review game, so if you look to things like bonuses/promotions or journal papers in prestige venues they're probably not "successful". But isn't the goal to get off the bullshit ladder? You don't really think the prestige publishing game is anything other than BS make-work, do you? ;-) > It seems like the more popular route is to spend 1-2 decades amassing wealth and then just retire on that money. Sure. If your version of "what i would do with a billion dollars" involves lots of slopes and beaches then why not? What's wrong with this? > Or to invest it. You'd be what, 40+ at that time? That's a prime age for family rearing. The kids' college funds need to be swelling at that point. I know a lot of folks from my PhD cohort who went this route and took Professor of Practice positions for their kids' college years. > If you want to blow your family's nest egg at 40 Who said anything about blowing? The principal should continue growing, just a bit slower since you're spending some of the interest... > At such a critical time in a family, who in their right mind would leave a lucrative career to be an independent researcher, a job path that is largely reserved for independently wealthy people. A STEM PhD, after 10-20 years in tech or finance, IS an independently wealthy person... that's the whole point.

ModernMech 4y ago
> but I spend the vast majority of my time working on things I'd probably be doing anyways But is it your project? Or is it your employers, and do they actually own it? If you’re fired, do you still get to work on that project? > what I'm working on is more interesting than what I'd almost certainly be doing if I had accepting one of my TT offers I’m curious, why wouldn’t you just decide to work on a project that was more interesting to you? > But isn't the goal to get off the bullshit ladder? The goal would be to do research. So my question is: who is doing such independent work? Who are these researchers and how are they disseminating their work? If there aren’t very many of these people, can we not conclude this mode of research is not a viable alternative to mainstream research? > What's wrong with this? Nothing is wrong with this. But the suggestion is that if someone wants to do research, they should amass wealth in industry and then do research. My point is that close to 0 people end up taking this route (at least from where I’m sitting, maybe there is a whole community of multimillionaire tech researchers I don’t know about). So I wonder how viable this path is? Do people just not consider it? Or do they lose interest in research over those two decades? Does life get in the way? I guess my overall point is that, most people who want to do research, just do it. Spending decades amassing resources just to get started seems backwards. > took Professor of Practice positions for their kids' college years. And so you’re saying they funded their own research with their wealth at that point? > you're spending some of the interest... I thought we were talking about funding a research agenda. From where I’m sitting, that costs millions. If you’re making millions in interest income, I think we’re talking about at different scales here. > IS an independently wealthy person... that's the whole point. My meager research agenda costs roughly $1 million per year (no special equipment or facilities). How long can a retired tech worker burn cash at that rate and still make it through retirement? Maybe the math works out but I don’t know.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > But is it your project? Or is it your employers, and do they actually own it? If you’re fired, do you still get to work on that project? Varies. I optimize my employment situation for my personal ROI. But it turns out that making money off of even excellent scientific work is often very hard and involves insane amounts of slog. Like 1 hour of science to 10 hours of not-science. So usually employment and assignment has better risk-adjusted return. Not always, but usually. > So my question is: who is doing such independent work? Who are these researchers and how are they disseminating their work? If there aren’t very many of these people, can we not conclude this mode of research is not a viable alternative to mainstream research? I know there are several people like this in my field. They publish a paper every year or three, often in smaller venues. Or just throw things on arxiv. > So I wonder how viable this path is? Do people just not consider it? Or do they lose interest in research over those two decades? Does life get in the way? I think the middle and latter options happen quite a lot. I meet a lot of early retirees on Tuesday mid-morning lifts. I think a lot of people lose their passion for research in their 30s. This happens in the academy as well. Sometimes after amassing wealth you realize "hey, you know what I enjoy more than doing world-class mathematics? Chilling in my cabin with my family and skiing." > And so you’re saying they funded their own research with their wealth at that point? They took the PoP positions to pay for their kids' college without spending down savings. A sort of middle ground between working and retirement, and also a good way to build some collaboration opportunities. > I thought we were talking about funding a research agenda. From where I’m sitting, that costs millions. To be clear, the premise that started this thread is the "a guy and his laptop/occasional cloud spend" style of research that's prevalent in CS and Math. Yeah, if you need $1M/yr then you need an income stream or a different level of wealth. > I guess my overall point is that, most people who want to do research, just do it. Spending decades amassing resources just to get started seems backwards. I think this is reasonable advice for people who (1) need something more than a laptop and modest cloud compute, and (2) are absolutely sure that they would rather pursue that particular research as opposed to retiring early, and (3) are certain they they will be able to retain funding streams for the duration of their career.
  - dkqmduems 4y ago
jltsiren 4y ago
> A STEM PhD, after 10-20 years in tech or finance, IS an independently wealthy person... that's the whole point. Was an independently wealthy person, as the US job market was rigged to favor upper middle class professionals. Nobody knows if that's going to be the case for the fresh PhDs entering the job market today. Those lucrative careers may be threatened by any number of reasons, including political pressure and/or instability, more PhDs entering the industry, increasing competition due to remote work, and AI.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  This is a good point. I think there are still opportunities, and will be for the next 10 years, at least for good CS PhDs. Certainly not for all PhDs in all disciplines. > rigged to favor upper middle class professionals... remote work In the case of PhDs, it's exactly the opposite. Those jobs have very weak immigration moats compared to eg law, medicine, engineering, even software devekopment. The vast majority of phd students in CS are already non-residents and that's been true for decades at this point. For the same reason, PhD labor is probably the least effected by remote work.

ModernMech 4y ago

> but I spend the vast majority of my time working on things I'd probably be doing anyways But is it your project? Or is it your employers, and do they actually own it? If you’re fired, do you still get to work on that project? > what I'm working on is more interesting than what I'd almost certainly be doing if I had accepting one of my TT offers I’m curious, why wouldn’t you just decide to work on a project that was more interesting to you? > But isn't the goal to get off the bullshit ladder? The goal would be to do research. So my question is: who is doing such independent work? Who are these researchers and how are they disseminating their work? If there aren’t very many of these people, can we not conclude this mode of research is not a viable alternative to mainstream research? > What's wrong with this? Nothing is wrong with this. But the suggestion is that if someone wants to do research, they should amass wealth in industry and then do research. My point is that close to 0 people end up taking this route (at least from where I’m sitting, maybe there is a whole community of multimillionaire tech researchers I don’t know about). So I wonder how viable this path is? Do people just not consider it? Or do they lose interest in research over those two decades? Does life get in the way? I guess my overall point is that, most people who want to do research, just do it. Spending decades amassing resources just to get started seems backwards. > took Professor of Practice positions for their kids' college years. And so you’re saying they funded their own research with their wealth at that point? > you're spending some of the interest... I thought we were talking about funding a research agenda. From where I’m sitting, that costs millions. If you’re making millions in interest income, I think we’re talking about at different scales here. > IS an independently wealthy person... that's the whole point. My meager research agenda costs roughly $1 million per year (no special equipment or facilities). How long can a retired tech worker burn cash at that rate and still make it through retirement? Maybe the math works out but I don’t know.

thwayunion 4y ago
> But is it your project? Or is it your employers, and do they actually own it? If you’re fired, do you still get to work on that project? Varies. I optimize my employment situation for my personal ROI. But it turns out that making money off of even excellent scientific work is often very hard and involves insane amounts of slog. Like 1 hour of science to 10 hours of not-science. So usually employment and assignment has better risk-adjusted return. Not always, but usually. > So my question is: who is doing such independent work? Who are these researchers and how are they disseminating their work? If there aren’t very many of these people, can we not conclude this mode of research is not a viable alternative to mainstream research? I know there are several people like this in my field. They publish a paper every year or three, often in smaller venues. Or just throw things on arxiv. > So I wonder how viable this path is? Do people just not consider it? Or do they lose interest in research over those two decades? Does life get in the way? I think the middle and latter options happen quite a lot. I meet a lot of early retirees on Tuesday mid-morning lifts. I think a lot of people lose their passion for research in their 30s. This happens in the academy as well. Sometimes after amassing wealth you realize "hey, you know what I enjoy more than doing world-class mathematics? Chilling in my cabin with my family and skiing." > And so you’re saying they funded their own research with their wealth at that point? They took the PoP positions to pay for their kids' college without spending down savings. A sort of middle ground between working and retirement, and also a good way to build some collaboration opportunities. > I thought we were talking about funding a research agenda. From where I’m sitting, that costs millions. To be clear, the premise that started this thread is the "a guy and his laptop/occasional cloud spend" style of research that's prevalent in CS and Math. Yeah, if you need $1M/yr then you need an income stream or a different level of wealth. > I guess my overall point is that, most people who want to do research, just do it. Spending decades amassing resources just to get started seems backwards. I think this is reasonable advice for people who (1) need something more than a laptop and modest cloud compute, and (2) are absolutely sure that they would rather pursue that particular research as opposed to retiring early, and (3) are certain they they will be able to retain funding streams for the duration of their career.
- dkqmduems 4y ago

jltsiren 4y ago

> A STEM PhD, after 10-20 years in tech or finance, IS an independently wealthy person... that's the whole point. Was an independently wealthy person, as the US job market was rigged to favor upper middle class professionals. Nobody knows if that's going to be the case for the fresh PhDs entering the job market today. Those lucrative careers may be threatened by any number of reasons, including political pressure and/or instability, more PhDs entering the industry, increasing competition due to remote work, and AI.

thwayunion 4y ago
This is a good point. I think there are still opportunities, and will be for the next 10 years, at least for good CS PhDs. Certainly not for all PhDs in all disciplines. > rigged to favor upper middle class professionals... remote work In the case of PhDs, it's exactly the opposite. Those jobs have very weak immigration moats compared to eg law, medicine, engineering, even software devekopment. The vast majority of phd students in CS are already non-residents and that's been true for decades at this point. For the same reason, PhD labor is probably the least effected by remote work.