5 ms·

The only difference between a PhD and a hobby is money, or the presumption of it indirectly (certain jobs, etc) Or else we just call it pursing our natural hob

The only difference between a PhD and a hobby is money, or the presumption of it indirectly (certain jobs, etc) Or else we just call it pursing our natural hobbies and interests. You don't need to go to school for that. If you didn't need more money you wouldn't seek the accreditation.

pinko 2y ago
In many disciplines, it is almost impossible to get oneself into an environment anywhere remotely as rich in collective expertise, resources, and academic-social interaction as a proper graduate research program. There are exceptions (e.g., aspects of tech where money can be made, aspects of social science that intersect with public policy or activism, etc.) but they are rare.
- DrFalkyn 2y ago
  In my experience Academia lacks the resources that corporations can give you. This has been a big problem in AI. The transformers guys probably could not have pulled that off at a university.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  You're exactly right. The ill-informed commenters here seem to think everything is about 'AI' and 'tech'. Of course you don't need a PhD to publish bullshit experiments on language models and unwarranted pontification — but try becoming a serious pure mathematician without a PhD. But I guess the retort of the average tech bro HNer will be something like: 'we don't need pure mathematicians — just learn Rust and you'll make way more money'.
lazyasciiart 2y ago
Some people study things that require actual equipment. People who have the money to run a nuclear physics lab in their house are very rare.
globalnode 2y ago
I would assume there would be more structure and outside requirements to a phd than a hobby. More feedback and more requirements in general to do things you wouldn't do as part of a free form hobby where you could just avoid the undesirable aspects.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dgacmu 2y ago
Nah. The difference is one of (learning) rigor. Intellectual and scientific. You learn a lot in the process of getting a Ph.D. about how to think, how to analyze, and how to research.
- ghaff 2y ago
  That sounds awfully generic. It doesn't sound that different from a Master's (heck, maybe even an undergrad) program that requires a thesis. Yes, there's a difference in the sense of supposedly doing novel research, but I'm not sure the degree to which you're theoretically moving the state of the art forward justifies your time investment in many cases.
  - sno129 2y ago
    I'm assuming you don't have a Ph.D. if it sounds generic to you. I think it's really impossible to explain to somebody who hasn't gone through it how much a Ph.D. changes the way you think. Whether it's worth the time investment is another matter, however, which I'll leave alone.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      The change isn’t unique to a PhD though. Plenty of people receive similar or better training in industry.
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        I hope that most people change after 5, 10 and 20 years of experience in industry and think in different ways than when they started...
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    It's a matter of degree. A _typical_ undergrad thesis is more spoon-fed from the perspective of "here's the idea, go do it". A typical masters project is still more advisor-generated than student-generated. A typical Ph.D. project is more student-generated than advisor-generated in many cases. Please add copious "not all"s to this paragraph as the variance is extremely high and everyone's case is unique. And the rigor expected increases substantially. Again, generally. The major thing of a Ph.D. isn't really how much it moves the state of the art forward, it's how much it moves you forward. You will almost certainly approach research and your area fundamentally differently after. That's true for me as well as a professor with respect to research: I'm pretty convinced that my largest contribution is the Ph.D. students I've mentored more than the chunks of research I've done. I'm proud of the research. But I'm more proud of the students. They've gone on to do wonderful things. The thing it hangs on is "justifies" - financially, a Ph.D. in CS is hard to "justify." Intellectually, it's easy. Depends a lot on your individual utility function! I could have dropped out of my Ph.D. program to go be a pre-IPO employee at Google or Akamai and, ah, let's say that my financial picture would have a few extra zeros on it compared to where I am now. :-) But I'm really glad I didn't. It's been a very fun journey and I've never felt like I'm just doing the routine. That's worth a lot for me.
michaelt 2y ago
Sure - it's just a hobby that pays money. That and the library access, and the fact that you don't have to fit it in around a job, obviously. Kinda goes without saying. And you get a supervisor who might point you in the right direction and keep you on track - but I'm sure you barely need that! Of course the equipment access and technician support goes without saying. Not like anyone else is going to be letting you use their scanning electron microscope for free. Having peers working alongside you who share your values of intellectual curiosity, working in the same field and who are your equals academically is also of little to no importance - who needs 'em? There's the international travel for conferences, but really that's pretty burdensome. I for one don't want to traipse through airports and mess up my routine just to have conversations with world-leading experts on my topic of interest; I'd rather be at home relaxing. I can't imagine anyone would be drawn to the 50% female working environment, with hundreds of smart, beautiful single women aged 18-22. Who gives a shit about that? Barely even a benefit really. Other than the intellectual curiosity, the pay, the library and journal access, the time it gives you to study, the supervision, the equipment and technicians, the peers, the international travel, and all the young women - what have the Romans ever done for us?
- kevinsync 2y ago
  All incredible points, but academia still doesn't appeal to people like me in the slightest. The hierarchy, the bureaucracy, the various costs, the unreliable supposed rewards, none of it was even remotely appealing enough to do an undergraduate, let alone a masters and then a PhD. Funny thing is, the hierarchy, the bureaucracy, the various costs, the unreliable supposed rewards, related to industries of technology, art, music, culture, essentially the exact same environment, did and do, and I've happily paid (in money, blood, sweat and tears) to participate in those. I wonder what it is exactly that makes the same exact thing appealing wearing one outfit versus the other. I feel like if we can solve that, we can restore some kind of respect for and desire for "academia", which seems like it's very much fallen out of vogue in culture lately.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I used to think that, money aside, I'd be interested in a PhD in whatever subject. But really, I can buy the library access at my alma mater for a trivial sum. And, were I in the city, I could access a ton of the other stuff too. No, not the labs for the fields that require them for the most part--or generally discussion seminars, but there's a lot you can access for free-ish if you work at it.
dullcrisp 2y ago
If you want to be reductionist, the only difference between eating at a restaurant and cooking at home is money (and also that they’re fundamentally different things). That doesn’t mean that people do one or the other for purely financial reasons. Also is it still a PhD by your definition if you pay tuition? Or only if you’re paid a stipend?

pinko 2y ago

In many disciplines, it is almost impossible to get oneself into an environment anywhere remotely as rich in collective expertise, resources, and academic-social interaction as a proper graduate research program. There are exceptions (e.g., aspects of tech where money can be made, aspects of social science that intersect with public policy or activism, etc.) but they are rare.

DrFalkyn 2y ago
In my experience Academia lacks the resources that corporations can give you. This has been a big problem in AI. The transformers guys probably could not have pulled that off at a university.
xanderlewis 2y ago
You're exactly right. The ill-informed commenters here seem to think everything is about 'AI' and 'tech'. Of course you don't need a PhD to publish bullshit experiments on language models and unwarranted pontification — but try becoming a serious pure mathematician without a PhD. But I guess the retort of the average tech bro HNer will be something like: 'we don't need pure mathematicians — just learn Rust and you'll make way more money'.

lazyasciiart 2y ago

Some people study things that require actual equipment. People who have the money to run a nuclear physics lab in their house are very rare.

globalnode 2y ago

I would assume there would be more structure and outside requirements to a phd than a hobby. More feedback and more requirements in general to do things you wouldn't do as part of a free form hobby where you could just avoid the undesirable aspects.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dgacmu 2y ago

Nah. The difference is one of (learning) rigor. Intellectual and scientific. You learn a lot in the process of getting a Ph.D. about how to think, how to analyze, and how to research.

ghaff 2y ago
That sounds awfully generic. It doesn't sound that different from a Master's (heck, maybe even an undergrad) program that requires a thesis. Yes, there's a difference in the sense of supposedly doing novel research, but I'm not sure the degree to which you're theoretically moving the state of the art forward justifies your time investment in many cases.
- sno129 2y ago
  I'm assuming you don't have a Ph.D. if it sounds generic to you. I think it's really impossible to explain to somebody who hasn't gone through it how much a Ph.D. changes the way you think. Whether it's worth the time investment is another matter, however, which I'll leave alone.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    The change isn’t unique to a PhD though. Plenty of people receive similar or better training in industry.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      I hope that most people change after 5, 10 and 20 years of experience in industry and think in different ways than when they started...
- dgacmu 2y ago
  It's a matter of degree. A _typical_ undergrad thesis is more spoon-fed from the perspective of "here's the idea, go do it". A typical masters project is still more advisor-generated than student-generated. A typical Ph.D. project is more student-generated than advisor-generated in many cases. Please add copious "not all"s to this paragraph as the variance is extremely high and everyone's case is unique. And the rigor expected increases substantially. Again, generally. The major thing of a Ph.D. isn't really how much it moves the state of the art forward, it's how much it moves you forward. You will almost certainly approach research and your area fundamentally differently after. That's true for me as well as a professor with respect to research: I'm pretty convinced that my largest contribution is the Ph.D. students I've mentored more than the chunks of research I've done. I'm proud of the research. But I'm more proud of the students. They've gone on to do wonderful things. The thing it hangs on is "justifies" - financially, a Ph.D. in CS is hard to "justify." Intellectually, it's easy. Depends a lot on your individual utility function! I could have dropped out of my Ph.D. program to go be a pre-IPO employee at Google or Akamai and, ah, let's say that my financial picture would have a few extra zeros on it compared to where I am now. :-) But I'm really glad I didn't. It's been a very fun journey and I've never felt like I'm just doing the routine. That's worth a lot for me.

michaelt 2y ago

Sure - it's just a hobby that pays money. That and the library access, and the fact that you don't have to fit it in around a job, obviously. Kinda goes without saying. And you get a supervisor who might point you in the right direction and keep you on track - but I'm sure you barely need that! Of course the equipment access and technician support goes without saying. Not like anyone else is going to be letting you use their scanning electron microscope for free. Having peers working alongside you who share your values of intellectual curiosity, working in the same field and who are your equals academically is also of little to no importance - who needs 'em? There's the international travel for conferences, but really that's pretty burdensome. I for one don't want to traipse through airports and mess up my routine just to have conversations with world-leading experts on my topic of interest; I'd rather be at home relaxing. I can't imagine anyone would be drawn to the 50% female working environment, with hundreds of smart, beautiful single women aged 18-22. Who gives a shit about that? Barely even a benefit really. Other than the intellectual curiosity, the pay, the library and journal access, the time it gives you to study, the supervision, the equipment and technicians, the peers, the international travel, and all the young women - what have the Romans ever done for us?

kevinsync 2y ago
All incredible points, but academia still doesn't appeal to people like me in the slightest. The hierarchy, the bureaucracy, the various costs, the unreliable supposed rewards, none of it was even remotely appealing enough to do an undergraduate, let alone a masters and then a PhD. Funny thing is, the hierarchy, the bureaucracy, the various costs, the unreliable supposed rewards, related to industries of technology, art, music, culture, essentially the exact same environment, did and do, and I've happily paid (in money, blood, sweat and tears) to participate in those. I wonder what it is exactly that makes the same exact thing appealing wearing one outfit versus the other. I feel like if we can solve that, we can restore some kind of respect for and desire for "academia", which seems like it's very much fallen out of vogue in culture lately.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I used to think that, money aside, I'd be interested in a PhD in whatever subject. But really, I can buy the library access at my alma mater for a trivial sum. And, were I in the city, I could access a ton of the other stuff too. No, not the labs for the fields that require them for the most part--or generally discussion seminars, but there's a lot you can access for free-ish if you work at it.

dullcrisp 2y ago

If you want to be reductionist, the only difference between eating at a restaurant and cooking at home is money (and also that they’re fundamentally different things). That doesn’t mean that people do one or the other for purely financial reasons. Also is it still a PhD by your definition if you pay tuition? Or only if you’re paid a stipend?