4 ms·

> From the discussion here, it seems that HN turns out to be a very money-centric place. Somewhat surprising. Not surprising at all. It's a forum run by a VC f

> From the discussion here, it seems that HN turns out to be a very money-centric place. Somewhat surprising. Not surprising at all. It's a forum run by a VC firm populated with a decent number of people who are wannabe founders, trying to jump on the latest fad, hoping to win the startup jackpot. And (way back when it was small), I think a big part of the appeal was you could rub shoulders with some VC people and founders who actually made it. > It doesn’t even seem to occur to people that one might pursue a doctoral degree because one is interested in the subject and wants to do research. I think it does occur to people, but that's a choice for nepo babies and aspiring monks. > It’s always talked about as if getting a PhD is just another rung in a long ladder towards… earning a lot of money? Not only that — it’s apparently such an obvious fact that it’s an unacknowledged (though implicitly present) assumption in almost every comment here. I don't know about "earning a lot of money," but the whole PhD thing seems to have gotten super exploitative. Passion is one thing, but it's not a good thing to get taken advantage of. IMHO, long and difficult educational programs should be designed to guarantee a high chance of a reasonable stable and comfortable outcome.

jvanderbot 2y ago
I don't get it. I was neither a nepo baby or aspiring monk. What I was, was a kid from a non academic family who wanted more than my small town education could provide. I wanted to push myself to learn at a deeper level and prove it by becoming one of a different crowd of technologists. Maybe these are misguided motivations but they were undeniable and not at all about asceticism or idle riches. It was absolutely worth it.
- brailsafe 2y ago
  Ya but, based on the brief resume in your profile, you've also probably made out quite well, no? Is that a completely incidental thing, or do you think you'd feel even a little differently if what you earned throughout your intellectual journey ended up leaving you financially vulnerable, whatever that would mean in your geographic region? To me it's a question of how much cost a person should reasonably incur in order to pursue one's interests, and I think the amount of people with absurd student loan debt and time spent, compared to their earning potential, is at meme status for millennials and zoomers. To be clear, I do think the motivations aren't inherently misguided, but they could be, and my guess is that people are taking their potential outcomes more seriously.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    In STEM, PhDs are probably not terrible financial outcomes in general (in that they probably mostly avoid a huge amount of student loan debt and may offer a leg-up for some commercial opportunities), but they also may be sub-optimal financially in many cases relative to just landing a job out of academia earlier.
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      Ya you may be right, at least in terms of expense, but I'm also considering the external cost vs reward even if debt is zero. A woman struck up a conversation with me yesterday at a cafe and we got to chatting. She had already had two careers, first in film, then teaching film, and now starting a PhD in philosophy, which I think is fantastic. But... she's a retired grey hair who owns her home, and the topic of whether her former students or myself would even continue to feasibly attend school or stay present in the community was unavoidable. There was no malice or particularly negative sentiments exchanged in our brief conversation, there didn't need to be, but there was more of an exasperated acknowledgement that there's no possible scenario wherein myself, her students, or her own adult children could secure a house remotely like hers in the broader municipal area by our own means, without winning a literal or figurative lottery with immense career success. Land is too expensive, prospects don't pay enough and they're too volatile. She wouldn't have been able to either, it was just plausible, though still probably pretty expensive for her at a different time, likely with another income. It's not impossible to make some pursuits work, but tbh some things are not worth pursuing if they ain't gunna pay. It's an existential crisis that people are well-aware of; why invest ones finite resources into something that won't even let you form a stable adulthood?
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Getting a PhD in retirement is great if that's what floats your boat. (I know someone who basically did and another who did as sort of a mid-life crisis.) I don't think I'd have any interest because of all the BS associated with getting a credential. It does provide some structure around an activity. But I just can't personally imagine having that much structure unless I had a real objective in mind.
- pedrosorio 2y ago
  > learn at a deeper level and prove it by becoming one of a different crowd of technologists The “prove you’re special” motivation is definitely a strong third reason that does not align with the nepotism baby or monk archetypes
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Labor specialization is not a deeply suboptimal strategy. Is that a better way of putting it?
- f1shy 2y ago
  So you are in the group perusing money.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Money was not the motivation. One of my lab mates left to join the startup scene and now is crazy wealthy. I just loved the study and being outside with robots trying to do good work. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Now I do ok as most senior software engineers do, but about 1/3 or 1/2 of a starting FAANG comp, let alone senior.
- spicyusername 2y ago
  I think it's hard for some people to understand why other people would choose to be poor. And so it must be that people who choose to get a PhD come from means.
  - xanderlewis 2y ago
    When the choice is between being (perhaps, somewhat) money-poor and being intellectually poor, it's easy to understand. But not everyone is wired that way.
ohbleek 2y ago
>I thnk it does occur to people, but that's a choice for nepo babies and aspiring monks. Maybe you've only spent time around PhD candidates at Ivy League schools where people are more likely to have access to wealth, but if you've spent any time at all around PhD candidates you'll find this is generally not the case. As a PhD candidate from a lower SE class, I've found that the majority of my peers are from a similar class. However, I am not connected to a private university though I am in medicine. Studies on this show great variation across doctoral fields. Economics doctoral students tend to come from more affluent backgrounds, while the majority of Social Sciences doctoral students are from a lower SE class. Overall there seems to be a trend that doctoral students in fields with more lucrative career prospects tend to come from a higher SE class. From what I have read, your claim only applies to the majority of faculty members, which tend to come from backgrounds with an income that is higher than the national median income.
- __rito__ 2y ago
  > while the majority of Social Sciences doctoral students are from a lower SE class I am speaking solely from anecdotes, but Social Science grad students generally have a Rabbi from early on their career. That is, they are favorite students, close students to at least one powerful/influential figure in their field. A lot of favoritism and a different kind of nepotism play an important part Social Sciences academia. And to be successful in Social Sciences academia, you need a "mentor"/"Rabbi", and also be a proponent of a certain kind of politics.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Do you mean that to succeed in social sciences academia you have to think Nazis are bad?
  - epgui 2y ago
    This is such a bizarre comment through and through.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    Every PhD applicant needs letters of recommendation. You get those from faculty members who think that you are skilled. If you go look at the incoming class of CS PhDs at the top 20 schools, you'll find that basically every single one has a good relationship with at least one faculty member. Callouts of social sciences and the use of "rabbi" are baffling here.
f1shy 2y ago
> I think it does occur to people, but that's a choice for nepo babies and aspiring monks. This is my experience. Or in another way of saying it: either they persue the money, or they have already the money, or yes, want to be "monks" but that must be like 0.01%. Most of the people I know come from rich families, or want to be the next rich familiy.
xanderlewis 2y ago
> IMHO, long and difficult educational programs should be designed to guarantee a high chance of a reasonable stable and comfortable outcome. You've hit the nail on the head. Education is now regarded transactionally. A PhD simply isn't about that; if you ever thought so, you've been lied to. I'm a PhD student and I'm certainly not being 'taken advantage of' or anything of the sort. Please broaden your perspective and stop basing your entire view of a topic on a few sob stories from people who either couldn't hack it or made terrible, self-sabotaging decisions and now regret it. There's a huge crowd out there for whom this was not their experience, and hence have no reason to moan about it online.

jvanderbot 2y ago

I don't get it. I was neither a nepo baby or aspiring monk. What I was, was a kid from a non academic family who wanted more than my small town education could provide. I wanted to push myself to learn at a deeper level and prove it by becoming one of a different crowd of technologists. Maybe these are misguided motivations but they were undeniable and not at all about asceticism or idle riches. It was absolutely worth it.

brailsafe 2y ago
Ya but, based on the brief resume in your profile, you've also probably made out quite well, no? Is that a completely incidental thing, or do you think you'd feel even a little differently if what you earned throughout your intellectual journey ended up leaving you financially vulnerable, whatever that would mean in your geographic region? To me it's a question of how much cost a person should reasonably incur in order to pursue one's interests, and I think the amount of people with absurd student loan debt and time spent, compared to their earning potential, is at meme status for millennials and zoomers. To be clear, I do think the motivations aren't inherently misguided, but they could be, and my guess is that people are taking their potential outcomes more seriously.
- ghaff 2y ago
  In STEM, PhDs are probably not terrible financial outcomes in general (in that they probably mostly avoid a huge amount of student loan debt and may offer a leg-up for some commercial opportunities), but they also may be sub-optimal financially in many cases relative to just landing a job out of academia earlier.
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    Ya you may be right, at least in terms of expense, but I'm also considering the external cost vs reward even if debt is zero. A woman struck up a conversation with me yesterday at a cafe and we got to chatting. She had already had two careers, first in film, then teaching film, and now starting a PhD in philosophy, which I think is fantastic. But... she's a retired grey hair who owns her home, and the topic of whether her former students or myself would even continue to feasibly attend school or stay present in the community was unavoidable. There was no malice or particularly negative sentiments exchanged in our brief conversation, there didn't need to be, but there was more of an exasperated acknowledgement that there's no possible scenario wherein myself, her students, or her own adult children could secure a house remotely like hers in the broader municipal area by our own means, without winning a literal or figurative lottery with immense career success. Land is too expensive, prospects don't pay enough and they're too volatile. She wouldn't have been able to either, it was just plausible, though still probably pretty expensive for her at a different time, likely with another income. It's not impossible to make some pursuits work, but tbh some things are not worth pursuing if they ain't gunna pay. It's an existential crisis that people are well-aware of; why invest ones finite resources into something that won't even let you form a stable adulthood?
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Getting a PhD in retirement is great if that's what floats your boat. (I know someone who basically did and another who did as sort of a mid-life crisis.) I don't think I'd have any interest because of all the BS associated with getting a credential. It does provide some structure around an activity. But I just can't personally imagine having that much structure unless I had a real objective in mind.
pedrosorio 2y ago
> learn at a deeper level and prove it by becoming one of a different crowd of technologists The “prove you’re special” motivation is definitely a strong third reason that does not align with the nepotism baby or monk archetypes
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Labor specialization is not a deeply suboptimal strategy. Is that a better way of putting it?
f1shy 2y ago
So you are in the group perusing money.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Money was not the motivation. One of my lab mates left to join the startup scene and now is crazy wealthy. I just loved the study and being outside with robots trying to do good work. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Now I do ok as most senior software engineers do, but about 1/3 or 1/2 of a starting FAANG comp, let alone senior.
spicyusername 2y ago
I think it's hard for some people to understand why other people would choose to be poor. And so it must be that people who choose to get a PhD come from means.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  When the choice is between being (perhaps, somewhat) money-poor and being intellectually poor, it's easy to understand. But not everyone is wired that way.

ohbleek 2y ago

>I thnk it does occur to people, but that's a choice for nepo babies and aspiring monks. Maybe you've only spent time around PhD candidates at Ivy League schools where people are more likely to have access to wealth, but if you've spent any time at all around PhD candidates you'll find this is generally not the case. As a PhD candidate from a lower SE class, I've found that the majority of my peers are from a similar class. However, I am not connected to a private university though I am in medicine. Studies on this show great variation across doctoral fields. Economics doctoral students tend to come from more affluent backgrounds, while the majority of Social Sciences doctoral students are from a lower SE class. Overall there seems to be a trend that doctoral students in fields with more lucrative career prospects tend to come from a higher SE class. From what I have read, your claim only applies to the majority of faculty members, which tend to come from backgrounds with an income that is higher than the national median income.

__rito__ 2y ago
> while the majority of Social Sciences doctoral students are from a lower SE class I am speaking solely from anecdotes, but Social Science grad students generally have a Rabbi from early on their career. That is, they are favorite students, close students to at least one powerful/influential figure in their field. A lot of favoritism and a different kind of nepotism play an important part Social Sciences academia. And to be successful in Social Sciences academia, you need a "mentor"/"Rabbi", and also be a proponent of a certain kind of politics.
- immibis 2y ago
  Do you mean that to succeed in social sciences academia you have to think Nazis are bad?
- epgui 2y ago
  This is such a bizarre comment through and through.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Every PhD applicant needs letters of recommendation. You get those from faculty members who think that you are skilled. If you go look at the incoming class of CS PhDs at the top 20 schools, you'll find that basically every single one has a good relationship with at least one faculty member. Callouts of social sciences and the use of "rabbi" are baffling here.

f1shy 2y ago

> I think it does occur to people, but that's a choice for nepo babies and aspiring monks. This is my experience. Or in another way of saying it: either they persue the money, or they have already the money, or yes, want to be "monks" but that must be like 0.01%. Most of the people I know come from rich families, or want to be the next rich familiy.

xanderlewis 2y ago

> IMHO, long and difficult educational programs should be designed to guarantee a high chance of a reasonable stable and comfortable outcome. You've hit the nail on the head. Education is now regarded transactionally. A PhD simply isn't about that; if you ever thought so, you've been lied to. I'm a PhD student and I'm certainly not being 'taken advantage of' or anything of the sort. Please broaden your perspective and stop basing your entire view of a topic on a few sob stories from people who either couldn't hack it or made terrible, self-sabotaging decisions and now regret it. There's a huge crowd out there for whom this was not their experience, and hence have no reason to moan about it online.