4 ms·

I always wonder when reading these just how much the author is rationalizing their choice to leave. If( and I'm assuming here) they were in grad school for CS

I always wonder when reading these just how much the author is rationalizing their choice to leave. If( and I'm assuming here) they were in grad school for CS and left , most of those problems really don't apply. There isn't the glut of adjuncts and postdocs one sees in e.g Micro biology because industry absorbs most of them. Tech transfer isn't nearly as big a problem (though may still be a problem). And reproducibility and data fraud are not nearly as pervasive for the simple reason that a lot of CS work is not experimental in that sense. This reads like someone's grab back generic issues with academia that don't all apply to any given field.

irollboozers 14y ago
Not sure how to answer your question, but one thing's for sure: CS is no longer just CS, isolated by itself. CS is increasingly interdisciplinary, with cross pollination of students and teachers in other fields like bioinformatics, physics, math, economics, ecology, public health, etc. At least in these fields, it's pretty dinosaur like to just think of CS as its own thing instead of applied CS. And per your assumption, I actually studied biochemistry and economics in college. I taught myself how to code as a way to get out of academia, but I'm pretty useless in anything related to CS research.
- anologwintermut 14y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head with teaching yourself to code. Its a way out. Precisely because of that, most people in pure computer science PhD programs can leave and go to industry. This means there isn't a glut of postdocs and adjuncts. This doesn't necessarily mean you have any of a better shot actually getting the Phd or getting a tenure track position, but it means your not dead if you don't.
  - irollboozers 14y ago
    Yeah but you have to realize 'industry' is still a dirty word. Industry is not the solution that the adjuncts and post-docs are looking for, it's inclusion.
jurassic 14y ago
For all but the superstars with a desire to pursue academia, it is irrational to stay. Especially outside CS, a lot of quality people are heading towards oblivion (middle age with no job, no prospects) by doing a PhD. I know some of them, and it makes me sad to think about it. There just aren't enough jobs and funding dollars to go around. It's not to humanities adjunct-hell level yet, but it stopped being a sound economic decision a long time ago. When people criticize academia I listen because I think everybody's got something to say, even if part of their message is self-justification. In non-CS sciences with fewer pathways to industry, it takes guts to speak out about the truth of the situation because the culture selects so strongly against it.
- irollboozers 14y ago
  >"it makes me sad to think about it." I think this is the best way to sum up my original message. I wrote this blog post out of frustration.
- XorNot 14y ago
  What we desperately need is far less people _wanting_ to do a PhD, and its not because it would reduce competition - it's because then the entire postgrad student environment would be forced to seriously consider how it attracts students. Unfortunately its very hard to make a rational sort of choice at the junction point where you choose, because by then you've already decided you want to do a PhD and so any offer seems like a good one. But you really shouldn't do this: you need to turn a critical eye to the facilities if you're looking at physical sciences, get a feel for the environment (basically, if people are joking something is always broken, that's a red flag because it won't be funny 18 months in), and try and figure out where your supervisor is at regarding publications - anyone who's established but say, lacks a Nature paper, or has one, needs to be treated suspiciously because their incentive to help you get papers published is low compared to wanting you to pursue high-risk/high-reward type activities. You also really need to pay attention if the project you're being asked to do matches up with what the lab/group you'll be in can do. A PhD is taking effectively a massive paycut for nebulous future earnings potential, not to mention is asking a lot of your enthusiasm and creativity for a long duration.

irollboozers 14y ago

Not sure how to answer your question, but one thing's for sure: CS is no longer just CS, isolated by itself. CS is increasingly interdisciplinary, with cross pollination of students and teachers in other fields like bioinformatics, physics, math, economics, ecology, public health, etc. At least in these fields, it's pretty dinosaur like to just think of CS as its own thing instead of applied CS. And per your assumption, I actually studied biochemistry and economics in college. I taught myself how to code as a way to get out of academia, but I'm pretty useless in anything related to CS research.

anologwintermut 14y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head with teaching yourself to code. Its a way out. Precisely because of that, most people in pure computer science PhD programs can leave and go to industry. This means there isn't a glut of postdocs and adjuncts. This doesn't necessarily mean you have any of a better shot actually getting the Phd or getting a tenure track position, but it means your not dead if you don't.
- irollboozers 14y ago
  Yeah but you have to realize 'industry' is still a dirty word. Industry is not the solution that the adjuncts and post-docs are looking for, it's inclusion.

jurassic 14y ago

For all but the superstars with a desire to pursue academia, it is irrational to stay. Especially outside CS, a lot of quality people are heading towards oblivion (middle age with no job, no prospects) by doing a PhD. I know some of them, and it makes me sad to think about it. There just aren't enough jobs and funding dollars to go around. It's not to humanities adjunct-hell level yet, but it stopped being a sound economic decision a long time ago. When people criticize academia I listen because I think everybody's got something to say, even if part of their message is self-justification. In non-CS sciences with fewer pathways to industry, it takes guts to speak out about the truth of the situation because the culture selects so strongly against it.

irollboozers 14y ago
>"it makes me sad to think about it." I think this is the best way to sum up my original message. I wrote this blog post out of frustration.
XorNot 14y ago
What we desperately need is far less people _wanting_ to do a PhD, and its not because it would reduce competition - it's because then the entire postgrad student environment would be forced to seriously consider how it attracts students. Unfortunately its very hard to make a rational sort of choice at the junction point where you choose, because by then you've already decided you want to do a PhD and so any offer seems like a good one. But you really shouldn't do this: you need to turn a critical eye to the facilities if you're looking at physical sciences, get a feel for the environment (basically, if people are joking something is always broken, that's a red flag because it won't be funny 18 months in), and try and figure out where your supervisor is at regarding publications - anyone who's established but say, lacks a Nature paper, or has one, needs to be treated suspiciously because their incentive to help you get papers published is low compared to wanting you to pursue high-risk/high-reward type activities. You also really need to pay attention if the project you're being asked to do matches up with what the lab/group you'll be in can do. A PhD is taking effectively a massive paycut for nebulous future earnings potential, not to mention is asking a lot of your enthusiasm and creativity for a long duration.