5 ms·

It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't earn a huge amount, but I have a fantastic job, I live i

by sgt101 13y ago

It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't earn a huge amount, but I have a fantastic job, I live in a wonderful place about 5 minutes from my office and doing my Ph.D. was the best thing that I ever did. I agree that you don't need one, and many people with one that I have met and employed are fairly hopeless (in comparison to razor sharp and super talented B.Sc. folk) but babe, if it floats your boat go for it. Don't listen to the haters!

manaskarekar 13y ago
Reminds me of 'The illustrated guide to a Ph.D' - http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
- kaeluka 13y ago
  I saw Matt Might give this talk (or: a talk with this topic) this year -- my god, what a gifted speaker!
- chrisrhoden 13y ago
  What a perfectly delightful piece of academic propaganda. I'm sure that I am overreacting, but the suggestion that a PhD is the first and only time that you will experience original knowledge in your life seems quite smug.
  - doktrin 13y ago
    I'm pretty far from an academic, but I do believe you are overreacting a bit. It would be absurd to even imply that a PhD was the only route to original knowledge (insert patent clerk anecdote here). However, original knowledge is one of the core tenets of an academic doctorate after all, and it's certainly one legitimate avenue towards original research and knowledge.
    - crntaylor 13y ago
      I don't know where the "Einstein had little formal education in physics" meme originated, but I'd like to kill it. Einstein was awarded a PhD before the publication of any of his seminal 1905 papers.
  - beambot 13y ago
    Matt is making an "A implies B" argument: PhD's by definition must contribute original knowledge. He didn't address the converse (that non-PhD's don't or can't).
  - dcalacci 13y ago
    A PhD is definitely not the only time that a person can delve into original research or knowledge, you're right. But I don't see any place where Dr. Might suggests that it's the _only_ experience that can lead to original research. I think a PhD is definitely one of the only experiences where upon completion you are required to have contributed to the world of original and new knowledge in some way, though.
  - shriphani 13y ago
    You used the wrong syllogism.
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't know... If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction. A fantastic job with good living arrangements do not require a Ph.D.
- denzil_correa 13y ago
  >> If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off Where did you get the magic number 7 from?
- recursive 13y ago
  Personal satisfaction is one of the best outcomes I can imagine. What's more important than personal satisfaction?
  - VLM 13y ago
    Health and safety of your kids and spouse? I could have gone academic, in fact I could toss it all away and go academic right now. However ... I would never voluntarily make my wife and kids suffer like that. Maybe after I retire it would be safe to go academic. It boils down to you might be able to fire me up enough to eat ramen and live in a cardboard box because of topic X, but I'd have a hard time looking my kids in the eye and telling them they'll never eat anything better than ramen because dad likes topic X more than them. That's the screwed up nature of the system. "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to advance science". Oh really, and why is that? Why isn't it "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to stamp license plates, but if you wanna be rich go into academia..."
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
      i know plenty of academics with healthy, safe, spouses and children. they eat just fine.
gchpaco 13y ago
I spent seven years doing a PhD in Computer Science. It was an unpleasant experience from about year three or four on and I would have gotten the masters' and left before finishing if I knew then what I know now, and probably a) not gone through a suicidally depressive period b) have done more interesting work c) traveled more since I could afford it and d) also been paid more. The educational aspects of a PhD, at least in my program, were essentially equivalent to the educational aspects of getting a masters degree in the same subject area. The difference between them was after you finished the educational aspects you were now expected to produce between 3 to 6 papers a year corresponding roughly to the important conferences in your field and get most of them published. Speaking personally it takes me about three to four weeks to write a good research paper assuming I already have the results, so I worked out at one point that I had about two weeks to generate meaningful work to write about if I was to publish to that schedule. It is impossible to do anything more than the famous Least Publishable Increment of Work in that environment, and as a result most papers in Computer Science aren't especially compelling. A healthier field (say, chemistry, physics, mathematics) has you write perhaps one or two a year, with actual data.
- rdfi 13y ago
  The requirement to constantly be publishing is ridiculous, no wonder there are cases like the one reported in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e...) where in 56 paper only 6 had results that were successfully reproduced :( And this is cancer research...
zallarak 13y ago
Well said. Why is it even a relevant question as to whether PhDs in math/computing earn more/less than their counterparts with masters' degrees? Equating a degree with a level of economic productivity is illogical.

by sgt101 13y ago

manaskarekar 13y ago

Reminds me of 'The illustrated guide to a Ph.D' - http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

kaeluka 13y ago
I saw Matt Might give this talk (or: a talk with this topic) this year -- my god, what a gifted speaker!
chrisrhoden 13y ago
What a perfectly delightful piece of academic propaganda. I'm sure that I am overreacting, but the suggestion that a PhD is the first and only time that you will experience original knowledge in your life seems quite smug.
- doktrin 13y ago
  I'm pretty far from an academic, but I do believe you are overreacting a bit. It would be absurd to even imply that a PhD was the only route to original knowledge (insert patent clerk anecdote here). However, original knowledge is one of the core tenets of an academic doctorate after all, and it's certainly one legitimate avenue towards original research and knowledge.
  - crntaylor 13y ago
    I don't know where the "Einstein had little formal education in physics" meme originated, but I'd like to kill it. Einstein was awarded a PhD before the publication of any of his seminal 1905 papers.
- beambot 13y ago
  Matt is making an "A implies B" argument: PhD's by definition must contribute original knowledge. He didn't address the converse (that non-PhD's don't or can't).
- dcalacci 13y ago
  A PhD is definitely not the only time that a person can delve into original research or knowledge, you're right. But I don't see any place where Dr. Might suggests that it's the _only_ experience that can lead to original research. I think a PhD is definitely one of the only experiences where upon completion you are required to have contributed to the world of original and new knowledge in some way, though.
- shriphani 13y ago
  You used the wrong syllogism.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings. I don't know... If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction. A fantastic job with good living arrangements do not require a Ph.D.

denzil_correa 13y ago
>> If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off Where did you get the magic number 7 from?
recursive 13y ago
Personal satisfaction is one of the best outcomes I can imagine. What's more important than personal satisfaction?
- VLM 13y ago
  Health and safety of your kids and spouse? I could have gone academic, in fact I could toss it all away and go academic right now. However ... I would never voluntarily make my wife and kids suffer like that. Maybe after I retire it would be safe to go academic. It boils down to you might be able to fire me up enough to eat ramen and live in a cardboard box because of topic X, but I'd have a hard time looking my kids in the eye and telling them they'll never eat anything better than ramen because dad likes topic X more than them. That's the screwed up nature of the system. "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to advance science". Oh really, and why is that? Why isn't it "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to stamp license plates, but if you wanna be rich go into academia..."
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    i know plenty of academics with healthy, safe, spouses and children. they eat just fine.

gchpaco 13y ago

I spent seven years doing a PhD in Computer Science. It was an unpleasant experience from about year three or four on and I would have gotten the masters' and left before finishing if I knew then what I know now, and probably a) not gone through a suicidally depressive period b) have done more interesting work c) traveled more since I could afford it and d) also been paid more. The educational aspects of a PhD, at least in my program, were essentially equivalent to the educational aspects of getting a masters degree in the same subject area. The difference between them was after you finished the educational aspects you were now expected to produce between 3 to 6 papers a year corresponding roughly to the important conferences in your field and get most of them published. Speaking personally it takes me about three to four weeks to write a good research paper assuming I already have the results, so I worked out at one point that I had about two weeks to generate meaningful work to write about if I was to publish to that schedule. It is impossible to do anything more than the famous Least Publishable Increment of Work in that environment, and as a result most papers in Computer Science aren't especially compelling. A healthier field (say, chemistry, physics, mathematics) has you write perhaps one or two a year, with actual data.

rdfi 13y ago
The requirement to constantly be publishing is ridiculous, no wonder there are cases like the one reported in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e...) where in 56 paper only 6 had results that were successfully reproduced :( And this is cancer research...

zallarak 13y ago

Well said. Why is it even a relevant question as to whether PhDs in math/computing earn more/less than their counterparts with masters' degrees? Equating a degree with a level of economic productivity is illogical.