4 ms·

I think CS as a field has theoretical problems at its foundations that chemical engineering doesn't have. This makes a PhD in CS worth less to business than it

by wissler 13y ago

I think CS as a field has theoretical problems at its foundations that chemical engineering doesn't have. This makes a PhD in CS worth less to business than it otherwise would be. Obviously I don't expect this to be a wildly popular sentiment...

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I have a phd in computer science that doesn't involve much theory. Pure theoreticians exist, but they are quite rare. If your company doesn't have hard problems to solve, it doesn't need phds.
- wissler 13y ago
  It has hard problems and doesn't need PhD's. You don't need a PhD to solve hard problems, even hard theoretical ones.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    PhDs are adept at solving hard problems, which is why google hires so many of them. You can develop these research skills without getting a PhD, but experience at many companies only really trains up code monkeys.
  - elteto 13y ago
    This, if true at all, is a very unique characteristic of the software industry. In pretty much any other place, you need advanced degrees if you are doing new and genuine research
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      It's more the fuzziness of terms like "hard problem" that is causing confusion. The way I would put it, the things that CS PhD's typically end up working on in industry, are usually things that would require a CS PhD. E.g. almost all the cool computer vision stuff you see on HN is developed by people with PhD's or PhD students.
  - graycat 13y ago
    Anyone who can solve hard theoretical problems can pick up a Ph.D. quickly. Why? Because the main requirement for a Ph.D. is just the research. Commonly there is no coursework requirement. For the research, the main requirement is that it be publishable, and there the main criteria are "new, correct, and significant". It's a grim, nearly bloody, literally life threatening fact of life, that doing such research is really tough and the main challenge of a Ph.D. The Ph.D. training is supposed to help people do such research, and it does. Still the research is tough. Without the Ph.D. training, such research is much more difficult. Net, the idea that a Ph.D. is not needed for good research can be true only for really rare exceptions. Again, getting a Ph.D. is tough, yes, life threatening, and the main challenge is just the research. Broadly there's another option: Now the richest area of the US is likely within 100 miles of the Washington Monument in DC. Why? Because the US Federal Government has a license to print money - literally! Simple. My career started there, and that area just loves technical Ph.D. holders. I failed to understand just how much that area loves such Ph.D. holders and should not have left. You can apply to US Civil Service and/or individual parts of the Federal Government or to the huge number of private companies that do work for the Federal Government. The Washington Post used to be a fast way to get job ads, send a few resume copies, go on seven interviews, and get five offers (I did that once). Some routine Google searching should get you a lot of names and addresses, and sending 100 resumes should get you some good offers.
    - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
      Your first paragraph is a bit too simplistic. There are still political issues (institutional political issues) that impede otherwise good researchers (and some, many even, dropout--there's a reason that "ABD" exists as an abbreviation, and it isn't because PhDs needed a quick and handy shorthand to cast aspersions) from getting the degree itself. Doing the research necessary to write a dissertation really isn't that tough for somebody who is bright enough to tackle the problem. Its navigating the waters of academic politics and knowing the right people to be able to get into a research program that fits one's skills that is the toughest part. If this seems like it's familiar, it should be: academia has as much political and networking based "merit" as any place else. It just manifests differently there.
  - eriksank 13y ago
    Every successful, real-life application required solving at least one really hard problem. This hard problem may only look like 1% of the application, but if it does not get solved, the application would have failed. That 1% requires you to build something of a similar level of difficulty as rolling your own relational database system. At least one guy has to be able to recognize the problem and to solve it. Otherwise, the other ones won't be able to build, support and maintain the remaining 99% and won't have a job at all.

by wissler 13y ago

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

I have a phd in computer science that doesn't involve much theory. Pure theoreticians exist, but they are quite rare. If your company doesn't have hard problems to solve, it doesn't need phds.

wissler 13y ago
It has hard problems and doesn't need PhD's. You don't need a PhD to solve hard problems, even hard theoretical ones.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  PhDs are adept at solving hard problems, which is why google hires so many of them. You can develop these research skills without getting a PhD, but experience at many companies only really trains up code monkeys.
- elteto 13y ago
  This, if true at all, is a very unique characteristic of the software industry. In pretty much any other place, you need advanced degrees if you are doing new and genuine research
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    It's more the fuzziness of terms like "hard problem" that is causing confusion. The way I would put it, the things that CS PhD's typically end up working on in industry, are usually things that would require a CS PhD. E.g. almost all the cool computer vision stuff you see on HN is developed by people with PhD's or PhD students.
- graycat 13y ago
  Anyone who can solve hard theoretical problems can pick up a Ph.D. quickly. Why? Because the main requirement for a Ph.D. is just the research. Commonly there is no coursework requirement. For the research, the main requirement is that it be publishable, and there the main criteria are "new, correct, and significant". It's a grim, nearly bloody, literally life threatening fact of life, that doing such research is really tough and the main challenge of a Ph.D. The Ph.D. training is supposed to help people do such research, and it does. Still the research is tough. Without the Ph.D. training, such research is much more difficult. Net, the idea that a Ph.D. is not needed for good research can be true only for really rare exceptions. Again, getting a Ph.D. is tough, yes, life threatening, and the main challenge is just the research. Broadly there's another option: Now the richest area of the US is likely within 100 miles of the Washington Monument in DC. Why? Because the US Federal Government has a license to print money - literally! Simple. My career started there, and that area just loves technical Ph.D. holders. I failed to understand just how much that area loves such Ph.D. holders and should not have left. You can apply to US Civil Service and/or individual parts of the Federal Government or to the huge number of private companies that do work for the Federal Government. The Washington Post used to be a fast way to get job ads, send a few resume copies, go on seven interviews, and get five offers (I did that once). Some routine Google searching should get you a lot of names and addresses, and sending 100 resumes should get you some good offers.
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    Your first paragraph is a bit too simplistic. There are still political issues (institutional political issues) that impede otherwise good researchers (and some, many even, dropout--there's a reason that "ABD" exists as an abbreviation, and it isn't because PhDs needed a quick and handy shorthand to cast aspersions) from getting the degree itself. Doing the research necessary to write a dissertation really isn't that tough for somebody who is bright enough to tackle the problem. Its navigating the waters of academic politics and knowing the right people to be able to get into a research program that fits one's skills that is the toughest part. If this seems like it's familiar, it should be: academia has as much political and networking based "merit" as any place else. It just manifests differently there.
- eriksank 13y ago
  Every successful, real-life application required solving at least one really hard problem. This hard problem may only look like 1% of the application, but if it does not get solved, the application would have failed. That 1% requires you to build something of a similar level of difficulty as rolling your own relational database system. At least one guy has to be able to recognize the problem and to solve it. Otherwise, the other ones won't be able to build, support and maintain the remaining 99% and won't have a job at all.