5 ms·

Something I've found as a quant and data scientist without a PhD is that PhD Bigotry is common. Really fucking common. Plenty of companies will give you second-

Something I've found as a quant and data scientist without a PhD is that PhD Bigotry is common. Really fucking common. Plenty of companies will give you second-rate projects just because you don't have a PhD. That said, it would never make sense for me to get a PhD for job-related reasons: the opportunity cost is too high. (In fact, it's too high even considering that I have a lot of intellectual reasons why, if I had more time, I'd do one.) Economically, I'm better off to deal with the annoyance of PhD bigotry (and leave jobs if it is an issue) than go into a program that has almost (and possibly over) $1 million in opportunity costs and that I'll exit (if I'm lucky) at the unfundable age of 35. I know why PhD bigotry exists; people conceive that the alternative is to admit that 4-6 years of time were wasted, so they have to build up this bullshit belief that without a PhD, you're just not research-grade. But I find that ridiculous. 4-6 years learning things you're passionate about and can use is never wasted; but don't bring me down (by insisting that everyone who hasn't made such an investment is somehow inferior) just because you're insecure about your choices. (Who isn't?)

tensor 13y ago
Is it really PhD bigotry you are experiencing? Or general degree bigotry? I would guess the latter. You see the same complaints from people without CS/Eng degrees who none-the-less have the skills to do the job.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  Wouldn't the distribution of PhDs-in-research-positions and BS/MS-in-research-positions be different depending on whether its the former or latter? I think so. I wonder how much, or even if, there is any data about that. Speaking from personal experience I'd largely agree with the parent's point. Also, speaking from my personal experience in academia, I'd suggest the field of academics, science or otherwise, is largely like any other industry: one's ability and intelligence can only carry one so far; who one knows typically has a far greater impact. This is especially true when applying to graduate school in the sciences. A person who is well-connected is far more likely to be picked up in a research program that is: a) of interest to him and b) well funded (as well as can be, in this area).
  - tensor 13y ago
    Oh absolutely. I'm only suggesting that the problem isn't one unique to PhD degrees, but rather a more general problem with title and degrees. I think it's an important distinction if we want to understand or fix the problem. You are also correct that "connections" can count for a lot. Though pure degree discrimination is still very frequent.
vacri 13y ago
The whole point of a PhD is that it is a third-party-backed proof that you're capable of doing independent research on a novel topic. Compare: "I'm good at doing this, trust me", and "I'm good at doing this, so sayeth this big university". It's a form of vetting, and we're all familiar with people who say they have long experience in something and are good at selling you on that, yet they wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. Or lack the deep knowledge a PhD would require of the topic. Of course you can be awesome without a PhD (and far from all PhDs are awesome), but it's a credentialled form of vetting. A PhD also proves you can complete a multi-year project through the hard yards, and most of them run into plenty of difficulties.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  A PhD proves one can convince a group of 5 (or so) people that one's efforts are worth signing off on so that the "Big University" will grant a certificate. In other words, it's the same "so sayeth this big university" process you disparage, but in a different sphere. It does not signal, to me, the ability to complete a multi-year project "through the hard yards," in and of itself. People who are extremely bright and capable researchers wash out of PhD programs all the time for a variety of reasons entirely unrelated to their abilities or desires, and people who would be lost without their committee chairperson guiding their research complete their PhDs all the time.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    As I understand the grandparent post, he's not disparaging "So sayeth this big university", he's disparaging "So sayeth myself." Basically, my interpretation was that he's saying that a Ph.D is imperfect as a credential, but it's far better than just "Trust me, I'm awesome". Which I think most people would agree with, right?
    - vacri 13y ago
      That is pretty much what I was getting at. I wasn't actually meaning to be disparaging at all, just waxing a little poetic, though I thought it was funny that I was being chided for being disparaging in a comment that was disparaging the exact same thing :)
mjn 13y ago
I agree there's a reasonable amount of that, but in technology research specifically, my impression has been that publications trump degrees. If two people without any recent impressive publications are being compared, then the person with a PhD gets to pull that card. But if you're looking at graphics researchers, say, if and how recently you've published at SIGGRAPH is often a bigger factor than what degrees you have, when it comes to whether other graphics researchers consider you a legit graphics researcher. Industry guy with a BSc who publishes there regularly is seen as more of a real graphics researcher than PhD-holder who used to work in the field but last published there in 1995 (unless what they published in 1995 was truly revolutionary, maybe).
- nostrademons 13y ago
  I've found that demonstrated competency & achievements count for more than both publications and degrees. When I was working on Google Authorship, I was the only one on the team without an advanced degree, and only two others lacked a Ph.D. I never once felt like I was looked down upon - actually, it seemed like I was quite well-respected, and for a year after I left the team they continued to ask my manager to keep me sitting in the same office for occasional consulting. Why? Because I had written much of the code that got the project off the ground, I understood how everything fit together, and I was very willing to consider and advocate for ideas of how it could all be improved.

tensor 13y ago

Is it really PhD bigotry you are experiencing? Or general degree bigotry? I would guess the latter. You see the same complaints from people without CS/Eng degrees who none-the-less have the skills to do the job.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago
Wouldn't the distribution of PhDs-in-research-positions and BS/MS-in-research-positions be different depending on whether its the former or latter? I think so. I wonder how much, or even if, there is any data about that. Speaking from personal experience I'd largely agree with the parent's point. Also, speaking from my personal experience in academia, I'd suggest the field of academics, science or otherwise, is largely like any other industry: one's ability and intelligence can only carry one so far; who one knows typically has a far greater impact. This is especially true when applying to graduate school in the sciences. A person who is well-connected is far more likely to be picked up in a research program that is: a) of interest to him and b) well funded (as well as can be, in this area).
- tensor 13y ago
  Oh absolutely. I'm only suggesting that the problem isn't one unique to PhD degrees, but rather a more general problem with title and degrees. I think it's an important distinction if we want to understand or fix the problem. You are also correct that "connections" can count for a lot. Though pure degree discrimination is still very frequent.

vacri 13y ago

The whole point of a PhD is that it is a third-party-backed proof that you're capable of doing independent research on a novel topic. Compare: "I'm good at doing this, trust me", and "I'm good at doing this, so sayeth this big university". It's a form of vetting, and we're all familiar with people who say they have long experience in something and are good at selling you on that, yet they wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. Or lack the deep knowledge a PhD would require of the topic. Of course you can be awesome without a PhD (and far from all PhDs are awesome), but it's a credentialled form of vetting. A PhD also proves you can complete a multi-year project through the hard yards, and most of them run into plenty of difficulties.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago
A PhD proves one can convince a group of 5 (or so) people that one's efforts are worth signing off on so that the "Big University" will grant a certificate. In other words, it's the same "so sayeth this big university" process you disparage, but in a different sphere. It does not signal, to me, the ability to complete a multi-year project "through the hard yards," in and of itself. People who are extremely bright and capable researchers wash out of PhD programs all the time for a variety of reasons entirely unrelated to their abilities or desires, and people who would be lost without their committee chairperson guiding their research complete their PhDs all the time.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  As I understand the grandparent post, he's not disparaging "So sayeth this big university", he's disparaging "So sayeth myself." Basically, my interpretation was that he's saying that a Ph.D is imperfect as a credential, but it's far better than just "Trust me, I'm awesome". Which I think most people would agree with, right?
  - vacri 13y ago
    That is pretty much what I was getting at. I wasn't actually meaning to be disparaging at all, just waxing a little poetic, though I thought it was funny that I was being chided for being disparaging in a comment that was disparaging the exact same thing :)

mjn 13y ago

I agree there's a reasonable amount of that, but in technology research specifically, my impression has been that publications trump degrees. If two people without any recent impressive publications are being compared, then the person with a PhD gets to pull that card. But if you're looking at graphics researchers, say, if and how recently you've published at SIGGRAPH is often a bigger factor than what degrees you have, when it comes to whether other graphics researchers consider you a legit graphics researcher. Industry guy with a BSc who publishes there regularly is seen as more of a real graphics researcher than PhD-holder who used to work in the field but last published there in 1995 (unless what they published in 1995 was truly revolutionary, maybe).

nostrademons 13y ago
I've found that demonstrated competency & achievements count for more than both publications and degrees. When I was working on Google Authorship, I was the only one on the team without an advanced degree, and only two others lacked a Ph.D. I never once felt like I was looked down upon - actually, it seemed like I was quite well-respected, and for a year after I left the team they continued to ask my manager to keep me sitting in the same office for occasional consulting. Why? Because I had written much of the code that got the project off the ground, I understood how everything fit together, and I was very willing to consider and advocate for ideas of how it could all be improved.