7 ms·

> I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. Th

by shas3 13y ago

> I actively discourage people from doing a PhD. Academia is a horrible feudalistic system that doesn't pay well enough to keep the bright minds it attracts. There is no sense in being a post-doc for life. Much better to take that hedge fund job. Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research. You ignore that many people derive satisfaction from doing fundamental research that has the potential to be widely used across the research community (and possibly, for product development, e.g. industry labs, some government labs). It is simplistic to dismiss academia as a feudalistic system. There are merits, demerits, and other nuances. Also, there are, figuratively speaking, thousands of academic fields, each with its own system and culture. For example, academic jobs are plentiful for PhD graduates in these areas (in my experience): information technology/information systems (as opposed to computer science), management, accounting, finance, organizational behavior, etc. A summary dismissal of academia as 'feudal', especially when such an assessment underlies 'advice' is an unnecessary exaggeration.

jseliger 13y ago
One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research It's also a false allure: the problem is that fundamental research requires funding, and the OP is pointing out that he can't get it. He'll be in essence locked out of research and not make a lot of money at it. This is like saying, "One of the allures of acting is the prospect of being famous and sleeping with lots of fans." On the one hand it's true; on the other, it's very unlikely.
- shas3 13y ago
  The analogy does not make sense. I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. It wasn't a lucky break that helped them, but hard work and talent. The system is far from perfect, but it is not 'feudal', etc. as the parent comment claims. Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work. Also, your comment ignores the fact that OP is in just one nook of academia. Further, OP is one data point in that one nook of academia. That he is the top institutes doesn't 'weight' his opinion either way, in the grand scheme of things.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. Since the crisis struck in 2009 the quality of candidates that are being interviewed at my second-tier state school is just astounding. They are expected to bring funding in, or else they are out, but they will not manage, and considering the quality of graduate students there, they will not be able to be any productive. Academia is in a state of transition, and it seems that no one knows what the endgame will look like. University presidents throughout the country are betting on growth as the way out of the crisis, more students means more tuition, and more professors means more grants. It doesn't look sustainable, and personally I see no way forward. It seems wise to stay away.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work." Agree (in that what you are saying makes sense. I don't have unfortunately (or maybe I should say fortunately) have personal experience in those particular job markets.) In any case they appear to be pyramid type systems of success [1](and for that matter athletics are similar to this, right?) Things which many people strive for but few people actually achieve what they set out to achieve (throw startups into this mix as opposed to lifestyle type businesses). One thing that these pursuits have in common is that money really isn't the primarily motivator in that while becoming a rock star may give you money (or an athlete or a top academic) I always thought that it was more the sense of accomplishment and fame that was much more important. Joe Dimaggio made quite a bit of money in his day but nowhere near what athletes today make but yet many people wanted to play baseball back then. [1] Perhaps someone could point out the right phrase for this concept. I'm looking for the word that describes professions where people are generally driven to work hard believing they will be the ones that become famous or well known or "the best".
    - bradleyjg 13y ago
      It's called the tournament model. Big law firms are the classic example. A related theory is that technology and globalization has, and will, make more and more industries 'winner take all'.
- _delirium 13y ago
  > the problem is that fundamental research requires funding In biology, yeah, although I think what a lot of people here are doing is reading stories about high-capital-cost fields (experimental physics, biochem, etc.) and then applying it to their own field, which on HN is mostly computer science. CS research really does not require a lot of funding, outside of specific areas (mostly hardware and robotics stuff). Also, because of a robust industry hiring many people away, the supply/demand situation in CS academia is not as bad, and you can always join them and go to Google/Palantir/Microsoft/whatever if things don't work out. I don't bring in much in the way of grants and I get by just fine, because computers don't cost a lot in 2014, and I don't do the kind of research that requires armies of minions. If I need a 10-computer cluster to run something computationally intensive for a few days, cloud costs are so low nowadays that I can just pay for that out of pocket, never mind trying to figure out how to get it paid by a grant. Getting a decent job in CS academia where you have some time and freedom to actually pursue research is not at all like winning the lottery. Especially if your focus is not just the top 20 universities and being a famous MIT professor with a big lab. There are many, many places with small to medium-sized CS departments, which will pay you a modest salary and let you do whatever you want.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    The financial situation in CS is not at all typical of academia. I'm not sure what your point is. Surely you're not suggesting that all academics should become CS academics?
    - _delirium 13y ago
      I'm suggesting that if someone already is in computing, as most HN posters are, then the situation of biology academia isn't really relevant to your own industry vs. academia decision. If you're deciding between academia and a tech startup, you should probably look at conditions in CS academia as the relevant comparison. Now if you're a biologist, the conditions in biology academia are the relevant comparison. But my impression, based on looking at what YC companies are doing, is that most people deciding between YC and grad school are in either CS or business, not the natural sciences.
pseut 13y ago
>Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research. You ignore that many people derive satisfaction from doing fundamental research that has the potential to be widely used across the research community (and possibly, for product development, e.g. industry labs, some government labs). I assume that those people are unlikely to be discouraged, especially those that are stubborn and motivated enough to complete the degree. So I also actively discourage people from doing a PhD, even though I like my job.
tsotha 13y ago
>Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. That's not at all what he's saying. He's advising people to take the hedge fund job even though they want to work in academia.

by shas3 13y ago

jseliger 13y ago

One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research It's also a false allure: the problem is that fundamental research requires funding, and the OP is pointing out that he can't get it. He'll be in essence locked out of research and not make a lot of money at it. This is like saying, "One of the allures of acting is the prospect of being famous and sleeping with lots of fans." On the one hand it's true; on the other, it's very unlikely.

shas3 13y ago
The analogy does not make sense. I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. It wasn't a lucky break that helped them, but hard work and talent. The system is far from perfect, but it is not 'feudal', etc. as the parent comment claims. Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work. Also, your comment ignores the fact that OP is in just one nook of academia. Further, OP is one data point in that one nook of academia. That he is the top institutes doesn't 'weight' his opinion either way, in the grand scheme of things.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  I know many colleagues who got into academia and were able to find plenty of funding. Since the crisis struck in 2009 the quality of candidates that are being interviewed at my second-tier state school is just astounding. They are expected to bring funding in, or else they are out, but they will not manage, and considering the quality of graduate students there, they will not be able to be any productive. Academia is in a state of transition, and it seems that no one knows what the endgame will look like. University presidents throughout the country are betting on growth as the way out of the crisis, more students means more tuition, and more professors means more grants. It doesn't look sustainable, and personally I see no way forward. It seems wise to stay away.
- larrys 13y ago
  "Systematic hard work can get you results in academia. From what I understand about show-biz, it requires a lot more than just talent and hard work." Agree (in that what you are saying makes sense. I don't have unfortunately (or maybe I should say fortunately) have personal experience in those particular job markets.) In any case they appear to be pyramid type systems of success [1](and for that matter athletics are similar to this, right?) Things which many people strive for but few people actually achieve what they set out to achieve (throw startups into this mix as opposed to lifestyle type businesses). One thing that these pursuits have in common is that money really isn't the primarily motivator in that while becoming a rock star may give you money (or an athlete or a top academic) I always thought that it was more the sense of accomplishment and fame that was much more important. Joe Dimaggio made quite a bit of money in his day but nowhere near what athletes today make but yet many people wanted to play baseball back then. [1] Perhaps someone could point out the right phrase for this concept. I'm looking for the word that describes professions where people are generally driven to work hard believing they will be the ones that become famous or well known or "the best".
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    It's called the tournament model. Big law firms are the classic example. A related theory is that technology and globalization has, and will, make more and more industries 'winner take all'.
_delirium 13y ago
> the problem is that fundamental research requires funding In biology, yeah, although I think what a lot of people here are doing is reading stories about high-capital-cost fields (experimental physics, biochem, etc.) and then applying it to their own field, which on HN is mostly computer science. CS research really does not require a lot of funding, outside of specific areas (mostly hardware and robotics stuff). Also, because of a robust industry hiring many people away, the supply/demand situation in CS academia is not as bad, and you can always join them and go to Google/Palantir/Microsoft/whatever if things don't work out. I don't bring in much in the way of grants and I get by just fine, because computers don't cost a lot in 2014, and I don't do the kind of research that requires armies of minions. If I need a 10-computer cluster to run something computationally intensive for a few days, cloud costs are so low nowadays that I can just pay for that out of pocket, never mind trying to figure out how to get it paid by a grant. Getting a decent job in CS academia where you have some time and freedom to actually pursue research is not at all like winning the lottery. Especially if your focus is not just the top 20 universities and being a famous MIT professor with a big lab. There are many, many places with small to medium-sized CS departments, which will pay you a modest salary and let you do whatever you want.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  The financial situation in CS is not at all typical of academia. I'm not sure what your point is. Surely you're not suggesting that all academics should become CS academics?
  - _delirium 13y ago
    I'm suggesting that if someone already is in computing, as most HN posters are, then the situation of biology academia isn't really relevant to your own industry vs. academia decision. If you're deciding between academia and a tech startup, you should probably look at conditions in CS academia as the relevant comparison. Now if you're a biologist, the conditions in biology academia are the relevant comparison. But my impression, based on looking at what YC companies are doing, is that most people deciding between YC and grad school are in either CS or business, not the natural sciences.

pseut 13y ago

>Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. One of the allures of academia is the prospect of doing fundamental research. You ignore that many people derive satisfaction from doing fundamental research that has the potential to be widely used across the research community (and possibly, for product development, e.g. industry labs, some government labs). I assume that those people are unlikely to be discouraged, especially those that are stubborn and motivated enough to complete the degree. So I also actively discourage people from doing a PhD, even though I like my job.

tsotha 13y ago

>Underlying your comment is the assumption that every one wants the hedge fund (or other) job. That's not at all what he's saying. He's advising people to take the hedge fund job even though they want to work in academia.