5 ms·

Maybe it's just me, but I've never really thought getting a PhD had to do with money, but instead the result of either extreme curiosity or a very strong passio

Maybe it's just me, but I've never really thought getting a PhD had to do with money, but instead the result of either extreme curiosity or a very strong passion about a more granular complex topic. I never understood it to mean a path with a defined cost to equal a defined salary. This scientific equation of years of school to salary just feels foolish.

debacle 12y ago
Regardless of who you are, it's very likely that at some point in your life you'll want love, rest time, a family, financial security. Being a scientist offers nearly none of those things.
- avz 12y ago
  It's true that most people seek family and stability. However, there is more to human existence than that. There are people who lead very eccentric life styles that express passions for other pursuits. For some reason scientists do seem more prone to eccentricities than most. Examples abound in biographies of great scientists and engineers like Galois, Tesla, Whitehead, Heaviside, Erdős...
bduerst 12y ago
This is why working in a lab as an undergraduate is absolutely key, as it sets expectations. Through various internships and part time jobs, I worked both in industrial and academic labs as an undergrad, and while I enjoyed the work it helped me realize that it was more about dedication to the love of a subject than actually forging a balanced, lucrative career.
pm90 12y ago
I see where you're coming from, and yes, I do agree that having more education does not automatically qualify someone to a better salary or benefits, which seems to be the undercurrent in this article. However, its not about earning "lots" of money, but enough to at least sustain yourself and maybe a family. That is not possible if one has to be a postdoc for 6 years. The point is basically that the system is misleading bright young kids into thinking that they can have reasonable expectations of having a "regular" life when doing interesting work.
justnotsure 12y ago
agreed. But, if you are paid so low you can't afford to have a child -- that's too low. That's all.
nilkn 12y ago
You're completely right, but the main problem is that there's no longer any sort of guaranteed end-game for academics. A relatively low income really isn't that much of an issue if you're guaranteed that income for life and don't have to worry about finances and you're doing something you love. But today's young scientists and researchers aren't guaranteed anything -- they're lowly paid and most likely will not get any decent lifelong faculty position. And settling for being, say, an adjunct lecturer means you'll be paid less than a high school teacher in many cases (with no pension and very minimal benefits to boot).
scottious 12y ago
Part of it still feels exploitative to me. It vaguely reminds me of back in the early days of web sites where people thought they were doing a web developer a "favor" by letting them make their web site for them. "You can put your name on my site! What great press!" Oh yeah, sure, while I'm young and learning maybe it's okay but at some point you realize you're just being scammed out of money
sosuke 12y ago
I've now put science degrees in the same bucket as liberal arts. There is a crazy amount of knowledge available, but unless you're gifted or lucky it won't pay, and you do it because you love it.
DaveWalk 12y ago
I don't know about that; I think perhaps it is the opposite. Psychologically, at least: if you got another degree, shouldn't you be worth more than you were previously? Aren't two degrees better than one? (I know that sounds stupid, but these are thoughts that can flicker through one's mind.) An informal polling of the students in my PhD program showed a large fraction (~90%) that came directly out of undergrad. Without setting foot in the real world I believe one can see believe this distorted reality. And in the economic "long term" (salary per addition year of schooling) most PhDs are probably better off than their Bachelor's counterparts, but this belies the opportunity costs.

debacle 12y ago

Regardless of who you are, it's very likely that at some point in your life you'll want love, rest time, a family, financial security. Being a scientist offers nearly none of those things.

avz 12y ago
It's true that most people seek family and stability. However, there is more to human existence than that. There are people who lead very eccentric life styles that express passions for other pursuits. For some reason scientists do seem more prone to eccentricities than most. Examples abound in biographies of great scientists and engineers like Galois, Tesla, Whitehead, Heaviside, Erdős...

bduerst 12y ago

This is why working in a lab as an undergraduate is absolutely key, as it sets expectations. Through various internships and part time jobs, I worked both in industrial and academic labs as an undergrad, and while I enjoyed the work it helped me realize that it was more about dedication to the love of a subject than actually forging a balanced, lucrative career.

pm90 12y ago

I see where you're coming from, and yes, I do agree that having more education does not automatically qualify someone to a better salary or benefits, which seems to be the undercurrent in this article. However, its not about earning "lots" of money, but enough to at least sustain yourself and maybe a family. That is not possible if one has to be a postdoc for 6 years. The point is basically that the system is misleading bright young kids into thinking that they can have reasonable expectations of having a "regular" life when doing interesting work.

justnotsure 12y ago

agreed. But, if you are paid so low you can't afford to have a child -- that's too low. That's all.

nilkn 12y ago

You're completely right, but the main problem is that there's no longer any sort of guaranteed end-game for academics. A relatively low income really isn't that much of an issue if you're guaranteed that income for life and don't have to worry about finances and you're doing something you love. But today's young scientists and researchers aren't guaranteed anything -- they're lowly paid and most likely will not get any decent lifelong faculty position. And settling for being, say, an adjunct lecturer means you'll be paid less than a high school teacher in many cases (with no pension and very minimal benefits to boot).

scottious 12y ago

Part of it still feels exploitative to me. It vaguely reminds me of back in the early days of web sites where people thought they were doing a web developer a "favor" by letting them make their web site for them. "You can put your name on my site! What great press!" Oh yeah, sure, while I'm young and learning maybe it's okay but at some point you realize you're just being scammed out of money

sosuke 12y ago

I've now put science degrees in the same bucket as liberal arts. There is a crazy amount of knowledge available, but unless you're gifted or lucky it won't pay, and you do it because you love it.

DaveWalk 12y ago

I don't know about that; I think perhaps it is the opposite. Psychologically, at least: if you got another degree, shouldn't you be worth more than you were previously? Aren't two degrees better than one? (I know that sounds stupid, but these are thoughts that can flicker through one's mind.) An informal polling of the students in my PhD program showed a large fraction (~90%) that came directly out of undergrad. Without setting foot in the real world I believe one can see believe this distorted reality. And in the economic "long term" (salary per addition year of schooling) most PhDs are probably better off than their Bachelor's counterparts, but this belies the opportunity costs.