8 ms·

More than 80% of the data scientists I've worked with who were born before 1978 have physics phds and went through that trajectory. Data scientists younger than

by rm999 12y ago

More than 80% of the data scientists I've worked with who were born before 1978 have physics phds and went through that trajectory. Data scientists younger than that have a wider variety of degrees, often computer science and/or applied math. But I don't know if most people count data science as a real scientific field. I have friends in the bio/medical side (phds, not MDs) who are following that trajectory too.

learc83 12y ago
>But I don't know if most people count data science as a real scientific field. If you're using it in the big data, industry buzzword sense, then I doubt the OP would consider it "hard science research."
- timr 12y ago
  Those salary numbers are also arguably bubbly..."data science" is so new and hype-driven that we might be looking back in a few years at the ridiculous salad days where someone who knew a bit of statistics and a bit of programming could pull down $100k a year. It's starting to read like "webmaster" salaries in the late 90s...
  - shanusmagnus 12y ago
    I think that is a perfect analogy. Anyone with marginal skills who wants to get a job as a 'data scientist' would be well-advised to do so before the music stops.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Don't think that "data science" is a solid career trajectory for the next 20-40 years. It's a fad, driven by "big data" and the presumption that a vast an invasive dossier on individuals translates to value through marketing. The (sorry) data on that is thin. And it would hardly be the first time that a hugely promising career field has gone bust. Over my lifetime, I've seen the technical "hot jobs" go from: ⚫ Highway and civil engineering (1960s - early 1970s) ⚫ Nuclear engineering (1970s to March 28, 1979). ⚫ Defense and aerospace engineering (1980s through 1992). ⚫ Doctor / medicine (through the mid 1980s and the rise of HMOs / "managed healthcare") ⚫ Petroleum engineering (1960s - 1980, 1999 - present, big empty hole 1980 - 1999) ⚫ Genetic engineering (mostly false starts: late 1970s / early 1980s, again early 1990s, again post dot-com bust -- but it's never really launched) ⚫ "Data Scientist" (2009 - present) ⚫ "Webmaster" (1997 - 2001) ⚫ "Mobile Apps Developer" (2007 - ~ nowish, starting to fade) Just because you're getting your time in the sun now doesn't mean the glow won't fade.
- dekhn 12y ago
  And throughout that time actuaries (the original data scientists) have had one of the best-paying and highest job satisfaction levels. Statisticians and data analysts have been in demand for a long time and likely will continue to be.
  - eru 12y ago
    Yes. Though keep in mind that actuaries are protected by big regulatory moats. An actuary is not someone who practices actuarial science, but someone who has a piece of paper saying that he can.
    - aswanson 12y ago
      It really is hilarious that you actually have to have a certification to practice statistics. Think about how absurd that is. People write code that controls airplanes, medical devices, emi emissions...which are of course certified/regulated on a product basis. But to just apply stats...you need a certification. Something is wrong here.
      - dekhn 12y ago
        I practice statistics all the time without a certificate. What are you talking about?
        aswanson 12y ago
        http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/ http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/
        dekhn 12y ago
        OK, so you just worded what you said above poorly. You implied that any practice of stats required certification. My comment covered both statisticians, and actuaries, but just used actuaries as an example. Why does it matter that actuaries are certified? It's a professional role which requires dealing with some pretty heavy concepts. Employers presumably want to be sure that candidates meet some level of capabilities.

by rm999 12y ago

learc83 12y ago

>But I don't know if most people count data science as a real scientific field. If you're using it in the big data, industry buzzword sense, then I doubt the OP would consider it "hard science research."

timr 12y ago
Those salary numbers are also arguably bubbly..."data science" is so new and hype-driven that we might be looking back in a few years at the ridiculous salad days where someone who knew a bit of statistics and a bit of programming could pull down $100k a year. It's starting to read like "webmaster" salaries in the late 90s...
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  I think that is a perfect analogy. Anyone with marginal skills who wants to get a job as a 'data scientist' would be well-advised to do so before the music stops.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Don't think that "data science" is a solid career trajectory for the next 20-40 years. It's a fad, driven by "big data" and the presumption that a vast an invasive dossier on individuals translates to value through marketing. The (sorry) data on that is thin. And it would hardly be the first time that a hugely promising career field has gone bust. Over my lifetime, I've seen the technical "hot jobs" go from: ⚫ Highway and civil engineering (1960s - early 1970s) ⚫ Nuclear engineering (1970s to March 28, 1979). ⚫ Defense and aerospace engineering (1980s through 1992). ⚫ Doctor / medicine (through the mid 1980s and the rise of HMOs / "managed healthcare") ⚫ Petroleum engineering (1960s - 1980, 1999 - present, big empty hole 1980 - 1999) ⚫ Genetic engineering (mostly false starts: late 1970s / early 1980s, again early 1990s, again post dot-com bust -- but it's never really launched) ⚫ "Data Scientist" (2009 - present) ⚫ "Webmaster" (1997 - 2001) ⚫ "Mobile Apps Developer" (2007 - ~ nowish, starting to fade) Just because you're getting your time in the sun now doesn't mean the glow won't fade.

dekhn 12y ago
And throughout that time actuaries (the original data scientists) have had one of the best-paying and highest job satisfaction levels. Statisticians and data analysts have been in demand for a long time and likely will continue to be.
- eru 12y ago
  Yes. Though keep in mind that actuaries are protected by big regulatory moats. An actuary is not someone who practices actuarial science, but someone who has a piece of paper saying that he can.
  - aswanson 12y ago
    It really is hilarious that you actually have to have a certification to practice statistics. Think about how absurd that is. People write code that controls airplanes, medical devices, emi emissions...which are of course certified/regulated on a product basis. But to just apply stats...you need a certification. Something is wrong here.
    - dekhn 12y ago
      I practice statistics all the time without a certificate. What are you talking about?
      - aswanson 12y ago
        http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/ http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/
        dekhn 12y ago
        OK, so you just worded what you said above poorly. You implied that any practice of stats required certification. My comment covered both statisticians, and actuaries, but just used actuaries as an example. Why does it matter that actuaries are certified? It's a professional role which requires dealing with some pretty heavy concepts. Employers presumably want to be sure that candidates meet some level of capabilities.