3 ms·

You have it backwards. With regards to the US at least, in research, whether it's big company IR&D, government contracts, university or government labs, a Ph.D

by cplease 12y ago

You have it backwards. With regards to the US at least, in research, whether it's big company IR&D, government contracts, university or government labs, a Ph.D. opens the door to being hired directly as senior scientist and advancement to PI. Lack of a Ph.D. closes a lot of doors to advancement in research. It's harder to apply for research funding if the principals don't have Dr. before their name, and that's a fact. Granted, this is only a slice of industry, and not always the best paying slice, but within it, a Ph.D. from a good institution is an extremely bankable asset. A masters, on the other hand, is foolish unless you need it either for immigration purposes to get your foot in the U.S. or if you don't have a relevant undergraduate qualification; in either case, it's for catch-up purposes when you are behind to start. Plus, a good master's degree is generally very expensive, whereas you are getting paid a stipend in a good Ph.D. program.

chrisbennet 12y ago
The articles basis of "useless" was how well/poorly a graduate position paid relative to an undergraduate position. Doesn't research pay fairly poorly on average? How much longer does it take to get a PhD? How much much more money does a PhD position need to pay than a graduate (or even undergraduate) position before it makes up for the years of lost wages?
- cplease 12y ago
  > Doesn't research pay fairly poorly on average? No.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  I did a little digging on Glass door and found average salaries at Microsoft: Researcher Phd (6 samples): Avg $123,922 (the highest researcher phd salary on GlassDoor) Software Engineer I (5100 samples): Avg $104,547 Software Engineer II (1812 samples): Avg $144,443 Unless you write off the opportunity cost while getting a Phd, I'm not seeing the financial advantages of getting one. I don't know what the starting salary is for someone at Microsoft but to make the #'s easy, say it averages out to $100K over 5 years. That's $(1/2 million - grad student stipend) in lost wages.
  - cplease 12y ago
    Glassdoor isn't a great microscope. Do you notice "6 samples" for "Researcher Phd"? And how many of them are doing research relevant to the software industry? Also, the "Software Engineer I" is not reflective of average entry-level salary, it's reflective of everyone reporting with that title, many of whom have worked for many years as developers. And a Ph.D. is not just a vanilla qualification to the extent that an undergraduate degree is. There are plenty of worthless and failed Ph.D's out there. Institutional affiliation and prestige and network of the PI matters even more. It's not a golden ticket, and most people can't simply succeed in a Ph.D. program and make it pay off, but there are plenty of folks with extremely lucrative research careers, which they simply could not have achieved without the credential and connections they got from their Ph.D. program. Could they have succeeded in something else? Maybe, maybe not, but you could say that about any career choice. Computer science Ph.D's can also often negotiate substantial consulting income on the side in addition to their stipends or fellowships. Another bonus about research is that the really good jobs are not chained to the Bay area. Government contract money is diligently spread across all 50 states. So you can start with that six figure salary somewhere outside SF/NYC/Redmond where it goes a hell of a lot further.

by cplease 12y ago

chrisbennet 12y ago

The articles basis of "useless" was how well/poorly a graduate position paid relative to an undergraduate position. Doesn't research pay fairly poorly on average? How much longer does it take to get a PhD? How much much more money does a PhD position need to pay than a graduate (or even undergraduate) position before it makes up for the years of lost wages?

cplease 12y ago
> Doesn't research pay fairly poorly on average? No.
chrisbennet 12y ago
I did a little digging on Glass door and found average salaries at Microsoft: Researcher Phd (6 samples): Avg $123,922 (the highest researcher phd salary on GlassDoor) Software Engineer I (5100 samples): Avg $104,547 Software Engineer II (1812 samples): Avg $144,443 Unless you write off the opportunity cost while getting a Phd, I'm not seeing the financial advantages of getting one. I don't know what the starting salary is for someone at Microsoft but to make the #'s easy, say it averages out to $100K over 5 years. That's $(1/2 million - grad student stipend) in lost wages.
- cplease 12y ago
  Glassdoor isn't a great microscope. Do you notice "6 samples" for "Researcher Phd"? And how many of them are doing research relevant to the software industry? Also, the "Software Engineer I" is not reflective of average entry-level salary, it's reflective of everyone reporting with that title, many of whom have worked for many years as developers. And a Ph.D. is not just a vanilla qualification to the extent that an undergraduate degree is. There are plenty of worthless and failed Ph.D's out there. Institutional affiliation and prestige and network of the PI matters even more. It's not a golden ticket, and most people can't simply succeed in a Ph.D. program and make it pay off, but there are plenty of folks with extremely lucrative research careers, which they simply could not have achieved without the credential and connections they got from their Ph.D. program. Could they have succeeded in something else? Maybe, maybe not, but you could say that about any career choice. Computer science Ph.D's can also often negotiate substantial consulting income on the side in addition to their stipends or fellowships. Another bonus about research is that the really good jobs are not chained to the Bay area. Government contract money is diligently spread across all 50 states. So you can start with that six figure salary somewhere outside SF/NYC/Redmond where it goes a hell of a lot further.