TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Dear brilliant students: Please consider not doing a PhD.

224 pointsby Cassover 12 years ago

43 comments

cschmidtover 12 years ago
Boy, all the articles about Ph.D.'s on HN are so negative. I had a great time getting mine. I got a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon. I guess it must depend a lot on the subject you're studying. We mostly did classes for the first two years. We got an adviser in the second year, and gradually ramped up the research. I finished in 4 years and 3 months. Pretty much everyone in the program would finish in 4-4.5 years. Everyone worked very closely with their adviser, and didn't have the "drift" I read about a lot, where students seem to feel alone. It was do 3 papers, write your thesis, and get out. I really enjoyed the chance to do research, and do a really deep dive on a subject. They funded everyone, enough to live to a "grad student" standard. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
评论 #5099891 未加载
评论 #5099885 未加载
评论 #5100016 未加载
评论 #5099738 未加载
评论 #5099695 未加载
jpallenover 12 years ago
As others are saying in this thread, I find myself disagreeing with almost every point the author makes about doing a PhD. I'm just about to hand in my thesis after 3 and half years of doing a PhD in theoretical physics in the UK. I've published 2 papers and have a third in preparation so I feel like my PhD has been 'good'. In contrast to the author, I've worked on my PhD no more than 40 hours a week, often less since I've also spent a lot of time building up a website and a business that I hope to pursue full-time afterwards. I also haven't been 'broken' in anyway - sure it was tough at times, but I'm leaving my PhD feeling more intelligent and more energised that I ever did. The experience of pushing myself into the unknown and having to learn a lot in a short time has been very beneficial, and I now feel like there is little knowledge that I couldn't master given the time. So all in all, a very positive experience. Sure my research isn't particularly groundbreaking, but the personal development that has come with my PhD has been huge.
评论 #5100422 未加载
snowwrestlerover 12 years ago
I've had several friends get Ph.D.s, and here's what I see: it takes very strong, maybe borderline obsessive self-motivation, to feel ok throughout the process and to succeed. In that respect it is probably like doing a high-stakes startup. It's not for everyone.<p>But I think a lot of this post is about the pain of transition for brilliant students. They go from a position of constant praise and success, to a position of being constantly frustrated and subject to the whims of more powerful people.<p>In my experience this transition happens to ALL brilliant students. It is structural, in that up to the completion of a bachelor's degree, the vast majority of the typical academic experience consists of professors creating structured, completable assignments, and the student completing them and being graded. In short, exercises.<p>But once you leave undergrad, that structure disappears pretty quickly. Whether it's your boss, your investors, or your advisor, the "adults" above you aren't just guiding you to pre-determined success points. They're just other people with their own goals and agendas. And the problems you're tackling with them are not necessarily structured, easy, or even achievable.
listsover 12 years ago
I'd like to read some warnings and recommendations targeted at an older, more mature individual who's continued researching her interest after undergraduate but has yet to begin, though plans on, applying for a doctorate.<p>I remember dating one and meeting many young graduate students in humanities who when asked "What are you working on?" didn't have anything terribly specific in mind. I'd made the decision not to apply after undergraduate because I specifically didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to work on (disclosure: I'm in <i>philosophy</i>!). Now, a few years later, my independent research has come to grips with a real subject and problem and feel much more confident about applying, but now I'm told that I shouldn't disclose how decided I am in the work that I want to do, that I should present my intentions as a little ambiguous and up in the air still. Huh!?
评论 #5099456 未加载
评论 #5099777 未加载
ChuckMcMover 12 years ago
One of the interesting thing I find about PhDs (as in people who have one) is that a non-trivial number of them seem to equate not having a PhD with not being able to get one. I've always wondered if that was a cognitive dissonance issue (unable to relate to having a capability and not using it) or a self evaluation issue (unable to accept that having a PhD doesn't increase the specialness of your snowflake status). Generally only a problem when it got in the way of productive discussions.<p>I realize this is true for any class of certificate, whether it be a College Degree or a Certified Microsoft Programmer but my experience is that its a bigger issue with PhDs.<p>I would agree that passing on getting a PhD can be argued to be a good investment in your time (unless you really really want to teach). But if you are passionate about a subject enough to pursue it through the PhD level then by all means go for it.
评论 #5102109 未加载
Xcelerateover 12 years ago
What did she do her PhD in? Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing it in her article/rant.<p>I'm on the second semester of getting a PhD in chemical engineering and so far I love it. My undergraduate school was much more of a time-sink (then again, it was rated one of the least happy schools in the US). Right now, I can do my research anywhere and anytime I feel like it. I get to use the world's best equipment at the best national labs and I get to guide the direction of my projects with the help of my advisor -- who is also amazing by the way.<p>So maybe that's kind of a humble-brag, but it should be. The author shared her n=1 miserable experience and I'm sharing my n=1 great experience so perhaps you should learn about getting a PhD yourself and decide if that's what you want to do instead of listening to people moan about what martyrs grad students are.
评论 #5099919 未加载
评论 #5099722 未加载
评论 #5099893 未加载
cottonseedover 12 years ago
The author makes some good points, but what they don't realize is:<p>For an intellectually and professionally ambitious person, the the options carry many of the same challenges, although the details might vary.<p>I'm in a PhD program right now, but I did startups in my 20s. I worked crazy hours. I broke myself physically and mentally. Many relationships got destroyed along the way. The money was bad (ramen) and uncertain -- when do you give up when the salary stops but the idea still seems good? The ideas were ambitious and open-ended. The goals were vague. We made mistakes, wasted weeks and months, pivoted, failed. We were doing research.<p>The PhD has had its challenges (learning the literature has been hard for me), but when I started research I thought, "Oh, right, I recognize this. This I know how to do." The PhD isn't the problem.<p>What's the alternative?
评论 #5104050 未加载
basseqover 12 years ago
As the husband of a PhD (in the U.S.), I agree with many of the OP's points. It was an arduous process with little in the way of internal controls or milestones and subject to the whims of her adviser. I was struck at how academia lacks the people and project management concepts that I've taken for granted; it really is a fiefdom ("deeply dysfunctional training system").<p>She made the choice to move into industry and not academia a year before graduation (because the concept of a post-doc, nontenured professorship, and continued toiling at below-market rates [and other reasons] was... unappetizing), and at that point was sort of sidelined.<p>She made it out in 4.5 years, where many of her peers are still in the program. Which brings me to my main point of contention with the article: "it's because you're brilliant that you're contemplating doing a PhD in the first place". Not all PhDs are brilliant any more so than every brilliant person considers doing one. As the OP points out, the key to PhD success is self-motivation and a dedication to the field ("appetite for pain") rather than any particular cognitive blessing.<p>As in all things, whether it's a PhD or the decision to go work in finance (for a great salary but no personal life for several years) or doing a start-up, you need to weigh your personal goals and limitations with the expectations of your environment.
rdfiover 12 years ago
While doing a PhD:<p>1. You are very dependent on your supervisor. Not in terms of doing your work, but in terms that s/he can make it impossible for you to get your degree<p>-This opens the door for abuse. If your supervisor asks you do to something, even if unrelated to your phd subject, you'll probably do it. If you supervisor is a decent person this won't happen, however if you decide to do a phd you will be in a position where this can happen.<p>2. It's a huge vague task and even if you are extremely successful you will have publications about it with many citations. You'll get some pats on the back, and that's it. There's no real reward. The only reward is relief when you finish.<p>3. If an academic career is your goal, you have to be aware that it is not very rewarding financially.<p>4. Apart from the personal skills that you will most definitely acquire (being able to learn more quickly and in-depth any new subject), the actual knowledge that you acquire from doing a PhD will probably not be useful outside the inevitably narrow subject your phd targets. And unless that subject has demand in the industry, you will only be able to use it in academia.<p>5. Writing scientific papers is not fun, the review process is not fun. I don't think I've met anyone that gets genuinely excited when they have to review or write a paper.<p>I could go on, but let me tell you about the positives. If you can publish, you can travel to conferences, get to know new places and meet interesting people. And that's about it.<p>My personal opinion now (after leaving academics) is that if you really like a subject you should pursue it on your own. The effort that you have to put in a PhD is so big that if you used it for something else, you will probably end up with something that you are really proud of. I say this because when you do research, at least in my personal opinion, you don't always feel you are doing it for yourself, you are doing it because you have to publish, because that's the nature of the game in academics, you have to publish. And, again, writing and reviewing papers is not fun.<p>Anyway, a couple of years ago there was an article in the economist named the "The disposable academic" that neatly describes how the system is broken: <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17723223" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/node/17723223</a>
geophileover 12 years ago
My experience was quite different from that of OP, and I suspect most people who walk that path. I'm 56 in a few days, and got my PhD in computer science in 1983. I was lucky enough to go to a high school that had a real computer, a PDP-8M, and I was hooked five minutes after I sat down at the DecWriter.<p>At college, I was theoretically pre-med. A month into my freshman year (1974), I went to a party at the house of a revered EE professor, who happened to be a friend of the family. I was talking with someone, another professor, about my interest in computers, and he told me in no uncertain terms that there was no future in that. I was crushed. I was seriously bummed out for weeks. But it was what I loved to do, so I kept doing it, taking whatever courses were available, and hacking on my own projects.<p>I cleverly sabotaged all my medical school interviews. My interviewers were able to detect my lack of interest in medicine and my great enthusiasm about computers, and wisely rejected me.<p>I graduated, and wanting to do nothing but play with computers, I got a job in NYC, writing software, and because that wasn't enough, I also went to grad school at night. I decided to do a PhD because that seemed like the best way to keep playing with computers. My thought process was really that shallow. I wasn't thinking about industry vs. academe, future earning potential, or any other practical matters. I saw that I wouldn't finish my PhD while working, so I decided to do grad school full time.<p>I was lucky enough to choose McGill for grad school, after leaving New York. I sort of just fell into it, because I had gone there undergrad, I liked it, and my girlfriend was going there for medical school. I was lucky in the sense that it was perfectly suited to my personality. It wasn't a funding powerhouse, but between teaching and research funds, a student could support himself easily. My PhD adviser was a wonderful man, low-key, with some fun things he was investigating, but he wasn't building an empire, built on the backs of enslaved grad students. We were just looking at interesting problems together.<p>I graduated, and taught at UMass/Amherst for two years. And then it hit me. What a grad student was supposed to do, and what a faculty member was supposed to do. A faculty member starts building his empire, with insane focus on getting tenure. He or she gets tenure and builds a bigger empire, and spends an inordinate amount of time chasing funding. Grad students do the fun work, working very hard, for a very long time. I had no idea how to play this game, and no interest.<p>I left, and a few years later found myself at my first startup. It was similar to UMass. Instead of professors, there are entrepreneurs, insanely focused, and whose main job it is to get money to fund the work. Instead of grad students are the early employees, who make the vision real. I was much happier as an early employee, being a low-key introvert, who loves technical problems more than business problems. My PhD caused some large degree of distrust -- if I have that background, I'm obviously interested in writing academic papers more than writing software. But I still loved playing with computers, and startups are a great place to do that. I wrote a lot of software.<p>Epilogue: At my current startup, a number of our customers have a problem that happened to be exactly in the area of my PhD research. I spent a very enjoyable few weeks implementing my PhD thesis for these customers. 30 years later, my PhD ideas finally shipped.<p>tl;dr: I did a PhD to keep doing what I was drawn to. My career has been incredibly rewarding, and even charmed, and it is so atypical (I think) that I can't advise anyone to pursue a PhD based on my experience.
评论 #5100994 未加载
评论 #5099914 未加载
评论 #5099937 未加载
评论 #5103100 未加载
评论 #5100857 未加载
hcaylessover 12 years ago
A Ph.D. is not something to be entered into lightly (and many do). I don't regret doing mine at all, but you shouldn't do it with the expectation that you'll get a professorship at the end, and for God's sake, don't go into debt to get one. Only do it if you want to spend a few years researching a subject in depth. And realize that there's a big, big world outside the walls of Academe :-).
10dpdover 12 years ago
Note that there is a huge difference between the UK PhD and the US PhD process. In the UK you are left to your own devices for 3 years, and only find out if the external examiner even approves of your research questions in the one and only final verbal exam. It is up to you alone to ensure the research is valid and makes a contribution. US PhD candidates have a lot more guidance and handholding that includes 4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination.
wyinnover 12 years ago
If you are going to do a PhD you should have a research project decided on before you start and you should have your own funding from a grant that you wrote yourself. If you are not ready to write a successful grant application you should take some time to read and talk with people in your prospective field, while having some other job.
staredover 12 years ago
To start with, I recommend text: The Ph.D. Grind, A Ph.D. Student Memoir <a href="http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir.htm" rel="nofollow">http://pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir.htm</a>. The good thing about it is that it contains rather report, than merely a conclusion. Plus, it is written in a neutral way, leaving judgement to the reader. When it comes to anecdotical evidence (both the linked article + most of stories in this thread are one data point) also <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.phdcomics.com/</a> (in short, equating PhD with stress, procrastination and frustration) is popular for a reason.<p>Among my friends, ones doing their PhD are lot more depressive than programers.<p>The "funny" thing is that (according to my observation) burnout and crisis hits the most the most creative and ambitious ones (and often - talented). If one starts with a world changer approach but then discovers that "you are free as long as it contains keywords from the grant + will result in a popular publication on a fashionable topic" is devastating. My friends who had approach "OK, I don't have ambition to do anything beyond what my advisor says" do much better, at least - psychologically.<p>One thing is that "the world is changed" - and no longer academia is the place for the smartest and the most creative. There are other possibilities. And I wish I had known that before.<p>Caveat: I'm in the middle of my PhD. Then going to data science or software engineering, after finishing PhD... or instead of it.
pnathanover 12 years ago
I just finished up a Master's in Computer Science. It took 5 years; my initial advisor died and I had to find another one to step in. I went deep into debt (no funding) and finally switched over to a part-time study while I worked full time. Unfortunately, it was just that point when the real research was ramping up. I remember nights where I would be falling asleep as I crammed my code in to see it work. Then more nights as I wrote and wrote and wrote. Generally my entire work took place after 5pm and continued until sometime after 10 or 11. I spent hours reading papers in my field.<p><i>It was wonderful</i>.<p>I am not saying that I loved staying up late; I am not sure that I did great in my day job. The experience of learning and studying for the sake of the learning was one of the most fulfilling in my <i>entire academic career</i>.<p>Now, I want a PhD. Because I know of no other way forward to where I am tasked with advancing our field, publishing the result, and building a <i>paying</i> career on that. I want to take the knowledge of a field into the next place. From what I can tell, generally you have to be "someone special" to do serious (by which I mean paid) research without a PhD, particularly publishable research (by which I mean serious work advancing the field), and I'm not particularly special; just tenacious. I'm pretty sure I'm stupid enough to launch onto the 4-7 year journey to get the drek piled higher and deeper. Maybe I'm not smart enough to get in. That's OK. I'll still take my best shot, and if I fail, so be it. I won't live with the regret of not having tried.<p>I think there's something amazing about the idea of creating an original work, and then telling everyone who cares (a very small audience) about it. Part of my task will be to open up the details of what I did and <i>tell</i> people about it; to publish this and move the world forward in knowledge, by a <i>very small amount</i>. There is so much terrible crap involved in the academic world, but it pales in comparison to industry. Some of the commentators lament being broken and bitter due to the everlasting stress without any control over their circumstance. I see this every day in industry. I might be naive, but I don't think it can be worse in the PhD. My MS was pretty much lousy, but it was better than seeing people get inculcated into industry and grow bitter and tired.<p>I want a PhD.
评论 #5100113 未加载
评论 #5100037 未加载
tryggvibover 12 years ago
What a refreshing article when I'm about to defend my PhD this Friday :)<p>My experience of the PhD was that it didn't break me but I come out of my studies having completely lost all respect for academia.<p>I finished my dissertation in about two and a half years (the main contribution and content of it) and then I waited for about three years to be able to defend it. No matter how often I pressed things and asked whether something was missing or lacking nothing happened (I actually blame my advisor). It wasn't until after I talked to the department head and said that I would not university registration fees (we have to pay them every year) unless something happened. Some other professor was put in charge and that made my advisor angry and everything got delayed again and now I'm finally finishing.<p>What bothers me is that I'm defending based on knowledge I had three years ago and I'm not allowed to add to it since that's not a part of my dissertation (and I've been really afraid of some other individual having published similar or same finding in those three years - I haven't really been following all research since I lost all interest in academia).<p>&#60;/rant&#62; :)
评论 #5100504 未加载
评论 #5100821 未加载
tehwalrusover 12 years ago
If you go into a PhD <i>not</i> wanting to investigate a really specialist area for 3-4 years and then write 100,000 words about it that only 3 other people will ever read, you've not understood the exercise.<p>Concentration and motivation come and go, but if you're curious enough about the universe then investigating one tiny facet of it in minute detail will always be something you come back to, especially if you'll get the credit for "solving" it (even if only within a tiny crowd).<p>Plus, realising how little you've achieved (but how much you've learned) as you enter your 3rd year is a real kicker.<p>Sincerely, a PhD student 1 month into my 3rd year.<p>Footnote: I'm at Imperial College London, which has a kick-ass transferable skills programme which included (for me) a 4-day residential team skills training course, a "Mini-MBA" (5 lectures, 2 seminars), competency analysis, leadership training, MBTI self-analysis, and a couple of other courses I've forgotten about. You had to attend like 4 credits' worth in the first year, but the rest of that stuff I chose to learn. It was <i>all awesome</i>.
geebeeover 12 years ago
The most telling thing about PhD programs is the attrition rate compared to elite professional programs. Attrition reates "for academic reasons" appear to be under 2% in elite JD and MD programs.<p><a href="https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf</a><p>The spread for law schools is much higher than for med schools, but for elite schools, it is also exceptionally low, well under 2%.<p><a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/law-school-ra-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/law-school-r...</a><p>(note - just realized these are only 1L attrition rates. It isn't going to change much here).<p>Ph.D programs, even at elite schools and in science or engineering, are by comparison a horror show of failure and attrition.<p>It looks like completion rates for engineering - best of the bunch, are around 65%. For mathematics and physical sciences, it's about 55%.<p>www.phdcompletion.org/resources/CGSNSF2008_Sowell.pdf<p>I know this is a trick, dividing by such a low number, but I suspect that the PhD completion rate for the 3rd rated Engineering school (Berkeley) compared to the 3rd ranked law schools (Columbia) is about .3/.003. About 100 times higher. This is silly, because the attrition rate at Yale is zero, which means it's actually impossible to compute how much higher the top rated Engineering (MIT) PhD programs's attrition rate actually is. Or, as we said in grade school but not grad school, "infinity higher".<p>There are a couple reasons for this. Speaking as a PhD dropout myself, half of a PhD in engineering isn't as much of a loss as half of med school. I don't need the PhD to be licensed, so nobody's going to put me in jail for writing code. Completing 2 years of med school and dropping out is far worse than Mastering out of engineering. I just got to earning more quickly. At the same time, I think that many elite schools are able to suppress their true attrition rates by counting MS students as having achieved their degree goal (in short, I suspect the true attrition rate is higher than the already grim numbers).<p>But our wise elders in government (almost always lawyers) who wring their hands about the shortage of US students in PhD programs never seem to ask... why is Berkeley's Engineering PhD attrition rate 100 times higher than an elite law school. Are the magna cum laude applied math majors with 800/800 on the GRE and specialized subject tests just dumber than lawyers?<p>In reality, Americans have pretty much given up on PhDs in engineering and science. Sadly, this is rational for people who have the choice to go into the professions. However, if you'd like to come to the US, and you're looking for a way to sidestep our byzantine immigration system, a grad degree in a STEM field from a good US based university can be a wise move, especially since the professional schools are far less likely to admit large numbers of international students.
armyover 12 years ago
The article is a pretty good account of the reasons why talented and capable people drop out of Ph.D. programs (often for the best), but the reality is that your mileage may vary - a lot depends on the fit between student and advisor and department. It's definitely a major test of your time management and self-motivation skills.<p>The battle to find a topic and convince people that your topic is relevant is painful: contrary to popular belief, working in academia is in its own way far more competitive than in the private sector: you're constantly evaluated and critiqued.
therobot24over 12 years ago
in my 3rd year as a PhD and couldn't have made a better decision - during my last 2 years in undergrad i interned for an organization and even worked for them after graduating for a year before transitioning to the PhD. Oddly i felt the opposite affect - when working full time i was drained every day, weekends were the only refresh, while on the PhD i work more (in terms of hours), but feel more refreshed as i build my own schedule and get to focus more on what i'm interested in as opposed to balancing paperwork, meetings, and politics.
Al-Khwarizmiover 12 years ago
Wow, the pessimism.<p>I did my PhD and now have a tenure-track position. I can relate to all the obstacles described in the post (except for discrimination - at least in my country, if you want to find racist/sexist/homophobic employers, you'd better go to the private sector, not academia). And it's good for people considering a PhD to know that it's not a bed of roses. It does require working long hours for little or no pay, with unclear goals and little feedback. It is a lonely pursuit, requiring you to make an effort to keep your social life.<p>But what about the thrill of discovering new things? Of treading new territory that no one has seen before? What about the moment where, after thinking about a problem for hours or days or weeks, the pieces click together and you say "I got it"? What about the pride of getting accepted at a top-tier international conference/journal (depends on your field) and getting feedback directly from the most prestigious researchers in your field? What about the satisfaction of seeing your papers cited by other people that are using your research and finding it helpful? What about the pleasure of going to bed every night knowing that you are working to further human knowledge, rather than to further the profit of some corporation that often may do more harm than good?<p>For me, those rewards of working in research are much more important than the disadvantages pointed out in the post. Sorry if this sounds a bit condescending, but I suspect that the author of the post just didn't have enough vocation for research, or she wouldn't have such a negative opinion.
jbogganover 12 years ago
This is a good warning, especially to bright pupils coming straight out of undergraduate programs who are continuing upon the academic trajectory because "it is what smart kids do". I know I was definitely in that boat once upon a time, and it was rough sailing.<p>The problem in a lot of programs is that the outcome is so radically different for nearly identical students, owing entirely to what advisor they end up with. Often the most prestigious advisor is not the most nurturing or even competent, and many successful PhD candidates look upon their flagging comrades as somehow weak or defective for not replicating their own success in superficially similar but immensely challenging situations across the hall.<p>I think that if I had done better research before entering a PhD program I wouldn't have chosen one where 2 out of 3 students do not get their doctorates after 10 years. There is a huge societal cost to not simply wasting the youth of &#62;50% of your brightest and most motivated students, but crushing their spirits to the point that they not only fail to contribute but may also become a burden on others. I've seen it too many times, and I don't really advise people to undertake PhD studies unless they are older, accomplished in some way, and absolutely need the doctorate to advance in their field.
arbugeover 12 years ago
The reality is that alot of doing a PhD comes down to the choice of your PhD advisor. You'll be intimately apprenticed to this person and his/her whims for several years of your life, and your life for those several years could be great or miserable (or somewhere in between, as mine was) as a result. Choose wisely and listen to your gut. It's generally the best judge of character you have.<p>Interview former students too (not current ones - you want the ones totally free to speak their mind).
acuozzoover 12 years ago
Here's a related but off-topic question: How does one earn a PhD in the US while working a full-time job to support a family, including a wife, children, and a home?
评论 #5101876 未加载
评论 #5100212 未加载
评论 #5101858 未加载
k1mover 12 years ago
<i>Disciplined Minds</i> by Jeff Schmidt is an excellent book on this topic: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742516857" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742516857</a><p>There's a review of it here: <a href="http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/higher-education-review.htm" rel="nofollow">http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/higher-education-review.h...</a>
blablabla123over 12 years ago
There are a lot of contradicting opinions about whether to do a PhD out there. The article together with most comments I read, just makes the issue more paradox.<p>I can only speak for myself, I studied swiftly Physics (diploma) in the number of semesters I was supposed to. While doing so there were some twists and turns in my private life, making my private life suck a lot when I finished my degree. So after all I also did not get a top grade, making myself think, screw the PhD thing. Anyway, I cannot tell how freed (and tiiiired) I felt when I handed in my f<i></i><i></i>*g thesis.<p>Eventhough I did not go for the PhD for different reasons, I can understand that a person with a private life and non-optimal environment can have a "unpleasant" experience. On the other hand, I get the impression that top employers are increasingly looking for PhDs. In particular on challenging positions companies seem to love PhDs -- and not really like non-PhDs.
danieldkover 12 years ago
I recently finished my PhD at a Dutch university. If I had to make the choice again, I would accept it immediately. It was great to have the time to do in-depth research and to be able to try practically any crazy idea I had. I had a great and very bright supervisor, who I learnt a great deal from (and hopefully work helped him). The colleagues were great and doing inspiring things. I could practically arrive and leave at any time, as long as work was done. And I got a good salary, holiday money, a bonus (1 month extra salary) and more holiday hours than I could spend.<p>The only thing that was unfulfilling was writing the actual thesis. I'd rather have spent my last year publishing two or three more articles than rehashing what I had published already.<p>If you go for a PhD, be sure to accept a position with a proper pay, enough holidays, and a good supervisor. Having the opportunity to teach a few weeks per year is a nice bonus.
kriroover 12 years ago
Too late (I wouldn't call myself brilliant though) :P<p>If anything the fact that so many people don't get there motivates me.<p>I've never belived in actually caring about the job market and such (or career planning). If you're sufficiently motivated that usually takes care of itself.<p>I mean I'm mostly in it because I need to change the world a bit. Kind of the whole "you just see the world in a different way" that gets brought up by entrepreneurs all the time. Some research isn't the slow and incremental type everyone keeps talking about in their "lol PhD/academics" rants :D<p>[Also getting a PhD here is vastly different. I get payed, teach classes and tutor students and work on my PhD on the side. Basically all self management/motivation and we don't take any classes and the like. Just thesis+defend]
guylhemover 12 years ago
I could not disagree more with the author - in fact at the moment I feel sorry for her.<p>TLDR: PhD is not for whimps<p>Yes it has the potential to break you, yes you will have very or little feedback loop and almost no money, and yes more people look forward being in academia for the freedom to pursue whatever research they fancy.<p>But this whole interpretation is very very wrong.<p>A PhD is a life changing experience - you learn how to learn and discover new knowledge - a process that can be extended to other disciplines and topics (it's not unusual to find someone with a PhD in something doing research in something very different).<p>It's the single best investment in yourself you can make - if you do value your capacity to work and create value, not just being paid to do stuff other people tell you to do, or what everybody has done in a given way for ages, and so you keep it doing that way for tradition/lack of creativity/no reason whatsoever.<p>Also, the biggest difference between the work you do during your PhD and the other work is that you work effectively without any precise objective. You learn to find inward motivation - which is the best replacement there is to outward reward. The work you do is its own reward. With that, and the kind of commitment you showed in the research-work you did alone for years, you can take any challenge you want.<p>Certainly, you work will be dissected by the best experts in the domain, and they will criticize it in any way they can - basically, you can't cheat. You have to actually do something outstanding, for which you will be judged.<p>It seems to me that's what most people on HN love and value : being judged on the merit of your work. At least that's why I love and value.<p>The only problem with all this is IMHO that many (most?) who do a PhD want to work in academia afterwards, to have the freedom to work on the topics they enjoy. I had the same failings - guilty as charged. I wanted to do something great and then to keep improving it in ways I saw fit. But I changed my ways (and got out of a tenure track in late 2012 - it's not for me)<p>I believe this is wrong, because anyone who wants to do that believes that its own interests are for some reason better than what the market values. It's good and all, do whatever you fancy, but not on my dime - not on public money. Get a real job.<p>I learnt a lot during my PhD - but more importantly I bootstrapped unknown capabilities to create knowledge - something that's bringing value in many things I do.<p>EDIT: for anyone interested, my last post on the topic and how my PhD in CS is currently coming into the real world 5 years later : <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4871888" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4871888</a>
评论 #5102311 未加载
评论 #5100509 未加载
评论 #5102356 未加载
评论 #5106927 未加载
adviceforphdover 12 years ago
I am approaching my final semester as a CS undergraduate and, to be totally honest, I am more than a little nervous about my decision to go down the PhD route. I've got a decent application, so I am less worried about getting into a program and more worried about life in it. I appreciate the experiences others have shared here, and I'd like to relate some of my thoughts and concerns because am curious to know if (how) I'm being naive. So, while my post here is mostly aimed at veterans who might dispel any illusions I hold, I would value any input.<p>I've applied to CS PhD programs and intend to do research in AI/Machine Learning. I am fascinated with the field, and though I have only a little undergrad experience with it, I've loved it all so far.<p>One of my main goals in getting a PhD is to improve my future career prospects, whether in academia or industry. I am ambivalent about going into academia for a post-doc career, as I think a startup or even industry would make better fits for me personally. I've noticed most industry jobs I'm interested in require graduate education, and I expect the PhD will likely over-qualify me for most startups. But more than all that, I want to make use of my mind (I know, I know: its that tired cliche about changing the world...) Though I enjoy coding, and I excel in my classwork and projects, I'm not a programming genius (which, perhaps regrettably, is what some people seem to expect from a top CS undergrad). I have had a taste of what it is like being a professional software developer, which is what my friends are prepping to do straight out of college, and I know it is not for me.<p>One qualm I have is that, as an undergraduate, I've had only one internship relevant to AI/ML and only a taste of research (no publications, some lab work), so the whole funding-&#62;research-&#62;publish sequence is still a little unclear to me (although reading blogs like Philip Guo's helped demystify the whole graduate experience). Another worry is that I do not want to put my life on hold. I can tolerate living on little funds, but I can't accept being a slave to my research: I want to have relationships and interests outside of the lab. To this end, I plan to keep my act together, work smart and effectively, and finish my PhD on time.<p>Does this seem like an unreasonable plan? Will I be facing jobless doldrums by having a PhD? What more can I do to be prepared for graduate school? Is there anything major I'm overlooking?<p>Also, thanks to HN in general for contributing - this has been a great thread.<p>EDIT: I neglected to mention I'm in the US.
derekjaover 12 years ago
After 15 years in industry (Compaq, Microsoft, a couple smaller shops) I'm now back working on my PhD and enjoying the hell out of it. Totally different experience than if I had gone straight out of undergrad, though.
adrianscottover 12 years ago
Wow, I disagree with almost everything in the article. I finished up my Ph.D. Math at age 20 in slightly more than 3 years. It was a challenge and it did take focus to finish it, but by no means was it soul-destroying. And with the fellowship (on top of the tuition coverage) I received, I felt rich... Yes, you can end up with (choose) an advisor that is not a good match for you (or for getting finished in a reasonable time), but still... It's so much easier than doing a startup, for instance...
randomsearchover 12 years ago
I did a PhD in Computer Science in the UK and whilst it is definitely an emotional challenge, I mostly enjoyed the PhD and found it very rewarding. I never found it overwhelmingly difficult, and I never considered giving up.<p>My advice for any new PhD starts is to treat it like a job, work 9-5 steadily throughout your PhD, read as much as you can during your first year, and do things outside of your degree to stay sane.<p>RS
InAnEmergencyover 12 years ago
&#62; if you're expecting to work 40-hour weeks, you'd better be registered as a part-time student<p>Not all schools let you be registered part-time :'(
xijuanover 12 years ago
I am so happy to see the positive comments here about PhD program. I will start mine for quantitative psychology this Sept. I will be getting a master and then a PhD. At least, that is the plan! WISH ME LUCK!!!!!
smky80over 12 years ago
The OP didn't really go into the "malice" part of it. FYI if you do good enough work your supervisor might be tempted to appropriate it. The process for doing so might involve painting you as incompetent.<p>It's not pleasant.
segmondover 12 years ago
Dear brilliant students, if you are truly brilliant, do what you wish to do with your life. If you wish to study, by all means do so. Just don't equate PhD with income earning ability.
goloxcover 12 years ago
who has time for self-help books?<p>- second-year CS PhD
gmacover 12 years ago
TL;DR: PhDs are not for everyone, therefore PhDs are not for anyone.
alimoeenyover 12 years ago
this is the twitter account of the original author <a href="https://twitter.com/individeweal" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/individeweal</a>
ucee054over 12 years ago
The "supervision" in a PhD can be a <i>problem</i>.<p>Some Professors just keep shooting down their students' ideas, rather than actually <i>teaching</i> or <i>guiding</i> them.<p>Some don't provide any feedback at all, like the student is supposed to pick things up by telepathic osmosis.<p>I guess the victims are the students who take <i>7 years</i> to finish.<p>I <i>wouldn't</i> recommend a PhD.
评论 #5100302 未加载
评论 #5100934 未加载
IheartApplesDixover 12 years ago
As an individual with an IT Startup, I have to agree with this article. I certainly don't have the money to pay for PhD-level talent, but I'm in dire need of skilled individuals to implement the technical side of my business plans and maintain them. I think it's critical that we stem the tide of over-educated people entering the workforce in America and the best way to do it is FUD-y articles like this that exaggerate every negative aspect of the academic environment to the extreme. Just because you have the opportunity and resources necessary to get a PhD, doesn't mean you should take advantage of that and improve your possibility in life dramatically. Chances are you'll end up moving to a European country where all the successful startups seem to be based anymore.
michaelochurchover 12 years ago
21.3: the type of person she's writing for. I might not call myself "brilliant", but I was a good undergraduate student and a PhD seemed like the next and most respectable step. Anything else was selling out.<p>21.4-22.0: usual pre-PhD stuff like GREs and those ungodly applications where they make you list textbooks going back to freshman year calculus. Then there were the rejections, the acceptances, and the prospective student meetings. Those were fun.<p>22.1-23.2: in graduate program (math PhD) until internship on Wall Street turned into full-time offer. Did not return for 2nd year.<p>23.2-29.6 (now): variety of experiences in industry, some good, some not-so-good. Sometimes wish I could go back for a PhD in CS, but I realize that the opportunity cost of 5 years' income is, at this point, a house everywhere except Manhattan (where it's still a few decihouses).<p>Here are some observations:<p>If you're funded, a PhD program isn't <i>that</i> bad. It can be stressful, or it can be a lot of fun. You will probably fall behind with the opposite sex. Your lifestyle will be lower-middle-class. Your social life will be weird. You can't hang out with undergrads anymore, because the first thing you learn (late September, usually) is that college was a different planet to which you can never go back. I had an undergrad girlfriend for a little while, and the contrast between her concerns and mine was stark. Grad school is part of the Real World, and not a financially flush one. Hence, you don't really have much in common with young professionals (who are enjoying having money until the kids arrive and they're strapped again) either. Other grad students are your social pool, and inter-departmental interaction is rare.<p>It's hard. Self-study in addition to courses is no longer optional. Procrastination will ruin your life. College encourages specialization and creativity: write for a sketch comedy group, go to poetry slams, play cards till 5:00 in the morning, get sloppy drunk once a month (actually, you're not missing out if you skip that). Grad school doesn't. You might have time for <i>one</i> extracurricular activity. Don't start it until you've had a successful first year. You need to become an adult, and quickly. People who manage their time and money like a 28-year-old seem to do OK. They aren't always happy, and there's still a lot of opportunity cost in pursuing a graduate degree, but these people manage to get through it and enjoy the process. People who try to relive college do not.<p>I don't think graduate school is this horrible wringer for most people. Some are unhappy, but many of them would be unhappy anywhere. Some love it. It comes down to personal and technical maturity, as well as desires. To complete a PhD, you really have to have to want a research career.<p>What <i>is</i> horrible is the job market people face after their PhDs. That is an outright disaster. But that's another topic.
评论 #5100108 未加载