Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects(nature.com)
nature.com
Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects
http://www.nature.com/news/many-junior-scientists-need-to-take-a-hard-look-at-their-job-prospects-1.22879
291 comments
> ... you work 80 hours per week and make less than ...
I've read so many comments like yours, on HN and elsewhere, and invariably the argument hinges on some variation of the above sentiment. I've come to believe I just have fundamentally different values than the vast majority of people who work in industry.
To answer your (friends') question, because the work is more interesting and I make plenty of money as it stands.
I've read so many comments like yours, on HN and elsewhere, and invariably the argument hinges on some variation of the above sentiment. I've come to believe I just have fundamentally different values than the vast majority of people who work in industry.
To answer your (friends') question, because the work is more interesting and I make plenty of money as it stands.
Because not all work in academia is interesting. I don't know about your field but academic research is more about doing what your funding bodies want you to do or following the latest trend to get funding. Publishing can be a political game where institution and contacts matter more than merit. Advancement in your career can be the same. I don't want to make a blanket statement for everyone because I am sure there are varying experiences.
If academia is about interesting research, then I would gladly take your perspective. But sadly, from my experience (life sciences), to get anywhere, it is 3/4 bullshit work (admin, politics) and 1/4 interesting work.
I imagine I can find a job in industry that's 1/4 interesting work and get paid a lot more for it.
So it's not about "values". Let's not religion-fy academia and infuse it with a semblance of "virtue" associated with doing research. Scientists shouldn't be monks for science.
If academia is about interesting research, then I would gladly take your perspective. But sadly, from my experience (life sciences), to get anywhere, it is 3/4 bullshit work (admin, politics) and 1/4 interesting work.
I imagine I can find a job in industry that's 1/4 interesting work and get paid a lot more for it.
So it's not about "values". Let's not religion-fy academia and infuse it with a semblance of "virtue" associated with doing research. Scientists shouldn't be monks for science.
I'll echo this. The large majority of PIs I have interacted with (or know of via friends/family) could care less about their research. You get a skewed view from conferences, presentations, TED Talks, etc. They are 'on stage' at those events and are 'selling' their research largely. Get a beer in them and the facade drops quickly (ok, 3 beers for the people that really hate the mess, their tolerance is higher)
Well, that wasn't the claim, that all work in science is interesting. It was that mine is. And it very clearly is about values. Your hypothetical job in industry that's 3/4 uninteresting sounds awful to me. I'd never want that. For any (realistic) amount of money.
What I meant by "values" is some kind of moral superiority that seems to be espoused by a lot of people I've met in academia. That somehow not pursuing academic research is "selling out".
This idea is implicitly ingrained in a lot of graduate students when they enter the program. In my opinion, this is all to justify the shitty treatment. And I find this mentality very similar to organized religions where you are expected to make personal sacrifice in the name of some abstract notion.
Of course, this also exists in industry. Big tech companies sell their "vision" and "culture" in the same way. But at least they pay their employees relatively better.
I am glad you have a rewarding academic career and I hope you continue to enjoy it. I personally didn't find academia that enjoyable. The science was interesting, but academia is not just about science these days.
This idea is implicitly ingrained in a lot of graduate students when they enter the program. In my opinion, this is all to justify the shitty treatment. And I find this mentality very similar to organized religions where you are expected to make personal sacrifice in the name of some abstract notion.
Of course, this also exists in industry. Big tech companies sell their "vision" and "culture" in the same way. But at least they pay their employees relatively better.
I am glad you have a rewarding academic career and I hope you continue to enjoy it. I personally didn't find academia that enjoyable. The science was interesting, but academia is not just about science these days.
You know, I get the point you are making, and there is some truth to it. But overblown statements like "academia is just not about science these days" totally undermine the rest of your argument. It's unfortunate that you had a bad experience, but extrapolating that to an indictment of _all of science_ seems like sour grapes. A lot of people, the majority, are doing good work. It's not the caricature you make it out to be.
[deleted]
I think work hours and salary have a bimodal distribution, driven by tenured / non-tenured status. My experience is in theoretical math/physics -- I got my PhD but decided not to stay in academia; there are pros and cons to both options.
IME most tenured professors have to work significantly less than others for the same salary (those who work more mostly do it because they like working with grad students, not because they get financial benefits for it). Quality of life is good, good benefits, few and flexible work hours, sabbaticals, etc. Salary is lower than at the top of the industry, but sufficient for a comfortable life. Those who do good research can escape for the summer to interesting parts of the world to summer schools and visiting colleagues using grant money.
However, non-tenured professors have it much harder. And postdocs are usually the underclass.
IME most tenured professors have to work significantly less than others for the same salary (those who work more mostly do it because they like working with grad students, not because they get financial benefits for it). Quality of life is good, good benefits, few and flexible work hours, sabbaticals, etc. Salary is lower than at the top of the industry, but sufficient for a comfortable life. Those who do good research can escape for the summer to interesting parts of the world to summer schools and visiting colleagues using grant money.
However, non-tenured professors have it much harder. And postdocs are usually the underclass.
I happen to be extremely well acquainted with one tenured professor of biological oceanography, and one tenure track professor of physical oceanography, and I can't say I agree with your observation. My experience has been that tenure or not, the amount of work that these individuals have on their plate is essentially endless. Grants are extremely difficult to come by these days, although its getting better, and it is worth noting both of these individuals must pay a significant chunk of their salaries from grants. Not to mention that the pressure to keep publishing is essentially unending. Also, sabatical is not code for vacation. The system is the same, if you don't publish it's hard to get funding, and if you don't get funding you don't get your full salary.
That said, my experience in this is only with Oceanography professors who are research professors first and teachers a distant second.
That said, my experience in this is only with Oceanography professors who are research professors first and teachers a distant second.
> Grants are extremely difficult to come by these days
Only because of competition. It's still vastly better in the U.S. than any other country.
Competition is good.
Only because of competition. It's still vastly better in the U.S. than any other country.
Competition is good.
To a point.
There was a retrospective study looking at grant scores vs. outcomes (citations of the papers produced). The correlation was pretty weak. Reviewers can identify the obvious dreck, but beyond that was a bit of a toss-up.
If you have too much competition, people start rushing sexy, half-baked results out the door, regardless of whether they seem likely to hold up--or even make sense. This selects against the people doing the careful sort of research that we probably intend to encourage.
There was a retrospective study looking at grant scores vs. outcomes (citations of the papers produced). The correlation was pretty weak. Reviewers can identify the obvious dreck, but beyond that was a bit of a toss-up.
If you have too much competition, people start rushing sexy, half-baked results out the door, regardless of whether they seem likely to hold up--or even make sense. This selects against the people doing the careful sort of research that we probably intend to encourage.
Yes, competition is good.
But as you say, the incentives are not aligned correctly. And yes, it's very difficult for reviewers to make the best decisions.
So instead, they reject and request preliminary data. Which requires money. But at least this is better than a sexy shot in the dark, which I think private institutions should be funding. Or things like MD Anderson's moonshot program.
Things aren't perfect, but I think we can both agree that there is no perfect solution to this problem, incremental improvement? Certainly.
But as you say, the incentives are not aligned correctly. And yes, it's very difficult for reviewers to make the best decisions.
So instead, they reject and request preliminary data. Which requires money. But at least this is better than a sexy shot in the dark, which I think private institutions should be funding. Or things like MD Anderson's moonshot program.
Things aren't perfect, but I think we can both agree that there is no perfect solution to this problem, incremental improvement? Certainly.
Turn the competition knob to 0, everybody slacks. Turn it to 11, everybody cheats.
It's at 10. We're hearing more and more about large cheating scandals. I wonder, what could possibly be wrong with the system?
It's at 10. We're hearing more and more about large cheating scandals. I wonder, what could possibly be wrong with the system?
I don't know about theoretical physics, but math professors usually have almost no burden to produce grant money. My observation is the same - they are very relaxed.
In my school, the physics department was part of the College of Engineering. They had the usual 80 hour weeks because their evaluations depended on the amount of grant money they brought in.
In my school, the physics department was part of the College of Engineering. They had the usual 80 hour weeks because their evaluations depended on the amount of grant money they brought in.
This is related to the cost of doing experiments and running a lab. My wife is a bio-physicist and goes through $1k is supplies on a good day. In contrast you could run a math lab on almost nothing.
There's this old joke about math departments being the second cheapest to run, since you only need pen, paper, and a trash can. The cheapest department to run is Philosophy, since you only need pen and paper.
>This is related to the cost of doing experiments and running a lab.
Only tangentially. In my engineering department, the expectations on the professor who ran a lab with heavy and expensive equipment were no greater than the one whose work was all computational and just needed a bunch of PC's to run simulations on.
Only tangentially. In my engineering department, the expectations on the professor who ran a lab with heavy and expensive equipment were no greater than the one whose work was all computational and just needed a bunch of PC's to run simulations on.
The biggest cost of running math department is travel costs, but then again, biophysicist probably spend just as much on that.
Interesting. In my school math and physics were part of College of Science and CS was in College of Engineering. Maybe this burden of grant money production is college-based.
Also, many tenured professors double dip into industry as well, leveraging their guaranteed position for minimized exposure if the startup goes poorly.
Depends on field.
> I think work hours and salary have a bimodal distribution, driven by tenured / non-tenured status.
After I got my masters in Anthropology, I had been planning on a career in academia. At the time (early aughts), there was a huge backlash against tenure and there was a big movement trying to do away with it completely and it really turned me off. I subsequently left the field altogether in large part to the idea of having to "prove" my tenure, when, at the time, it was one of the few things which gave professors some stability in their role at a given university.
After I got my masters in Anthropology, I had been planning on a career in academia. At the time (early aughts), there was a huge backlash against tenure and there was a big movement trying to do away with it completely and it really turned me off. I subsequently left the field altogether in large part to the idea of having to "prove" my tenure, when, at the time, it was one of the few things which gave professors some stability in their role at a given university.
Was your original plan to become a professor? If so, why did you change course?
Absolutely, for the first 2 years. I suspect 3-6 years of postdoc plus 3-5 years at tenure track before getting tenure was a significant burden. And all that is not a guarantee of success. Maybe I was also tired at being inside academia and wanted to see what life outside was.
I am not sure, but I do know that at some time I knew I did not want to stay in academia. And when I understood this the first thought was "why did not I realize this a year ago"? Nothing wrong with academia, I just chose a different path.
EDIT: On some thought the mentality "if you did not stay in academia you are a loser" probably delayed the above realization. It was very prevalent.
I am not sure, but I do know that at some time I knew I did not want to stay in academia. And when I understood this the first thought was "why did not I realize this a year ago"? Nothing wrong with academia, I just chose a different path.
EDIT: On some thought the mentality "if you did not stay in academia you are a loser" probably delayed the above realization. It was very prevalent.
> EDIT: On some thought the mentality "if you did not stay in academia you are a loser" probably delayed the above realization. It was very prevalent.
I see that as a common feeling among some of my friends slaving away on their PhDs. Its hard to not feel this way if all your friends, social circle, basically your entire world, is built around the school/program you are attending (which isn't that unusual since you're likely to be friends with other PhD students).
Additionally, I've noticed some of my peers who did very well academically in undergrad want to continue the "good streak" right through PhD. I know it sounds rather silly, but if you've been killing it with grades and awards and the like, its easy to feel that you are special and if you don't do a PhD, who will?
This is unfortunately what happened with me. Although, I realized my mistake within the first year and decided to leave with a Masters degree.
I see that as a common feeling among some of my friends slaving away on their PhDs. Its hard to not feel this way if all your friends, social circle, basically your entire world, is built around the school/program you are attending (which isn't that unusual since you're likely to be friends with other PhD students).
Additionally, I've noticed some of my peers who did very well academically in undergrad want to continue the "good streak" right through PhD. I know it sounds rather silly, but if you've been killing it with grades and awards and the like, its easy to feel that you are special and if you don't do a PhD, who will?
This is unfortunately what happened with me. Although, I realized my mistake within the first year and decided to leave with a Masters degree.
Yeah, I heard the "loser" bit. Somewhat comforted by the end of my third year in industry, in that my compensation was 2.5x what new profs was making. The postdocs I looked at included a number for which the salary for 60+ hours of real work/week would have been (well) below the poverty level for my family.
This was a bridge too far, coupled with the 1000+ applicants per position. Made it hard to make a case to continue in that field.
This was a bridge too far, coupled with the 1000+ applicants per position. Made it hard to make a case to continue in that field.
When I entered grad school it was. Then the Soviet Union died, and the market, already awash in a large number of Ph.D.s in physics suddenly transformed into something that I could not effectively compete in.
To some degree, you are measured, as a student/postdoc, by the number of highly rated papers in good journals that you produce, as well as citations, invitations to speak, etc. All of this factors into how high in the stack you will rise.
When I was looking at applying for tenure track positions, I was hampered to a degree, by being in a group that didn't publish often (and of course, as a student, I couldn't push my advisor to publish more ... she had tenure already). So I had a couple of good papers, but nothing compared to these senior folks from FSU, with 20+ years experience, many Phys. Rev. Letters, and other top journals. And hey, to make it even more fun, they were willing to work for less than the newly minted Ph.D.s.
I don't blame them. Would have done the same thing in their shoes. We are better off for them having come here and advanced physics.
But to the younger me, thinking ... damn ... this ain't fair ... it wasn't so obvious at the time.
I made a conscious decision to go into industry, knowing full well that it ended my hopes of landing a job as a prof. I've had a few side research associate prof gigs to teach HPC programming or work in a CS group (not bad for an ex-physics guy), and for the most part, they were fulfilling.
This is a hard choice to make though. All grad students and post docs need to know what awaits them in the world. Don't, as in never, believe anyone ever telling you about shortages. Assume that they have an agenda.
I was part of a cohort to whom the NSF exhorted the looming shortage of scientists for staffing physics positions (mid 80s). I was both naive enough to believe them, and foolish enough not to do my own research.
I would have gone in a different direction, had I known what I learned later. One more pragmatic. Likely Math or CS.
My recommendation to younger versions of me, my wife (also an ex-physicist, now a math/physics teacher in a local high school) would be to look carefully at how the world is moving toward some things and away from others. Estimate where we will be in N years when you finish up, and try see if something you think you would like to do aligns with something people are willing to pay for. Make sure you are flexible enough to change, and you can adapt as needed. Learn how to learn, learn how to think, learn how to move beyond your comfort zones. Learn how to communicate, how to sell (not necessarily things, but ideas). Learn what value is.
Then when you get to be an older fart, responding, slightly wistfully, to posts on HN, you can pass along your own experiences, thereby, hopefully, helping someone to optimize their own journey.
To some degree, you are measured, as a student/postdoc, by the number of highly rated papers in good journals that you produce, as well as citations, invitations to speak, etc. All of this factors into how high in the stack you will rise.
When I was looking at applying for tenure track positions, I was hampered to a degree, by being in a group that didn't publish often (and of course, as a student, I couldn't push my advisor to publish more ... she had tenure already). So I had a couple of good papers, but nothing compared to these senior folks from FSU, with 20+ years experience, many Phys. Rev. Letters, and other top journals. And hey, to make it even more fun, they were willing to work for less than the newly minted Ph.D.s.
I don't blame them. Would have done the same thing in their shoes. We are better off for them having come here and advanced physics.
But to the younger me, thinking ... damn ... this ain't fair ... it wasn't so obvious at the time.
I made a conscious decision to go into industry, knowing full well that it ended my hopes of landing a job as a prof. I've had a few side research associate prof gigs to teach HPC programming or work in a CS group (not bad for an ex-physics guy), and for the most part, they were fulfilling.
This is a hard choice to make though. All grad students and post docs need to know what awaits them in the world. Don't, as in never, believe anyone ever telling you about shortages. Assume that they have an agenda.
I was part of a cohort to whom the NSF exhorted the looming shortage of scientists for staffing physics positions (mid 80s). I was both naive enough to believe them, and foolish enough not to do my own research.
I would have gone in a different direction, had I known what I learned later. One more pragmatic. Likely Math or CS.
My recommendation to younger versions of me, my wife (also an ex-physicist, now a math/physics teacher in a local high school) would be to look carefully at how the world is moving toward some things and away from others. Estimate where we will be in N years when you finish up, and try see if something you think you would like to do aligns with something people are willing to pay for. Make sure you are flexible enough to change, and you can adapt as needed. Learn how to learn, learn how to think, learn how to move beyond your comfort zones. Learn how to communicate, how to sell (not necessarily things, but ideas). Learn what value is.
Then when you get to be an older fart, responding, slightly wistfully, to posts on HN, you can pass along your own experiences, thereby, hopefully, helping someone to optimize their own journey.
> My recommendation to younger versions of me, my wife (also an ex-physicist, now a math/physics teacher in a local high school) would be to look carefully at how the world is moving toward some things and away from others. Estimate where we will be in N years when you finish up, and try see if something you think you would like to do aligns with something people are willing to pay for. Make sure you are flexible enough to change, and you can adapt as needed.
That's great advice, but how do you translate it into practice? Should someone considering grad school do a PhD in AI or in biomedical engineering or in finance or what?
That's great advice, but how do you translate it into practice? Should someone considering grad school do a PhD in AI or in biomedical engineering or in finance or what?
Pursue what you are passionate about, but be realistic about how you are going to work and handle the real issues that come with being an adult and having a family (if this is your goal).
My daughter is pursuing a degree in Art at a good university. I gave her the same talk. As she seems to have some genetic predisposition to computers and science (and math, though if you ask her she'll claim that the tests lie), she looks like she'll be mixing computer science and/or engineering into this.
My wife and I struggled to find a solution to the two body problem [1], which is part of what informed our collective decision. As much as I wanted (at the time) to be a physics prof, I saw my contemporaries struggle for years afterwards, with low pay, long hours, while having to put up with a spouse in a different city (and often a different state/coast), as their solution to this problem. That didn't appear to me to be a solution. And in the language of theoretical physics/mathematics, this problem did not appear to admit a general closed form, simple solution.
The FSU collapsing was a large part of my (really our) choice (we got married in grad school). The lack of "secure" job until early 40s (tenure track starting around 35, decision around 40-42) caused us to rethink what was important to us.
The trajectory you take is one you should undertake with eyes clearly open, aware of all the pitfalls on the path you take to the end point. And have a few concepts in mind for plans B and C in case plan A's endpoint becomes out of reach for any reason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_(career)
My daughter is pursuing a degree in Art at a good university. I gave her the same talk. As she seems to have some genetic predisposition to computers and science (and math, though if you ask her she'll claim that the tests lie), she looks like she'll be mixing computer science and/or engineering into this.
My wife and I struggled to find a solution to the two body problem [1], which is part of what informed our collective decision. As much as I wanted (at the time) to be a physics prof, I saw my contemporaries struggle for years afterwards, with low pay, long hours, while having to put up with a spouse in a different city (and often a different state/coast), as their solution to this problem. That didn't appear to me to be a solution. And in the language of theoretical physics/mathematics, this problem did not appear to admit a general closed form, simple solution.
The FSU collapsing was a large part of my (really our) choice (we got married in grad school). The lack of "secure" job until early 40s (tenure track starting around 35, decision around 40-42) caused us to rethink what was important to us.
The trajectory you take is one you should undertake with eyes clearly open, aware of all the pitfalls on the path you take to the end point. And have a few concepts in mind for plans B and C in case plan A's endpoint becomes out of reach for any reason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_(career)
Great advice. For someone regretting not taking the particle physics path that sometimes dreams 'what if...' you've offered some solace.
I met an amateur comedian recently who mentioned he's almost done with his PhD, but will never make back the lost earnings from the time he's invested. Whilst he talked, part of me was thinking 'man, if only your PhD were in machine learning'. I didn't say it out loud, though.
It turned out he's about to complete a PhD in machine learning, but doesn't want to work in Silicon Valley, or for a big company, or in finance (he lives in a financial capital).
Different people have different motivations, but I find it hard to imagine myself choosing the same constraints were I in the same situation.
It turned out he's about to complete a PhD in machine learning, but doesn't want to work in Silicon Valley, or for a big company, or in finance (he lives in a financial capital).
Different people have different motivations, but I find it hard to imagine myself choosing the same constraints were I in the same situation.
Maybe a better advisor would have helped them find a research topic that engaged them? I really didn't care much about traffic. I cared about Chaos Theory and MDOT had free traffic data and DEC was willing to loan me some hardware. That's it.
I mean, I like traffic now. Back then? I was just meh... But it was something I could bite into and really see where Chaos Theory techniques could apply to understanding traffic. Which is to say, quite well - actually. But, I digress...
A great advisor really, really helps.
I mean, I like traffic now. Back then? I was just meh... But it was something I could bite into and really see where Chaos Theory techniques could apply to understanding traffic. Which is to say, quite well - actually. But, I digress...
A great advisor really, really helps.
Doing a phd in machine learning and working at a high paying tech company is still a money losing competition due to the opportunity cost. Getting a masters and then working for 5 years gives you at least a half million dollar head start.
I like where your head is at. This is the type of math we should be doing.
On the other hand, someone has to do the PhDs in order to invent things like machine learning. That is also math we should be doing.
There is this notion (that I find quite convincing) that people tend to be overly optimistic as to their prospects (to become a successful entrepreneur/professor/etc.), and that leads them to decisions that are suboptimal for themselves (as they overestimate the likelihood of a big exit/tenure/etc.), but are good (optimal?) for society, because it encourages more people to take these huge risks, some of which do pay off.
> That is also math we should be doing.
There are things that should not only be seen in narrow economic terms, though. If someone wants to run their own business, or increase the stock of knowledge, or seek enlightenment in meditation retreats, that's perfectly ok, even if they don't strictly optimise their expected monetary payoff.
> That is also math we should be doing.
There are things that should not only be seen in narrow economic terms, though. If someone wants to run their own business, or increase the stock of knowledge, or seek enlightenment in meditation retreats, that's perfectly ok, even if they don't strictly optimise their expected monetary payoff.
[deleted]
Lots of other areas where people are interested in machine learning and willing to pay good money. Biotech, pharma and medical, and oil/geology are just a few areas off the top of my head.
>I've read so many comments like yours, on HN and elsewhere, and invariably the argument hinges on some variation of the above sentiment. I've come to believe I just have fundamentally different values than the vast majority of people who work in industry.
Indeed! Why is the assumption always, "We all value money, so just switch to industry!"? It's like telling a public servant that if they wanted a living wage they'd learn Node.js. Not everyone wants to do industrial web-dev, and not everyone should have to. There are high-skill, high-impact contributions to society that don't involve corporate life, shouldn't involve corporate life, and instead need an institutional space for people to pursue them without the pressures and incentives of corporate life.
"Just switch to industry" is turning into the scholarly equivalent of, "just learn to code". Instead of all giving up on some people making the best impact they can, the impact they work desperately hard for, maybe we should just fix the academic labor system.
Indeed! Why is the assumption always, "We all value money, so just switch to industry!"? It's like telling a public servant that if they wanted a living wage they'd learn Node.js. Not everyone wants to do industrial web-dev, and not everyone should have to. There are high-skill, high-impact contributions to society that don't involve corporate life, shouldn't involve corporate life, and instead need an institutional space for people to pursue them without the pressures and incentives of corporate life.
"Just switch to industry" is turning into the scholarly equivalent of, "just learn to code". Instead of all giving up on some people making the best impact they can, the impact they work desperately hard for, maybe we should just fix the academic labor system.
I don't think asking a researcher in AI why they couldn't work in industry that is willing to pay them tons more $$ is a bad question to ask. Its certainly not the same as asking a public servant to learn coding.
Living in the CS bubble, a lot of us forget that outsiders think of programming as some kind of black magic that they could never figure out ever. And are baffled that those who know it are not milking it as much as they can.
Living in the CS bubble, a lot of us forget that outsiders think of programming as some kind of black magic that they could never figure out ever. And are baffled that those who know it are not milking it as much as they can.
> "Just switch to industry" is turning into the scholarly equivalent of, "just learn to code". Instead of all giving up on some people making the best impact they can, the impact they work desperately hard for, maybe we should just fix the academic labor system.
And unfortunately we have pundits here in the HN community and refinforeced by YC, that this should be the case. Oh and btw, those same people think the solution for "just fix the academic labor system" is "well let's just write some code".
https://twitter.com/sama/status/641281287660007424
And unfortunately we have pundits here in the HN community and refinforeced by YC, that this should be the case. Oh and btw, those same people think the solution for "just fix the academic labor system" is "well let's just write some code".
https://twitter.com/sama/status/641281287660007424
Youch, that is pretty bad 'Valley Think'.
I am going to re-read your post until I have thoroughly have it committed to memory.
Yours is the verbiage that I have wanted to use in conversations so many times when the end discussion equals 'we'll all be web devs at some point'. The end product of these conversations always made my brain itch; I knew why, just couldn't formulate a reasonably worded response.
I will adopt yours gladly.
Very insightful! I agree that many people are tone deaf when it comes to the fact that other people may value something other than money, consumption, etc.
[deleted]
Think of it as running a small startup, if the time doesn't make sense. My time is split between teaching and preparing teaching, raising funding, mentoring (on the job training), and lastly trying to figure out the next big thing.
The rewards are getting to be your own boss, advancing the knowledge of humanity, and cultivating the next generation of scientists. It is hard work and time intensive, but most things worth doing are.
The rewards are getting to be your own boss, advancing the knowledge of humanity, and cultivating the next generation of scientists. It is hard work and time intensive, but most things worth doing are.
Indeed, many of us can get paid more in industry. (Computational applied mathematician here.) But (i) professor pay isn't terrible in the grand scheme of things, and (ii) I view my salary as paying for the things I wouldn't want to do for free, e.g., grading exams, serving on committees, etc., and I'm reasonably well-compensated in having my own time to do the things I love enough to do for free: my own research, work with grad students, learning about things I find interesting and teaching a course on it, etc.
But getting here wasn't easy, took equal measures of hard work and luck.
But getting here wasn't easy, took equal measures of hard work and luck.
Well this is true, but it’s certianly a far cry from the high employment prospects i was brought up believe STEM fields offered.
My sister is on her second post doc; while the money is perfectly adequate, if she ever burned out she would be stuck up the creek without a paddle.
Personally, it’s the precipitous drop in tenured positions that scared me away. Too risky of a time investment!
My sister is on her second post doc; while the money is perfectly adequate, if she ever burned out she would be stuck up the creek without a paddle.
Personally, it’s the precipitous drop in tenured positions that scared me away. Too risky of a time investment!
If anyone is interested, here are my old blog posts on the requirements for getting an interview for a professorship at a top-50 school:
[1] http://www.chriskanan.com/planning-for-life-after-your-phd/
[2] http://www.chriskanan.com/statistics-on-computer-science-pro...
[3] http://www.chriskanan.com/statistics-on-ucsds-computer-scien...
[1] http://www.chriskanan.com/planning-for-life-after-your-phd/
[2] http://www.chriskanan.com/statistics-on-computer-science-pro...
[3] http://www.chriskanan.com/statistics-on-ucsds-computer-scien...
Paul Litvak has also written a few interesting posts, both about moving into industry from academia and about the current academic job market:
[1] http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/05/16/why-social-science-grad... [2] http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/02/18/simgradschool-a-study-i...
[1] http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/05/16/why-social-science-grad... [2] http://www.paullitvak.com/2013/02/18/simgradschool-a-study-i...
From your [3] above, do theory PhD graduates usually have more or fewer publications?
What would be your guesstimates of the mean/median number of first author publications of faculty candidates at a top school?
"Number First Author Publications (excluding theory folks)
Mean: 12.8±6.5
Median: 14.5
Range: 2 – 25"
What would be your guesstimates of the mean/median number of first author publications of faculty candidates at a top school?
"Number First Author Publications (excluding theory folks)
Mean: 12.8±6.5
Median: 14.5
Range: 2 – 25"
In other areas of computer science, first author counts for a lot. It indicates a person did the majority of the implementation work, probably wrote the first draft of the paper, etc. Typically the last author is the PI that came up with the idea, mentored the first author, and funded the work. The contributions of those in the middle are less well defined.
In CS theory (and math), they go by alphabetical author order, so none of the aforementioned rules work unless there is only a single author. So, I excluded the theory folks from the first author analysis.
In CS theory (and math), they go by alphabetical author order, so none of the aforementioned rules work unless there is only a single author. So, I excluded the theory folks from the first author analysis.
This is changing, thankfully. First authors should be the ones leading the paper, according to contributions.
Some journals are asking for the actual contributions performed by each author, which I think is very good.
Alphabetical order should be banned, period.
Alphabetical order should be banned, period.
Littlewood and Hardy disagree. Ranking/attributing contributions to a joint paper in mathematics is very hard especially when the results grow out of conversations between all of the authors.
You state your opinion, but don't justify it -- could you share why you think it is important we list first author by contribution? What does this accomplish?
Obviously not everyone agrees (or you wouldn't have felt the need to post), so why not share why you think you're right, so we can discuss the issue?
Edit:
Well, we've proven that people feel very strongly about this, but I'm no closer to understanding why people care so much about it. (ie, what they think it accomplishes.)
C'est la Internet, I suppose.
Obviously not everyone agrees (or you wouldn't have felt the need to post), so why not share why you think you're right, so we can discuss the issue?
Edit:
Well, we've proven that people feel very strongly about this, but I'm no closer to understanding why people care so much about it. (ie, what they think it accomplishes.)
C'est la Internet, I suppose.
I don't publish papers, so I don't have a strong opinion about it. But like you, I am genuinely curious why alphabetical order was chosen as the convention rather than the amount of contributions (like GitHub does[1]).
If the answer is that contributions to scientific papers can be very fuzzy, e.g. it is hard to determine which contribution is more important than others, then I agree alphabetical order makes sense. But is it really so in most of the papers?
For example, in the RSA paper, Adleman clearly knew his contribution was less than Rivest and Shamir and he insisted that he put his name in the end. I believe, in most papers it would be obvious to the co-authors that someone's contribution is more significant than the others. If this is true, why do they still choose to follow the alphabetical order convention rather than the contribution order convention?
[1]: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/graphs/contributors (example)
If the answer is that contributions to scientific papers can be very fuzzy, e.g. it is hard to determine which contribution is more important than others, then I agree alphabetical order makes sense. But is it really so in most of the papers?
For example, in the RSA paper, Adleman clearly knew his contribution was less than Rivest and Shamir and he insisted that he put his name in the end. I believe, in most papers it would be obvious to the co-authors that someone's contribution is more significant than the others. If this is true, why do they still choose to follow the alphabetical order convention rather than the contribution order convention?
[1]: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/graphs/contributors (example)
> If the answer is that contributions to scientific papers can be very fuzzy, e.g. it is hard to determine which contribution is more important than others, then I agree alphabetical order makes sense. But is it really so in most of the papers?
I'm probably biased from being in industry, but even when people contribute unequal code to a module or writing in a report, we just list the authors alphabetically because it's obnoxious to do anything with the list otherwise and it stops a huge amount of politicking when the first three out of ten authors contribute equal amounts. At the end of the day, stable collaborations will outpace individual contributors -- so we should focus on what allows us to openly collaborate and tears down barriers to doing that.
But from my point of view, we have a lot of the same incentives between industry and academia:
1. If you want to get promoted, you need projects associated with you and to get noticed.
2. There needs to be some method to decide who gets what amount of bonuses.
3. Funding allocation is tied to past successes.
...and probably some more I'm forgetting.
So I think my experience isn't totally irrelevant -- you get enough signal out of the distribution of the person's name that the loss of whatever from not getting "first" information is eclipsed by the gains from less politics (and if you have a lot of documents, easier parsing).
Again, perhaps it's the industry talking, but I'd rather hire an author that contributed the third most to a large number of papers than someone who contributed first most to a few. One of them seems to be a "force multiplier" in that they're keeping several other ICs moving (and contributing on all those efforts), while one guy just seems a specialist in a particular work.
I don't think removing the "first" signal harms my ability to find those "force multipliers", because they'll still have the same markers (as they weren't showing up first under the other system anyway).
So perhaps I simply have different uses for the rankings than people who feel differently?
I'm probably biased from being in industry, but even when people contribute unequal code to a module or writing in a report, we just list the authors alphabetically because it's obnoxious to do anything with the list otherwise and it stops a huge amount of politicking when the first three out of ten authors contribute equal amounts. At the end of the day, stable collaborations will outpace individual contributors -- so we should focus on what allows us to openly collaborate and tears down barriers to doing that.
But from my point of view, we have a lot of the same incentives between industry and academia:
1. If you want to get promoted, you need projects associated with you and to get noticed.
2. There needs to be some method to decide who gets what amount of bonuses.
3. Funding allocation is tied to past successes.
...and probably some more I'm forgetting.
So I think my experience isn't totally irrelevant -- you get enough signal out of the distribution of the person's name that the loss of whatever from not getting "first" information is eclipsed by the gains from less politics (and if you have a lot of documents, easier parsing).
Again, perhaps it's the industry talking, but I'd rather hire an author that contributed the third most to a large number of papers than someone who contributed first most to a few. One of them seems to be a "force multiplier" in that they're keeping several other ICs moving (and contributing on all those efforts), while one guy just seems a specialist in a particular work.
I don't think removing the "first" signal harms my ability to find those "force multipliers", because they'll still have the same markers (as they weren't showing up first under the other system anyway).
So perhaps I simply have different uses for the rankings than people who feel differently?
I would suggest you consider the emergent properties of these systems of attribution, rather than just the primary affect. Could there be a reason why theoretical fields have small numbers of authors given alphabetically, and experimental fields sometimes have ten or more authors, given in order of "contribution"?
Isn't GitHub just ranking by number of commits? That's not a very good measure of contribution. After all, I don't think tensorflow-gardener is the primary contributor of Tensorflow.
You don't see how ordering purely on name is extremely unfair to those whose first letter of name is one of the last in the alphabet..?
I have such a name -- doesn't particularly bother me.
I understand how people can feel that way though, but my question is -- why is that feeling anything but obsessing over a vanity metric, and actually a useful mechanism for author evaluation?
I understand how people can feel that way though, but my question is -- why is that feeling anything but obsessing over a vanity metric, and actually a useful mechanism for author evaluation?
It's important in the way papers are referenced.
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/skills-citations-harvard#activat...
> If a source has three or more authors, the name of the first author should be given, followed by the phrase "et al".
It might be good if this wasn't the case, but since it is, it's a realistic concern for authors.
Beyond that, really the reason will be that this is what people the people who decide your funding see.
Perhaps a useful example would be like saying if you have more than a few people in your team, anyone referring to your project must say "Alan's team" because Alan's name is the first in the list, even if they're a junior or part time. This is what your bosses see come promotion time, all that great work like Alan's team (2016) and who can forget the amazing piece of work Alan's team (2015).
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/skills-citations-harvard#activat...
> If a source has three or more authors, the name of the first author should be given, followed by the phrase "et al".
It might be good if this wasn't the case, but since it is, it's a realistic concern for authors.
Beyond that, really the reason will be that this is what people the people who decide your funding see.
Perhaps a useful example would be like saying if you have more than a few people in your team, anyone referring to your project must say "Alan's team" because Alan's name is the first in the list, even if they're a junior or part time. This is what your bosses see come promotion time, all that great work like Alan's team (2016) and who can forget the amazing piece of work Alan's team (2015).
In alphabetical fields people avoid saying "Author et. al." for this reason. Lots of famous papers are known by their three- or four-letter acronyms.
If you called "BCS" (superconductivity) "Bardeen et. al." it would take everyone a minute to figure out what you meant, and they'd wonder about your background.
If you called "BCS" (superconductivity) "Bardeen et. al." it would take everyone a minute to figure out what you meant, and they'd wonder about your background.
It shows who did the most work in an unambiguous way. If you have never collaborated on a paper, you'll probably think this is not important, but in reality it is.
Interestingly, some fields where alphabetical order is used have started adding a note that explicitly shows who did how much work.
Interestingly, some fields where alphabetical order is used have started adding a note that explicitly shows who did how much work.
I think the problem is that it's really not that unambiguous. There are general rules to the order but it's not explicit, and being second author doesn't explain in any kind of detail what was done.
I'm quite a fan of explicitly tagging authors for what they did. That way you avoid deciding whether the person who did the stats did "more work" than the person who did the code, etc.
I'm quite a fan of explicitly tagging authors for what they did. That way you avoid deciding whether the person who did the stats did "more work" than the person who did the code, etc.
Nor does it really explain how much was done: was it 90% of the first author's effort, or 9%?
It's an incredibly noisy measure that people nevertheless take seriously.
It's an incredibly noisy measure that people nevertheless take seriously.
Explicit tagging is the best option, yes, but contribution-based is significantly better than just alphabetical.
Typically, the first author did most of the intellectual work. Rarely if ever would the first author be a person who did a lot of practical work but little to no intellectual work.
Typically, the first author did most of the intellectual work. Rarely if ever would the first author be a person who did a lot of practical work but little to no intellectual work.
I agree it's largely better than nothing, though there was that paper recently that got pulled because the authors couldn't agree on the ordering of the names.
In this case, being the last author should matter more. As in, you have a number of first-author publications to prove you can do research yourself, then start publishing as the last author with different first authors, to show you're into management now and can train new first authors.
As an old Russian saying goes, 'a great engineer would never be promoted'.
As an old Russian saying goes, 'a great engineer would never be promoted'.
This is true in life sciences as well although IIRC this is more of a tradition than something written and defined.
Thank you for the explanation!
No wonder there is a reproducibility crisis. This one of the reasons why so many papers out there are so scientifically unimportant and statistically dubious and are only adding noise to human knowledge. Slow down scientists!
Grad school dropout here. I never wanted to be a professor. I have no interest in teaching. I just wanted to research. My degree would have been in CS/ML/NLP.
When I realized that I would be out over half a million dollars in earnings over the time I was in grad school, I made the decision to leave. The fact that my advisor was a terrible researcher and a horrible person made it much easier.
When I realized that I would be out over half a million dollars in earnings over the time I was in grad school, I made the decision to leave. The fact that my advisor was a terrible researcher and a horrible person made it much easier.
wouldn't you have made more at the end?
No. Because I'd have gone to private industry anyway. Starting research and engineering salaries are roughly equivalent. Their respective progressions are about the same too.
You'd only make more money if you founded a company and it was successful. You don't make fuck you money as employee #5000.
You'd only make more money if you founded a company and it was successful. You don't make fuck you money as employee #5000.
At some of the larger tech companies the salaries for scientists/researchers is usually higher than for engineers specifically because of the extra educational requirements. Where I work there are actually on two separate pay scales to account for this. I can't say this is true everywhere but there are definitely cases where you could have made more had you stayed in industry (emphasis on "could", it's not guaranteed).
There's definitely variation from company to company, but the gap isn't huge. Let's say the private research role got me $30k more than engineering. It would take at least 16 years to make up for the 5-6 I spend for a phd. Lots of variables though. I made the right choice for myself.
People usually work for 30 years... Grad school is definitely a long term investment but it's not always the best choice. As you said, in the end you have to do what's right for you.
500 thousand dollars is nothing to sneeze at. The thing about crushing debt is that ... it's absolutely crushing.
one shouldn't run up debt in a STEM graduate program. Sure, there is a big opportunity cost with regard to wages, but that's not crushing debt
My tuition was fully paid and I got a $1600/mo stipend for being a dedicated research assistant. So the opportunity cost wasn't worth it when I discovered I'd be earning the same on either career path.
Especially when you consider compound interest. :)
When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary. The only real commitments are the classes you have to teach and if you minimize the amount of teaching you do, you'll barely be working at all. I knew a history professor that would come into the university for his 1 or 2 classes per week and then would go home for the rest of the day(s). He made 100k+. Not to mention that there are some professors at my university who make close to or over 300k/year and do not teach, but they are much more rare and have fat CVs. The other side of the coin is that before you get tenure, you may be working a lot for very little and only when you're close to 40 (on average) will you be granted tenure.
I'm going to disagree with this for science and engineering. All of my tenured colleagues work very hard. You have to if you want to keep running a lab, which is the main reason why people choose to become professors. If you stop working hard, you will stop getting funding and PhD students. The department will make you teach more and can make your life difficult if you are being a drag on the department, even if they can't fire you.
That said, for the liberal arts, history, etc., things may be different. They don't tend to have large labs and their goals are different. I honestly don't know.
That said, for the liberal arts, history, etc., things may be different. They don't tend to have large labs and their goals are different. I honestly don't know.
Things are different for those doing theoretical science where the main instruments are pen and paper. External funding is often not required at all. This might not please the department, but the tenured professor would be just fine.
When I did my PhD I worked in Math and CS (plus had friends in Physics with similar observations): many professors on the theoretical side had no need for and were not interested in getting grants. They would get some minor travel money for conference expenses and pay themselves over summer so they would not have to teach then, but even if they got nothing they would be just fine on a base salary. And I am talking about reasonably well known full professors, not some young researcher at the end of a rope (career-wise).
Things are different when you have experimental labs to run. That is when you need external funding and have to do all that is involved in getting it (proposals unlimited, etc.)
When I did my PhD I worked in Math and CS (plus had friends in Physics with similar observations): many professors on the theoretical side had no need for and were not interested in getting grants. They would get some minor travel money for conference expenses and pay themselves over summer so they would not have to teach then, but even if they got nothing they would be just fine on a base salary. And I am talking about reasonably well known full professors, not some young researcher at the end of a rope (career-wise).
Things are different when you have experimental labs to run. That is when you need external funding and have to do all that is involved in getting it (proposals unlimited, etc.)
You can't get students without grants. Most professors want students, because they like doing research, and so have to apply for grants.
> You can't get students without grants.
That is definitely not true for many non-experimental science departments. Many students are TAs and as such care not a bit about grants. When I was getting my PhD I had to teach 4.5 hours/week (often structured as 6 and 3 at alternating semesters), which gave me my stipend and free tuition (and was a useful skill to polish). Maybe I spent another 4-5 hours preparing for classes and grading (we got student graders but I seldom asked them anything as grading was quick enough).
I was paid by the department and it did not matter to me whether my advisor got grants or not; what mattered were research interests and his guiding of research. This was the picture across the department; changing advisers was quick and based on mutual interest, not financials / grants.
That is definitely not true for many non-experimental science departments. Many students are TAs and as such care not a bit about grants. When I was getting my PhD I had to teach 4.5 hours/week (often structured as 6 and 3 at alternating semesters), which gave me my stipend and free tuition (and was a useful skill to polish). Maybe I spent another 4-5 hours preparing for classes and grading (we got student graders but I seldom asked them anything as grading was quick enough).
I was paid by the department and it did not matter to me whether my advisor got grants or not; what mattered were research interests and his guiding of research. This was the picture across the department; changing advisers was quick and based on mutual interest, not financials / grants.
That's a very light TA load. It's far more normal to have a 20-30 hour a week commitment to your TA responsibilities (multiple lectures, grading a few hundred assignments every few weeks, etc) so it's a lot harder to fit research around that.
Are you serious? Can you share the school and department? This is an honest question -- I always thought 4-5 lecture or classroom hours was normal. That's what I had and that's what my friends had. Most of us never even used graders assigned as grading duties were light and it would often be more trouble to explain how you wanted it graded anyhow.
I have never heard of a 20 hour TA load. Again, just wondering.
I have never heard of a 20 hour TA load. Again, just wondering.
Every CS department I have ever heard of has a 20 hour TA load as standard.
I was in a stats department for grad school. My assistantship load was nominally 20 hours, but I managed to teach a course as a GI in probably ~10 hours/week (doing my own grading). It took more time commitment if it was my first time teaching the course, and when I had to write/grade exams.
I'd imagine my experience wasn't an uncommon one.
I'd imagine my experience wasn't an uncommon one.
20 hours of work is pretty extreme and I suspect cuts down on your mental ability to do research (you have to take classes, too). I suspect the department usually has to say it is a 20 hr/wk position (probably so student gets free tuition), but the actual work is often less -- my friend who went to U of Maryland for PhD in CS had a similar experience to mine -- 7-10 hours a week of actual work at most.
This is just a couple of data points, though. Maybe we were just lucky.
This is just a couple of data points, though. Maybe we were just lucky.
It's not just the lab supplies. I worked at an institute that reserved the right to cut salaries if an individual was not bringing in enough money.
>> When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
There is another benefit (of course, understanding with all the dues you have to pay along the way.) JOB SECURITY While I make more than a professor, as with most tech jobs I can lose it anytime. When the economy is bad, even great job performance is no guarantee for continued employment. Sometimes entire companies disappear. It is difficult to understand this if you havent been thru a downturn (I've been thru 2) and it is difficult to appreciate this until you have hard responsibilities in live (mortgages, family to support.)
This is another reason why many jobs which pay less (government jobs, k-12 education, police forces, etc) are still attractive -- because they offer relatively more job security. It means you can commit to liabilities -- a higher mortgage, etc without having to sock away funds for rainy days.
There is another benefit (of course, understanding with all the dues you have to pay along the way.) JOB SECURITY While I make more than a professor, as with most tech jobs I can lose it anytime. When the economy is bad, even great job performance is no guarantee for continued employment. Sometimes entire companies disappear. It is difficult to understand this if you havent been thru a downturn (I've been thru 2) and it is difficult to appreciate this until you have hard responsibilities in live (mortgages, family to support.)
This is another reason why many jobs which pay less (government jobs, k-12 education, police forces, etc) are still attractive -- because they offer relatively more job security. It means you can commit to liabilities -- a higher mortgage, etc without having to sock away funds for rainy days.
Great point about job security being a valuable part of tenure. I read "Are you a stock or a bond" and the author (a professor, actually) recommended that folks treat their income stream (and the safety of that) in a similar manner to other investments. So if I have tenure, I can invest more in risky assets (possibly even on margin). If I am a software contractor, I should invest more in bonds because my income stream isn't stable.
Thought that was a great way to think about income stability in an actionable manner.
Thought that was a great way to think about income stability in an actionable manner.
When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
Pretty much all the tenured professors I know well work their asses off - and due to area of expertise, many of them could make 2x - 5x salary in industry but aren't interested.
"When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary. The only real commitments are the classes you have to teach."
I doubt this is true for the United States, but it is definitely false for many European countries. Tenure gives you job security, but it also brings an enormous amount of administrative obligations. In my experience, conversations with tenured faculty tend to revolve around how much they hate the endless bullshit meetings they are required to attend, the long many-page forms they have to constantly fill out for uni administration, and how it has really eaten into their time for research or family life.
I doubt this is true for the United States, but it is definitely false for many European countries. Tenure gives you job security, but it also brings an enormous amount of administrative obligations. In my experience, conversations with tenured faculty tend to revolve around how much they hate the endless bullshit meetings they are required to attend, the long many-page forms they have to constantly fill out for uni administration, and how it has really eaten into their time for research or family life.
I think you mean the amount of work you have to do. Tenured professors typically get that way by (1) being passionate about their subject and (2) working very hard -- as well as (3) being really good at it, of course -- and the amount of work they actually do may be a lot more than the amount they have to do.
>When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
I think you are mixing up the amount of work a tenured professor has to do with the amount of work they do do.
A tenured professor has to do very little. The idea (even if not the reality) is that a tenured professor has proven themselves enough that the one employing them is willing to ease back any rules so the professor can do science like they want to.
The end result should be (and I think is, but I don't have any hard data at the moment) is that tenured professor do a far larger amount of work than they have to, and are comparable if not even greater than other professions with similar salaries. In large part because they are doing what they love.
Consider a programmer who loves programming and does it at home and at work. A professor is similar, except since they get to pick the topic they work on (to some extent), they are working on the same project both at home and at work.
The last tenured professor I worked under put in a lot more than 40 hours, and he was high up enough to not have any classes to teach (I think he periodically taught a grad class, but it wasn't ever semester).
I think you are mixing up the amount of work a tenured professor has to do with the amount of work they do do.
A tenured professor has to do very little. The idea (even if not the reality) is that a tenured professor has proven themselves enough that the one employing them is willing to ease back any rules so the professor can do science like they want to.
The end result should be (and I think is, but I don't have any hard data at the moment) is that tenured professor do a far larger amount of work than they have to, and are comparable if not even greater than other professions with similar salaries. In large part because they are doing what they love.
Consider a programmer who loves programming and does it at home and at work. A professor is similar, except since they get to pick the topic they work on (to some extent), they are working on the same project both at home and at work.
The last tenured professor I worked under put in a lot more than 40 hours, and he was high up enough to not have any classes to teach (I think he periodically taught a grad class, but it wasn't ever semester).
There are lazy and burned out tenured profs. But they are a small minority. To get tenure at a good school, you have to be something of a work beast, and self-driven. That doesn't go away just because you get the tenure letter in your mailbox one day.
I know hundreds of tenured profs in science and engineering and there is a very strong work culture.
I know hundreds of tenured profs in science and engineering and there is a very strong work culture.
When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
Some of the hardest working people I know are tenured professors. Managing international research projects is no walk in the park.
Some of the hardest working people I know are tenured professors. Managing international research projects is no walk in the park.
> Some of the hardest working people I know are tenured professors.
Some of the harder working people I know are post docs...
Some of the harder working people I know are post docs...
Teaching is a distraction to the real work that goes on in universities. Just because you don't see professors teaching, doesn't mean that they aren't working extremely hard, on very important and stressful tasks (i.e. tasks that are fundamental to the university being a viable organisation)
> Teaching is a distraction to the real work that goes on in universities.
This is the most concise statement I've ever seen of the sickness at the heart of the academy. By and large, and with a few heroic exceptions, professors don't value instruction. It's why I was told my ambition to improve the preparation of engineering graduates through better instruction was a fool's errand, "career suicide" in my advisor's words. And it's why I took my Ph.D. and left academia. This attitude is going to come back and bite them when the marks wise up.
This is the most concise statement I've ever seen of the sickness at the heart of the academy. By and large, and with a few heroic exceptions, professors don't value instruction. It's why I was told my ambition to improve the preparation of engineering graduates through better instruction was a fool's errand, "career suicide" in my advisor's words. And it's why I took my Ph.D. and left academia. This attitude is going to come back and bite them when the marks wise up.
Your adviser was right though. If there was an infinite amount of money then they'd have lecturers who are dedicated to lecturing. But there is never enough money so...what options are there but to do the things that will bring more in so that your role/group/department/university survives.
I've seen it myself...groups whither and disappear due to lack of funds.
I've seen it myself...groups whither and disappear due to lack of funds.
You're right, of course, there's no place for teachers in the academy, except as members of that most degraded and despised class, contingent faculty. But I think this is a serious problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but many recipients of engineering degrees being turned out by our well-respected institutions of higher learning can't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag. I worked with people who didn't understand the physical models underlying their discipline. I worked with people who didn't trust statistics, who were easily misled by noise in their data and preferred to eyeball regression lines. I worked with one individual who somehow had a B.S. in electrical engineering despite having real trouble with the concept of plotting points on a Cartesian coordinate plane. These people had degrees from R1 universities. The indifference of career academics to these outcomes is a disaster. It's a disaster I'd hoped to avert, but I can only do my best to get out of its way.
No doubt about it. People made it through 4 years of my CS degree from a good university, and couldn't code a line. However these people all found their place in the workforce which suited their own skills.
I'm not sure how much can be done at the teaching level, but like you, it's something I'd also like to help correct.
I'm not sure how much can be done at the teaching level, but like you, it's something I'd also like to help correct.
I can easily accept it in some European country where government pays for it all. I have much harder time to accept this paradigm in USA, where 19 years old are paying a lot of money or going into debt just so they can study at the university.
Yes, college graduates do better then non college graduates which is why those people still do it. But since they are paying a lot of money, university literally owns them more then just "you are a distraction".
Yes, college graduates do better then non college graduates which is why those people still do it. But since they are paying a lot of money, university literally owns them more then just "you are a distraction".
> where 19 years old are paying a lot of money or going into debt just so they can study at the university.
True enough. My Euro-centric brain didn't consider this. Even in Europe actually, non-European students pay a lot to join a course.
My sense is that American unis do offer some "value for money" when compared to European schools, through flexible options for minors and majors, and grad school. Maybe the teachers are still poor though.
True enough. My Euro-centric brain didn't consider this. Even in Europe actually, non-European students pay a lot to join a course.
My sense is that American unis do offer some "value for money" when compared to European schools, through flexible options for minors and majors, and grad school. Maybe the teachers are still poor though.
Do undergraduate fees contribute to a faculty's research funding? And if not why are student fees so high, if there is such a low (albeit understandable) emphasis on undergraduate teaching?
In my country (and all of Europe) no. The fees are a nominal administration fee, which admittedly is crawling higher each year. The government, and the EU, then funds each student, and yeah that money would help with research.
I'd suggest that faculty don't want there to be a low emphasis on teaching, it's just that there aren't enough resources to do the critical tasks first. This is bearing in mind that teaching duties are always fulfilled either way (just not to the satisfaction of some people).
I'd suggest that faculty don't want there to be a low emphasis on teaching, it's just that there aren't enough resources to do the critical tasks first. This is bearing in mind that teaching duties are always fulfilled either way (just not to the satisfaction of some people).
I think our difference in perspective is a result of our experience with different systems. I've met a number of professors who expressed contempt toward the undergraduate population at the Big State U where I did my graduate studies. It's not that they're reluctantly doing a bad job at teaching, they're doing a bad job and they really don't care.
> When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
No. False.
No. False.
Perhaps this is true in some countries. In the USA and Europe, the average professor works 61 hours a week and encounters very high levels of stress, linked to continuously having to obtain research funds.
> 61 hours a week
That's an oddly specific number that I wouldn't expect to agree exactly across the USA and "Europe". Do you have a source?
That's an oddly specific number that I wouldn't expect to agree exactly across the USA and "Europe". Do you have a source?
>When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
In my experience, the exact opposite is overwhelmingly true.
In my experience, the exact opposite is overwhelmingly true.
measuring output of intellectual pursuits is a fool's game. that history professor may be spending all their time watching Netflix, or they might be reading and thinking and conversing with their colleagues, participating in the general intellectual milieu, without publishing anything, but still making a positive and important contribution to society.
Besides, sometimes you will pursue an idea for a year or two and find out that it comes to nothing, and you have very little to show for it. But not giving professors the space and trust to do just that is counterproductive in the long run.
Besides, sometimes you will pursue an idea for a year or two and find out that it comes to nothing, and you have very little to show for it. But not giving professors the space and trust to do just that is counterproductive in the long run.
Watching my supervisor in engineering convinced me that I did not want to become a professor. He worked hard... teaching, mentoring, grant writing, plus a whole pile of administrative duties.
My programming 101 teacher was exactly like this except instead of going home he would go to his lab. He was extremely disorganized and would spend the first 30-45 minutes of class making sure his java programs were working for the lecture.
A student finally asked him why he doesn’t come prepared to class. His response was he teaches he easiest class the can and only the minimum amount of classes he needs to. He wanted to work on his research and get grants not teach.
He was making 150k.
A student finally asked him why he doesn’t come prepared to class. His response was he teaches he easiest class the can and only the minimum amount of classes he needs to. He wanted to work on his research and get grants not teach.
He was making 150k.
> He wanted to work on his research and get grants not teach.
Working on research that's worthy of grants is extremely taxing, and is the part that makes universities function. Teaching undergrads is a chore.
Working on research that's worthy of grants is extremely taxing, and is the part that makes universities function. Teaching undergrads is a chore.
I understand but the students are the ones struggling due to an absent teacher. I’m greatful he wants to do research but jaded due to the fact he doesnt care about the class or students.
My education was subpar due to his lack of effort.
My education was subpar due to his lack of effort.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm only too aware that expertise in a field doesn't make you a good teacher. I did badly in some subjects for the same reason, I feel.
>When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.
If you're in a decently good school, this is not true.
>The only real commitments are the classes you have to teach and if you minimize the amount of teaching you do, you'll barely be working at all.
In both universities I went to, the only way to reduce teaching loads was to pay your way out of it. And the only way professors would do that would be to get grant money to supplement the lost income.
As for the history professor making $100K, what is the COL in that area? In my university, I just looked it up, and they average about $75K (which, to be frank, is decent for the little work they do).
In any case, most of the 80 hour/week work is in engineering and science...
If you're in a decently good school, this is not true.
>The only real commitments are the classes you have to teach and if you minimize the amount of teaching you do, you'll barely be working at all.
In both universities I went to, the only way to reduce teaching loads was to pay your way out of it. And the only way professors would do that would be to get grant money to supplement the lost income.
As for the history professor making $100K, what is the COL in that area? In my university, I just looked it up, and they average about $75K (which, to be frank, is decent for the little work they do).
In any case, most of the 80 hour/week work is in engineering and science...
From that POV tenure could be considered deferred compensation, but it is more likely that it is a sinecure.
Having spent 7 years getting a PhD (and a year prior working at a top lab), and then at industry; one of the most amusing facts to me is the belief in academia that professors/postdocs have much longer hours and "work harder" than their "9-5" colleagues in industry.
If you speak with recovering professors and post-docs who've joined industry, you'll quickly realize that one of their big surprises is the faster pace of work, and how much of it there is. Publishing of course is not sufficient, it actually has to work, at scale, reproducibly.
I like the academic environment, because at its best, it allows you explore something very deeply. Efficiency and creativity are different goals. There is value to a meandering path. Even if industry may have a fast pace solving problems, academia at its best, makes you ask a better / different question.
If you speak with recovering professors and post-docs who've joined industry, you'll quickly realize that one of their big surprises is the faster pace of work, and how much of it there is. Publishing of course is not sufficient, it actually has to work, at scale, reproducibly.
I like the academic environment, because at its best, it allows you explore something very deeply. Efficiency and creativity are different goals. There is value to a meandering path. Even if industry may have a fast pace solving problems, academia at its best, makes you ask a better / different question.
'Professor' is a job description, you usually need a PhD to apply for the job, but it's not always a hard requirement. There are many more people with PhD's than Professor jobs. In my experience its the politically astute that get the job, its much less of a meritocracy than one would assume.
Absolutely my experience as well. The grad students I've seen make it to professorship positions are all the ones who:
1. Sacrifice all social life outside science.
2. Play the schmoozing and reputation management game very well (Twitter is taking off for this).
3. Mercilessly squeeze every last drop of productivity out of the undergrads assigned to them.
1. Sacrifice all social life outside science.
2. Play the schmoozing and reputation management game very well (Twitter is taking off for this).
3. Mercilessly squeeze every last drop of productivity out of the undergrads assigned to them.
[deleted]
>> Lastly, I want to add that a PhD is a degree in learning how to do research and in becoming one of the world's foremost experts on a particular topic.
I think that also goes to answer the question about motivation despite long hours and low salaries. Knowledge is its own reward, I guess.
Also, doing work that really satisfies you is a big privilege. Big big privilege. Not many people enjoy that, the world over.
I think that also goes to answer the question about motivation despite long hours and low salaries. Knowledge is its own reward, I guess.
Also, doing work that really satisfies you is a big privilege. Big big privilege. Not many people enjoy that, the world over.
> doing work that really satisfies you is a big privilege
This is also quite rare in Academia. Much of the work is still just as unenjoyable as a normal job.
This is also quite rare in Academia. Much of the work is still just as unenjoyable as a normal job.
I'm really interested in applications of technology (including AI, ML, etc.) in business. But the only way I can get into any US university is by doing a Ph.D. (I live abroad).
Is it at all possible for a person doing Operations/MIS/Quant_marketing - whose main job is econometrics and ML - to not end up in academia after completing his Ph.D.?
Is it at all possible for a person doing Operations/MIS/Quant_marketing - whose main job is econometrics and ML - to not end up in academia after completing his Ph.D.?
Not just possible, extremely likely. That's the whole point of the article: even if you wanted to stay in academia, you would struggle to do so.
Of course, there are plenty of jobs in the industry for PhDs. Another option you might want to consider if you don't enjoy doing research is a Master's program in the US - which gives you some extra training, access to recruiters, a network, etc.
As someone thinking about pursuing a PhD to ultimately become a professor, can you link me to your talks or blog posts on the subject of what's required to be competitive?
I can give you my anecdotal perspective.
Out of the 18 in my cohort, two are doing reasonable postdocs (i.e. positions that aren't just treading water, but should actually lead to a reasonable career) and one who has been remarkably successful (success being a 'young investigator' grant - basically an R1 - and just recently another million+, within two years of PhD). The rest (including me) are doing ... other stuff.
Here are some traits of the successful PhD:
* Mother is professor in a related-ish field. Sister is also a PI of a gov't lab. Has been steeped in research and academia (especially the interpersonal aspects of this!) for decades. His success is 100% merited, but without question this has aided him tremendously.
* Reads papers constantly. I don't know anyone that's as familiar with the literature as he is, including all the faculty I've gotten to know. Has strong opinions about various labs, papers, and researchers, all of which are very well substantiated. TONS of 'soft' knowledge about how so-and-so got this or that funding, why such-and-such research is bunk, etc. If you don't think half the faculty in your doctoral program are trash, you're not being critical.
* Not a terribly great bench scientist. Definitely competent, but not remarkable. He knows it, though.
* Holds many unpopular opinions, and strategically focuses his research goals on the 'achievable'. In other words, he doesn't let being right get in the way of his career. Don't interpret this overly cynically; you can absolutely go against the flow in academia, but big claims require big evidence, and your time is limited. His research focus has shifted a lot depending on the landscape in front of him. I think this is commendable, as idealism in research is extremely fraught, even if some would criticize this. FWIW, he published a 'comment' in science that basically shits all over a garbage paper, which is more than most will do.
* 10 'real' publications since starting PhD in 2010, 7 as first author. By this I mean actual original research in a journal of repute, not reviews or bottom-tier trash. And this covers what are easily considered 3 different topics/fields.
* PhD advisor is Academy member, post-doc advisor is Academy member, institution is top-3 in field, arguably 1 or 2, etc.
The core takeaway is that you need to understand your field (in a very wide sense of the term) and direct your research productively according to that.
You certainly don't need all that to become a professor at Podunk-U, but I think that's a good archetype for a successful investigator. The other successful PhD (different cohort) I know has a very similar story; dad is a 'big dog' in an even more similar field as the son, similarly productive, similarly knowledgeable, etc. I feel pretty confident that this is what's needed for success at a major research university. Though, many unsuccessful faculty will be hired as well (through luck and, very often, nepotism), so YMMV.
If you really like to read papers in your free time, I think that's a very good sign. Even better if what you like best is to read between the lines and really be critical of the work. Very few people, even in doctoral programs, are like this. Know and respect your weaknesses, as well, and you could be great.
Out of the 18 in my cohort, two are doing reasonable postdocs (i.e. positions that aren't just treading water, but should actually lead to a reasonable career) and one who has been remarkably successful (success being a 'young investigator' grant - basically an R1 - and just recently another million+, within two years of PhD). The rest (including me) are doing ... other stuff.
Here are some traits of the successful PhD:
* Mother is professor in a related-ish field. Sister is also a PI of a gov't lab. Has been steeped in research and academia (especially the interpersonal aspects of this!) for decades. His success is 100% merited, but without question this has aided him tremendously.
* Reads papers constantly. I don't know anyone that's as familiar with the literature as he is, including all the faculty I've gotten to know. Has strong opinions about various labs, papers, and researchers, all of which are very well substantiated. TONS of 'soft' knowledge about how so-and-so got this or that funding, why such-and-such research is bunk, etc. If you don't think half the faculty in your doctoral program are trash, you're not being critical.
* Not a terribly great bench scientist. Definitely competent, but not remarkable. He knows it, though.
* Holds many unpopular opinions, and strategically focuses his research goals on the 'achievable'. In other words, he doesn't let being right get in the way of his career. Don't interpret this overly cynically; you can absolutely go against the flow in academia, but big claims require big evidence, and your time is limited. His research focus has shifted a lot depending on the landscape in front of him. I think this is commendable, as idealism in research is extremely fraught, even if some would criticize this. FWIW, he published a 'comment' in science that basically shits all over a garbage paper, which is more than most will do.
* 10 'real' publications since starting PhD in 2010, 7 as first author. By this I mean actual original research in a journal of repute, not reviews or bottom-tier trash. And this covers what are easily considered 3 different topics/fields.
* PhD advisor is Academy member, post-doc advisor is Academy member, institution is top-3 in field, arguably 1 or 2, etc.
The core takeaway is that you need to understand your field (in a very wide sense of the term) and direct your research productively according to that.
You certainly don't need all that to become a professor at Podunk-U, but I think that's a good archetype for a successful investigator. The other successful PhD (different cohort) I know has a very similar story; dad is a 'big dog' in an even more similar field as the son, similarly productive, similarly knowledgeable, etc. I feel pretty confident that this is what's needed for success at a major research university. Though, many unsuccessful faculty will be hired as well (through luck and, very often, nepotism), so YMMV.
If you really like to read papers in your free time, I think that's a very good sign. Even better if what you like best is to read between the lines and really be critical of the work. Very few people, even in doctoral programs, are like this. Know and respect your weaknesses, as well, and you could be great.
When deciding to do my PhD I did so under the assumption that I wouldn't work in academia afterward. I evaluated it like a any other job offer at the time and decided that the tax free pay, coupled with the freedom to run my project how I wanted and work on what I wanted (within reason) for a fixed period of time was a better offer than a grad scheme with BAE, Nissan, Seimens etc.
Doing a PhD built a large array of skills that I didn't have from my undergrad and allowed me to learn practical skills in a fairly low risk environment and explore other avenues. It let me realise that I wanted to start a business, it taxed me mentally like nothing before, it prepared me to hold myself accountable and that if I don't do the work then it doesn't get done and gave me the breathing space to work out what I wanted to do that my undergrad didn't.
As the article says, I don't think a PhD is only valuable for a career in academia, it can be an excellent bridge to industry if you are prepared for that at the end.
Doing a PhD built a large array of skills that I didn't have from my undergrad and allowed me to learn practical skills in a fairly low risk environment and explore other avenues. It let me realise that I wanted to start a business, it taxed me mentally like nothing before, it prepared me to hold myself accountable and that if I don't do the work then it doesn't get done and gave me the breathing space to work out what I wanted to do that my undergrad didn't.
As the article says, I don't think a PhD is only valuable for a career in academia, it can be an excellent bridge to industry if you are prepared for that at the end.
This is basically the same thing I did, except that I worked as a programmer at a startup before going back to school for a PhD.
It was better than doing a startup by a stupidly huge margin. Startups are all about risk-minimization and risk-mitigation, since risky things mostly fail, and so use up your runway without moving you closer to success. So in a startup you are highly incentivized not to take big risks -- and research is always a risk. So you are driven to take an engineering mindset, where the apex of skill is to solve a new problem using only old, entirely proven techniques.
In contrast, after my first project as a PhD student, my advisor straight-up told me that I needed to shed the engineering mindset to succeed. Inventing new techniques was the goal, and so you need to adopt a mentality of confronting problems head on (rather than designing the system to avoid confronting them).
Basically a PhD puts you in an environment where you can take on big, poorly-understood and poorly-defined problems and attack them over and over again. Going from a blank sheet of paper to a solution (or clear failure) in six months 10 times over is an amazing way of improving your skills, and IME it's really hard to get this experience in industry (even though it's really valuable to have this experience in industry).
It was better than doing a startup by a stupidly huge margin. Startups are all about risk-minimization and risk-mitigation, since risky things mostly fail, and so use up your runway without moving you closer to success. So in a startup you are highly incentivized not to take big risks -- and research is always a risk. So you are driven to take an engineering mindset, where the apex of skill is to solve a new problem using only old, entirely proven techniques.
In contrast, after my first project as a PhD student, my advisor straight-up told me that I needed to shed the engineering mindset to succeed. Inventing new techniques was the goal, and so you need to adopt a mentality of confronting problems head on (rather than designing the system to avoid confronting them).
Basically a PhD puts you in an environment where you can take on big, poorly-understood and poorly-defined problems and attack them over and over again. Going from a blank sheet of paper to a solution (or clear failure) in six months 10 times over is an amazing way of improving your skills, and IME it's really hard to get this experience in industry (even though it's really valuable to have this experience in industry).
Wow. I'm a few months into a PhD after having worked at a startup for a number of years, I just completed my first project, and just a few weeks ago my advisor had the "you need to stop thinking like you're building a product" talk with me. It's definitely tough to make that mindset change.
>In contrast, after my first project as a PhD student, my advisor straight-up told me that I needed to shed the engineering mindset to succeed. Inventing new techniques was the goal, and so you need to adopt a mentality of confronting problems head on (rather than designing the system to avoid confronting them).
That sounds heavenly.
That sounds heavenly.
If you have the mindset for this type of work, then a PhD is an amazing experience. There are only a select few places that give you that much freedom.
If you don't have this mindset, a PhD will make you very angry, and you'll feel like you've wasted several years of your life.
If you don't have this mindset, a PhD will make you very angry, and you'll feel like you've wasted several years of your life.
I'd never thought about it quite like that but that really matches my experience. Most of what I tried didn't work but I got to keep trying other ways without some yelling about why attempts 1, 2 and 3 failed. Great fun looking back, glad I'm not still in academia though.
> the freedom to run my project how I wanted and work on what I wanted (within reason) for a fixed period of time was a better offer than a grad scheme with BAE, Nissan, Seimens etc.
Don't know where you're doing your PhD (based on your comment about tax-free pay, I gather you're not in the States). That's not how things work in most places. You enter grad school with a vague idea of what research you want to do, and in 9 out of 10 cases you'll be doing something entirely different. The research you'll be doing is whatever your advisor has funding for. It's not "your" project at all, it's your advisor's, and your job is to produce the deliverables that he promised as part of his grant proposal. Consequently, you have very little freedom about what you're doing and how you're doing it.
Don't know where you're doing your PhD (based on your comment about tax-free pay, I gather you're not in the States). That's not how things work in most places. You enter grad school with a vague idea of what research you want to do, and in 9 out of 10 cases you'll be doing something entirely different. The research you'll be doing is whatever your advisor has funding for. It's not "your" project at all, it's your advisor's, and your job is to produce the deliverables that he promised as part of his grant proposal. Consequently, you have very little freedom about what you're doing and how you're doing it.
The department had a CASE (I think that’s right, it was 7 years ago since I left) award which funded the fairly broad topic of resilient electronics over multiple years and I was able to carve out a segment of that for high temperature energy harvesting (no point developing high temperature sensors if you can power them). I decided the direction, I determined what the project needed and so long as it worked towards high temperature energy harvesting I was good to go. My supervisor was amazing, on day 1 he said “I have two aims. 1: to get you passed and out the door in 3 years and 2: make sure you could do my job at the end of those three years” as a result of point 2 we were given a lot of breadth on self management and point 1 meant he was always around if we needed him - I never had to wait more than 6 hours to see him unless he was on holiday
"BAE, Nissan, Seimens"
I'd guess UK and in my experience your description is correct - people can only have a very vague idea when they start a PhD and you've got to work out the detail of what exactly you are doing with your supervisor over the first 6 months to 1 year.
I'd guess UK and in my experience your description is correct - people can only have a very vague idea when they start a PhD and you've got to work out the detail of what exactly you are doing with your supervisor over the first 6 months to 1 year.
Well guessed, I’ve added some further detail in my response above
> tax free pay
Wow what? Is the US? I def got taxed -- and audited because the funding agency screwed up some paperwork -- on my PhD income, while on federal fellowships no less.
Wow what? Is the US? I def got taxed -- and audited because the funding agency screwed up some paperwork -- on my PhD income, while on federal fellowships no less.
UK, paid as a stipend so tax free - not a huge amount but with an industry sponsor you can be on the equivalent of a grad scheme + a bit
I don't think a PhD is only valuable for a career in academia
I thought it was pretty well established that this depends heavily on your field.
I thought it was pretty well established that this depends heavily on your field.
Depends on your definition of “valuable”
Academia nowadays is a high-tech bureaucracy; you are forced to churn out documents (papers) that need to cite other documents, and you're evaluated based on your position in the inter-document citation network.
Then you have to write other documents (grant proposals) to grab money to write more documents (papers) by gaming the inner mechanics of some comittee.
If partner-track investment bankers are overworked, depressed sociopaths with Lamborghinis, then tenure-track postdocs are investment bankers with crappy bicycles.
Needless to say, I left academia 3 years ago and never looked back.
Then you have to write other documents (grant proposals) to grab money to write more documents (papers) by gaming the inner mechanics of some comittee.
If partner-track investment bankers are overworked, depressed sociopaths with Lamborghinis, then tenure-track postdocs are investment bankers with crappy bicycles.
Needless to say, I left academia 3 years ago and never looked back.
-Working for a big tech company: you're writing code to deliver more ads to more people so the company can grow and deliver even more ads to even more people
-Being a truck driver: you're moving boxes around
-Being a professional hockey player: you and your team are moving really fast with a disk shaped object trying to put it in a net while people try to prevent you from doing it
-Being a stock trader: making money by spending your whole life reading company reports and hoping you're right about whether they're doing well or not
-Being a quant: using your hard earned computer science skills to move money around and turn a profit instead of helping humanity
Almost every human endeavor can be trivialized if you choose to only see one side of it.
-Being a truck driver: you're moving boxes around
-Being a professional hockey player: you and your team are moving really fast with a disk shaped object trying to put it in a net while people try to prevent you from doing it
-Being a stock trader: making money by spending your whole life reading company reports and hoping you're right about whether they're doing well or not
-Being a quant: using your hard earned computer science skills to move money around and turn a profit instead of helping humanity
Almost every human endeavor can be trivialized if you choose to only see one side of it.
Tenured professor here.
You're right in some sense, although I think those other fields are different in that people are honest upfront about what you're doing, and people see the value in the tediousness.
Academics, though, reached some inflection point (not too long ago really) where papers are just published, or grants proposals are written, just so it can be put on a CV. There's a huge discrepancy between the activity and its purpose, and a lot of denial about what's going on.
The denial seems to be decreasing a little, with more and more pieces like this Nature article, but I don't think the general public really understands the nature of the problems involved, nor are scientists really often honest about the nature of scientific work today.
One issue that's missing from this article is the impact of these trends on senior academics: it makes it almost impossible to move from one institution to a next, because of the volumes of young Ph.D. grads that are available. So if you are stuck in a problem institution, or in a poor institution-fit, or your spouse needs a job elsewhere, you're f*d, to put it mildly. This then creates all sorts of problems up the chain, where you have senior people whose careers would improve if they could move, and people staying would be happier, but they can't, or it takes forever. It leads to all kinds of problematic interpersonal problems that would be resolved easily in another field by someone just moving someplace else they'd be happier at. In academics, your career is often tied to a particular institution, because of the glut of qualified graduates, which is totally screwed up.
Academics has become cannabilistic. You're expected to just sort of throw yourself and your family at the altar of "science," the meaning of which is increasingly corrupted and distorted.
You're right in some sense, although I think those other fields are different in that people are honest upfront about what you're doing, and people see the value in the tediousness.
Academics, though, reached some inflection point (not too long ago really) where papers are just published, or grants proposals are written, just so it can be put on a CV. There's a huge discrepancy between the activity and its purpose, and a lot of denial about what's going on.
The denial seems to be decreasing a little, with more and more pieces like this Nature article, but I don't think the general public really understands the nature of the problems involved, nor are scientists really often honest about the nature of scientific work today.
One issue that's missing from this article is the impact of these trends on senior academics: it makes it almost impossible to move from one institution to a next, because of the volumes of young Ph.D. grads that are available. So if you are stuck in a problem institution, or in a poor institution-fit, or your spouse needs a job elsewhere, you're f*d, to put it mildly. This then creates all sorts of problems up the chain, where you have senior people whose careers would improve if they could move, and people staying would be happier, but they can't, or it takes forever. It leads to all kinds of problematic interpersonal problems that would be resolved easily in another field by someone just moving someplace else they'd be happier at. In academics, your career is often tied to a particular institution, because of the glut of qualified graduates, which is totally screwed up.
Academics has become cannabilistic. You're expected to just sort of throw yourself and your family at the altar of "science," the meaning of which is increasingly corrupted and distorted.
Baker/cook: you're making food for people, either to nourish them or give them joy.
Farmer: you're making food for people.
Construction worker: you're making buildings for people to live or work or play in.
I think the problem is that many of our jobs are crappy, not that almost every human endeavor is equivalent to pushing paper around. Nurses, doctors, etc, are doing important work as well. The bad part is when it's 90% paper (common in healthcare in the US).
Find you a tech company that is actually building something physical, not just selling ads.
Farmer: you're making food for people.
Construction worker: you're making buildings for people to live or work or play in.
I think the problem is that many of our jobs are crappy, not that almost every human endeavor is equivalent to pushing paper around. Nurses, doctors, etc, are doing important work as well. The bad part is when it's 90% paper (common in healthcare in the US).
Find you a tech company that is actually building something physical, not just selling ads.
Curiously none of the jobs you mentioned are well paid (well, I guess it depends on who you mean to include, since owning a farm or being Mario Batali probably isn't bad). But besides that I think we could do the same thing, really. A cynic could say a farmer just grows surplus corn to collect subsidies on ethanol.
Most farmers don't grow ethanol. And ethanol is a fuel, it isn't just paper, regardless of the subsidies.
As far as being well-paid: farmers are fairly well-paid. They have to work hard and use a LOT of what you might call automation (combine harvesters and the like).
But to your point: I sometimes am persuaded by the conjecture that we developed BS paper-pushing jobs for people since we've automated away farming, much of manufacturing, etc. Office Space comes to mind, too.
As far as being well-paid: farmers are fairly well-paid. They have to work hard and use a LOT of what you might call automation (combine harvesters and the like).
But to your point: I sometimes am persuaded by the conjecture that we developed BS paper-pushing jobs for people since we've automated away farming, much of manufacturing, etc. Office Space comes to mind, too.
Well, a lot of people work on a farm who are not by any stretch of the imagination rich, and someone operating a large factory farm is probably not the image that comes to mind when you think "farmer," is what I meant to say.
As for the ethanol, it's a fuel, but without the subsidies and legal mandates would there be a good reason to use it? I'd always heard it's not really efficient and the environmental impact is negligible-to-negative, even though on the surface being renewable is good.
As for the ethanol, it's a fuel, but without the subsidies and legal mandates would there be a good reason to use it? I'd always heard it's not really efficient and the environmental impact is negligible-to-negative, even though on the surface being renewable is good.
Ethanol mandates really kicked off in the W administration. I think it's worth remembering that at the time, the primary motivation was probably more geopolitical than climate: ethanol is domestically produced, as are many of the energy inputs (such as electricity and natural gas). The US now produces a non-trivial amount of ethanol, enough that if it were removed from the market, we'd probably import significantly more foreign oil.
But I digress.
But I digress.
I guess my point was that the "moral" aspect of academia (="pushing the limits of knowledge") has faded away over the last few decades.
Currently departments are pressing researchers towards output rather than long-term quality work - at least that was the key aspect of my post-doctoral experience.
Currently departments are pressing researchers towards output rather than long-term quality work - at least that was the key aspect of my post-doctoral experience.
This is essentially exactly why I have not chosen to do a PhD, but go into industry. The bureaucracy is intense in academia and you can in some places spend far too long brown-nosing upper-positions to get anywhere at all.
Some of the horror stories I've heard from older people who have done a PhD are awful. For example, apparently, it's quite often that there will be a collection of people gossiping when a particular upper senior will retire or die so that they can all compete for the opened slot. It's quite terrible and grimy when you get past the good PR angle that the Universities and mass media portray. Just like any bureaucracy.
Some of the horror stories I've heard from older people who have done a PhD are awful. For example, apparently, it's quite often that there will be a collection of people gossiping when a particular upper senior will retire or die so that they can all compete for the opened slot. It's quite terrible and grimy when you get past the good PR angle that the Universities and mass media portray. Just like any bureaucracy.
Not a big fan of academia either, but I don't see how this is any different than upper management/leaderahip positions in industry.
It's true that you need to eat the same shit, but at least upper mgmt/leadership pays much better.
I wouldn't extrapolate too far from those horror stories you heard. My experience was nothing like what you describe. Plus there are many reasons to get a PhD other than going into academia and when you're a grad student you don't have to deal with any of the politics or the other "grimy" parts (at least not in the vast majority of cases).
There are many downsides to academia, the papermill mentality that has become pervasive being a big one, but this picture of a morally bankrupt subculture where people do whatever they can to get to the top is nothing like what I experienced.
There are many downsides to academia, the papermill mentality that has become pervasive being a big one, but this picture of a morally bankrupt subculture where people do whatever they can to get to the top is nothing like what I experienced.
Actually, I see the same problems, but in my opinion those are symtoms. I do not know whats the real problem behind it, but it seems related to financing.
Something must have change in recent years, which changed the way scientists work nowadays. While I left academia too, I wish scientists would have the freedom to work on larger/long term subjects again.
Something must have change in recent years, which changed the way scientists work nowadays. While I left academia too, I wish scientists would have the freedom to work on larger/long term subjects again.
[deleted]
Hey, so I'm a PhD student (in Physics) at Harvard that has been looking into these issues (as graduate council president in the department), and I really don't like the bickering that occurs between (roughly speaking) die-hard academia pursuers and the others that feel there is a lack in support for non-academic jobs. Here are by far the most compelling issues that I think need to be fixed that both sides should be able to agree on:
1) Professors really, really need to be open to talking to their students about what they want in their career and what's sort of career path they are considering. Not having this discussion is prevalent but honestly somewhat outrageous.
2) Internships really should become more widely accepted within greater academia (i.e., outside CS). There are a huge number of great arguments for them, including
a) Exposure. There are a huge number of PhD candidates that have actually never had a job, or even just have never been exposed to what their greatest-interest career is post graduate school.
b) Their length is a drop in the bucket compared to the total length of a PhD. (3 months vs 5.5 years average in my Dept)
c) professors worry their graduate students will become less interested in research after an internship. My thought: great! I am super happy that person found something that makes them happier.
The biggest argument against internships has always been something like 'professors can't just be super flexible with their students, they have their own constraints (grants, etc.)' I'm not proposing that professors go through crazy great lengths to make sure their student can get an internship. I simply think that should become an accepted part of the culture and be an ok thing to discuss with your adviser. Right now, students are literally scared at the reprocussions of even bringing it up.
Disclaimer: I interned at Waymo last summer.
1) Professors really, really need to be open to talking to their students about what they want in their career and what's sort of career path they are considering. Not having this discussion is prevalent but honestly somewhat outrageous.
2) Internships really should become more widely accepted within greater academia (i.e., outside CS). There are a huge number of great arguments for them, including
a) Exposure. There are a huge number of PhD candidates that have actually never had a job, or even just have never been exposed to what their greatest-interest career is post graduate school.
b) Their length is a drop in the bucket compared to the total length of a PhD. (3 months vs 5.5 years average in my Dept)
c) professors worry their graduate students will become less interested in research after an internship. My thought: great! I am super happy that person found something that makes them happier.
The biggest argument against internships has always been something like 'professors can't just be super flexible with their students, they have their own constraints (grants, etc.)' I'm not proposing that professors go through crazy great lengths to make sure their student can get an internship. I simply think that should become an accepted part of the culture and be an ok thing to discuss with your adviser. Right now, students are literally scared at the reprocussions of even bringing it up.
Disclaimer: I interned at Waymo last summer.
Well, I think there is a common misconception among academics: They think that theory must be pure and that people who work tend to muddle the theory.
What they seem to ignore is that theory is an abstraction within the human mind and that the real thing is something practical.
So in my opinion the academic path should be accompanied by a real/practical job (within the field of study). Apart from supporting the student with a salary it would bring alternative career paths much earlier to the table.
What they seem to ignore is that theory is an abstraction within the human mind and that the real thing is something practical.
So in my opinion the academic path should be accompanied by a real/practical job (within the field of study). Apart from supporting the student with a salary it would bring alternative career paths much earlier to the table.
One issue here is that there aren't always real/practical jobs within the field of study, though. Furthermore, I would claim that people who do experiments often are ones that are doing "real things"
Curious, what did a physics PhD think of software development/research in industry in comparison to the wonders of equations and abstract beauty?
I loved my internship at Waymo! I don't think it was a typical software engineering or hardware engineering internship, to be fair, but I really enjoyed the work I did and felt my background was beneficial in me making as much progress as I did.
I'm curious why you think both sides should be able to agree on those things. Professors are incentivized towards and measured by grant money and high profile publications. You're proposing that professors get on board with something that's not aligned to their goals.
I wasn't saying that professors should agree to it --- I meant the (roughly) two types of graduate students: those that are die-hard academia pursuers and the others.
There might be an argument saying that the academia pursuers don't want it to happen, but I think that incentive should be less than just having more freedom as a graduate student.
There might be an argument saying that the academia pursuers don't want it to happen, but I think that incentive should be less than just having more freedom as a graduate student.
During my PhD studies, most students I talked to were aware of the lack of professorships available. The issue, however, was that certain departments/professors really frowned upon PhD students exploring jobs in industry (some departments were great though). I was in engineering and the professors were generally helpful with trying to connect you to people they knew in industry. Departments like Psychology were the opposite though. Some students would search for industry jobs without telling their advisor because they feared they would be ignored and not supported throughout the rest of their PhD if they said they were going into industry. Some of the tenured professors only cared about increasing the number of academics who studied in their lab. They didn't care much about whether the students were happy or were following their interests.
I agree with most of this. However, I might take issue with the motivation you ascribe to professors: "only car[ing] about increasing the number of academics who studied in their lab." Another explanation, one that I find myself feeling sometimes, is simply mismatched incentives. Practicing academics and students headed to industry simply have different incentives, and that can add friction to the relationship.
I think it would be helpful and useful for departments to consider other ways to facilitate industry pathways that don't so heavily rely on the advisor.
I think it would be helpful and useful for departments to consider other ways to facilitate industry pathways that don't so heavily rely on the advisor.
> is simply mismatched incentives
For me, this is kind of tautologically impossible -- the adviser's primary objective should be the success of his/her students.
I understand that makes me pretty wide-eyed and most people/places don't work like that, but I'm talking about shoulds.
For me, this is kind of tautologically impossible -- the adviser's primary objective should be the success of his/her students.
I understand that makes me pretty wide-eyed and most people/places don't work like that, but I'm talking about shoulds.
I get what you are saying, but the incentives do not have to be misaligned. It makes total sense for both the professor and student to be aligned in pursuing the goal of completing and publishing interesting and original research. It shouldn't matter what the student does after completing said research! But, some professors distribute their resources unequally and give the most time/money to the students who are trying to become professors.
Its a bit unfair for professional football to be portrayed as an unreasonable aspiration pursued by naive working class kids.
In actual fact the UK currently has around 4000 professional footballers, many of whom will play for a couple of years before moving on, and some of whom will play for a couple of decades.
The UK currently has 14,000 professors the vast majority of whom will fight tooth and claw to hang on to those positions for a lifetime.
So there are more professors than footballers at any one time, but due to football's higher turnover, and shorter tenure, many more people will be a footballer than a professor over the course of their career.
The bottom line is that professional football is actually a relatively attainable goal for young British men, and should probably be more encouraged as a realistic career option.
...and when you do put in your application to Oxford, Cambridge, Google, or Facebook, your long-gone 3 year stint as a utility midfielder at Dundee United is only going to make it more interesting.
In actual fact the UK currently has around 4000 professional footballers, many of whom will play for a couple of years before moving on, and some of whom will play for a couple of decades.
The UK currently has 14,000 professors the vast majority of whom will fight tooth and claw to hang on to those positions for a lifetime.
So there are more professors than footballers at any one time, but due to football's higher turnover, and shorter tenure, many more people will be a footballer than a professor over the course of their career.
The bottom line is that professional football is actually a relatively attainable goal for young British men, and should probably be more encouraged as a realistic career option.
...and when you do put in your application to Oxford, Cambridge, Google, or Facebook, your long-gone 3 year stint as a utility midfielder at Dundee United is only going to make it more interesting.
True, but there's probably 10 times more young men who would like to be professional footballers than professors.
But both are probably strongly determined by genetics, so the size of the people that "want" something probably isn't entirely relevant. It's the people that have the natural talent under the people that can do the work.
If you're pursuing pro football, don't you have to neglect your schooling to compete with the other players?
If so, doesn't that close more doors than the academic route, where you can take your degree/masters/phd to industry any time you like?
If so, doesn't that close more doors than the academic route, where you can take your degree/masters/phd to industry any time you like?
There's always tradeoffs; serious academic pursuit means neglecting physical fitness and life goals (relationships and fun and such). Its easier to recover from time lost on the sportsball path than time lost on the academic path.
Everyone makes sacrifices. There are reasons why pro athletes retire in their 30's. Aside from deterioration of performance, injuries start to take their toll. On the other hand nothing stops an academic from staying reasonably fit-- not enough to win races, perhaps, but easily enough to not suffer from sedentary ailments.
Relationships are difficult for anyone that pursues extreme success, athlete or academic.
Relationships are difficult for anyone that pursues extreme success, athlete or academic.
I'm going to guess that the logic behind your 'relatively attainable goal' here is 90% dependent on the fact that far more people can aspire to be a footballer than a professor, due to the general requirement for a PhD. I would think the pool of people aspiring to be footballers is orders of magnitude larger.
They've also been weeding themselves out from doing something that's pretty much exactly the task ("playing football at a slightly younger age against somewhat less good players") for a while - while future-professor-types may well have been doing a range of activities only weakly correlating to future success in the academy.
They've also been weeding themselves out from doing something that's pretty much exactly the task ("playing football at a slightly younger age against somewhat less good players") for a while - while future-professor-types may well have been doing a range of activities only weakly correlating to future success in the academy.
Very interesting observation. I should do the equivalent comparison for Australia.
For Rugby Union, the path to playing in Super Rugby is surprisingly short. I became a first-grade Union referee pretty much by accident, without really putting much time into it aside from the weekends.
The ARB actually asked me to become a professional referee, but didn't realise how young I was at the time. A shame that I never followed through on it, really.
The ARB actually asked me to become a professional referee, but didn't realise how young I was at the time. A shame that I never followed through on it, really.
It's a trend in sales to hire retired professional athletes. Google famously hired a cohort of olympic athletes for their Adwords sales team.
Is that the UK or US definition of "Professor" though? I've noticed some UK universities have started using additional titles of Assistant/Associate Professor as well as Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader.
If that is the case, I have over-represented the pool of professors, which strengthens the point
I have an M.Sc. in computer science, and worked as a SW developer for 5 years before going back to do a Ph.D.
I stayed with it for one year, but decided it wasn't for me. I really liked the idea of learning more, but realized working in industry was even better for me.
I found that a lot of Ph.D. projects are driven by what you can write papers on, not necessarily what somebody somewhere really needs. Also, you can learn without being at a university.
More here: https://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-prog...
I found that a lot of Ph.D. projects are driven by what you can write papers on, not necessarily what somebody somewhere really needs. Also, you can learn without being at a university.
More here: https://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-prog...
> Permanent jobs in academia are scarce, and someone needs to let PhD students know.
If you are studying on a PhD level and have not figured that out already, that's kinda on you.
If you are studying on a PhD level and have not figured that out already, that's kinda on you.
Someone posts this glib comment every time academic careers are discussed. It's true, and yet harder than you'd think.
Suppose you know that only 1 in 10 PhDs in your field end up in a tenure track job. A decent fraction of your classmates are interested in industry--or never want to see the inside of a lab again. Maybe this reduces the competition down to one in six or seven. You're in a pretty good program, definitely in the top 15 percent of the field. It's certainly not that easy, but...you're not obviously worse than most of your classmates, you work on a hot topic and you work hard. What are your chances?
Very few grad students get any kind of personalized career advice or discussion of their prospects. They should obviously think about this, but more senior scientists also have a responsibility to provide mentorship and frank assesments.
Suppose you know that only 1 in 10 PhDs in your field end up in a tenure track job. A decent fraction of your classmates are interested in industry--or never want to see the inside of a lab again. Maybe this reduces the competition down to one in six or seven. You're in a pretty good program, definitely in the top 15 percent of the field. It's certainly not that easy, but...you're not obviously worse than most of your classmates, you work on a hot topic and you work hard. What are your chances?
Very few grad students get any kind of personalized career advice or discussion of their prospects. They should obviously think about this, but more senior scientists also have a responsibility to provide mentorship and frank assesments.
>but more senior scientists also have a responsibility to provide mentorship and frank assesments.
And they won't do it because they are a) biased due to survivorship bias, and b) they are disincentivized to do so as that would scare away their cheap labor.
And they won't do it because they are a) biased due to survivorship bias, and b) they are disincentivized to do so as that would scare away their cheap labor.
I believe that b) is the key issue here. They need the cheap labor so it needs to appear that the PhD will get you somewhere. In the end only industry is benefiting from being able to hire highly trained people without have to pay anything to train them.
The average age of a PhD student is 33 years and even at normal speed, no breaks/hurdles and starting right out of high-school, you are 25(?). Something about applying this babysitting attitude of "somebody needs to tell them" to highly educated individuals of that age just doesn't sit right with me.
If I were a PhD supervisor, I would probably find it ridiculous that one of my responsibilities would be "pointing people to the universities careers service". I'm also not sure why you would expect a supervisor to be able to give good career advice when some of them have only ever experienced academia themselves.
If I were a PhD supervisor, I would probably find it ridiculous that one of my responsibilities would be "pointing people to the universities careers service". I'm also not sure why you would expect a supervisor to be able to give good career advice when some of them have only ever experienced academia themselves.
That's not really what I meant.
While it would be nice to get more support finding non-academic jobs, you are right that 1) other resources exist and 2) they don't know much about it anyway.
However, a professor should be able to give a trainee an assessment of their own academic prospects: based on your current record, are you part of the 10% of people who land jobs right now? If not, what would help you get there, or is it more of an issue with your aptitude/temperament? Career Services can't do this: they don't know you from Adam and aren't career academics anyway.
You can certainly ask for this--and I did (with varying degrees of effectiveness), but I really feel that if you're (claiming to be training) someone, you owe them honest and regular feedback on how that training is going.
While it would be nice to get more support finding non-academic jobs, you are right that 1) other resources exist and 2) they don't know much about it anyway.
However, a professor should be able to give a trainee an assessment of their own academic prospects: based on your current record, are you part of the 10% of people who land jobs right now? If not, what would help you get there, or is it more of an issue with your aptitude/temperament? Career Services can't do this: they don't know you from Adam and aren't career academics anyway.
You can certainly ask for this--and I did (with varying degrees of effectiveness), but I really feel that if you're (claiming to be training) someone, you owe them honest and regular feedback on how that training is going.
> I'm also not sure why you would expect a supervisor to be able to give good career advice when some of them have only ever experienced academia themselves.
Nonetheless, a good supervisor should understand and take into account what the student is ultimately trying to obtain out of the PhD.
If the student is aimed toward academia, then producing influential papers is priority. If the student is aimed toward industry, then the advisor can guide the student towards a less theoretical problem and encourage the student to produce results that showcase their ability to tackle and solve a problem that is both research-level and practical for industry.
Of course a poor advisor can disregard the students goals and use the student for whatever purpose that advances the advisor's standing in the field.
Nonetheless, a good supervisor should understand and take into account what the student is ultimately trying to obtain out of the PhD.
If the student is aimed toward academia, then producing influential papers is priority. If the student is aimed toward industry, then the advisor can guide the student towards a less theoretical problem and encourage the student to produce results that showcase their ability to tackle and solve a problem that is both research-level and practical for industry.
Of course a poor advisor can disregard the students goals and use the student for whatever purpose that advances the advisor's standing in the field.
> Someone posts this glib comment every time academic careers are discussed. It's true, and yet harder than you'd think.
I asked around during my MSc (25 years ago), and got told this by everyone.
> Very few grad students get any kind of personalized career advice or discussion of their prospects.
They're adults. No one else is responsible for their life. If they refuse to take responsibility for their life, that's their choice.
They can ask. It's not difficult.
I asked around during my MSc (25 years ago), and got told this by everyone.
> Very few grad students get any kind of personalized career advice or discussion of their prospects.
They're adults. No one else is responsible for their life. If they refuse to take responsibility for their life, that's their choice.
They can ask. It's not difficult.
I enjoy providing mentorship and helping out younger developers, but I certainly don't have any responsibility to do so.
That seems a little different.
PhD programs are meant to be training programs and universities repeatedly have argued that it is not an employer-employee relationship, but a mentor-mentee one. If that's true, I think the mentors have a bit more responsibility even where it cuts against their own self-interests (e.g., tell someone that this is not the career for them and risk losing out on their labor).
PhD programs are meant to be training programs and universities repeatedly have argued that it is not an employer-employee relationship, but a mentor-mentee one. If that's true, I think the mentors have a bit more responsibility even where it cuts against their own self-interests (e.g., tell someone that this is not the career for them and risk losing out on their labor).
These are usually people that have always been the best in their class through their academic careers. The idea that they might be the ones to not get a position, because they are not good enough for it may not be something they have experienced /consider possible for themselves.
They may consider the possibility, feel intense despair about it, and work to avoid thinking about it in order to avoid feeling the intense negative feelings that come with something they regard as catastrophic.
> > Permanent jobs in academia are scarce, and someone needs to let PhD students know.
> If you are studying on a PhD level and have not figured that out already, that's kinda on you.
The problem rather is if you really are scientifically better than your peers - so from an "objective" perspective you should be really good enough to obtain such a position. But then you realize how much of a political game (it is much more about politics than scientific achievements) getting such a position is. And I know many great scientists who are bad politicians... They are often much better than the persons who got the tenured positions (the latter ones were great bootlickers and politicians).
> If you are studying on a PhD level and have not figured that out already, that's kinda on you.
The problem rather is if you really are scientifically better than your peers - so from an "objective" perspective you should be really good enough to obtain such a position. But then you realize how much of a political game (it is much more about politics than scientific achievements) getting such a position is. And I know many great scientists who are bad politicians... They are often much better than the persons who got the tenured positions (the latter ones were great bootlickers and politicians).
Exactly, I quit after a Science and Nature paper, just didn't want to do a 2nd postdoc and prioritize a tenure-track job over everything else in life.
You are bound to get down voted for this comment, however I do agree with you. I am one of those people who managed to realize by a good stroke of luck that perusing a Phd in my field would severely limit my earning potential. It was all the Phd grad students always talking about their money problems in the college cafeteria that gave them away.
Sad but true.
I once had dreams of a career in academia and research. I'm a molecular biologist turned computer scientist turned software engineer in industry. I now have a very good salary, interesting challenges, plenty of work-life balance and good prospects for the future, and that's pretty much directly out of university.
In my opinion, I would have to give up on all of the aforementioned benefits (sans interesting challenges) for at least the next 10 years if I wanted to stay in academia, and on top of that, add the nice non-zero chance of just getting stuck and be forced out of the academic "track".
All my advisors told me it's a pretty bad time to go into academia, and I doubt it will get better, sadly, I might add.
I once had dreams of a career in academia and research. I'm a molecular biologist turned computer scientist turned software engineer in industry. I now have a very good salary, interesting challenges, plenty of work-life balance and good prospects for the future, and that's pretty much directly out of university.
In my opinion, I would have to give up on all of the aforementioned benefits (sans interesting challenges) for at least the next 10 years if I wanted to stay in academia, and on top of that, add the nice non-zero chance of just getting stuck and be forced out of the academic "track".
All my advisors told me it's a pretty bad time to go into academia, and I doubt it will get better, sadly, I might add.
What about starting a PhD at 45 ? I mean, just for the fun of being a student again, the fun of working on your own little project . Does it open possibilities, in the sense of a career reboot ? (I'm totally OK with earning much less money than I do right now)
it will definitely be fun, both being a student + working on your own project.
From my experience, for some reason PhD advisors tend to work well/really like mature students. No hard data on this, just an empirical observation across 3-4 labs I've worked in before I left academia.
With regards to career prospects (outside academia ofc), you definitely gain respect but anything more than that largely depends on your area of research. Which one is it, if I may ask?
From my experience, for some reason PhD advisors tend to work well/really like mature students. No hard data on this, just an empirical observation across 3-4 labs I've worked in before I left academia.
With regards to career prospects (outside academia ofc), you definitely gain respect but anything more than that largely depends on your area of research. Which one is it, if I may ask?
I'm looking at anything involving computational geometry; and if I have spare time, ethics :-)
Find the right advisor and anything is possible. Remember tho, that the department and the research community to which you will belong will also have a considerable say in if you are allowed to progress.
The growth area seems to be academic administration. As I pointed out previously, Stanford is building a new "campus" in Redwood City.[1] It's all administrators. 2700 of them. More administrators than Stanford has faculty.
"School of Medicine administration; Stanford Libraries and University Archives; the major administrative units of Business Affairs; Land, Buildings and Real Estate; University Human Resources; Residential & Dining Enterprises; and the Office of Development" will move there. This is in addition to all the administrators and staff back on the main campus.
Don't become a doctor - become a Medical Administrator! It pays better.
[1] https://redwoodcity.stanford.edu/
Don't become a doctor - become a Medical Administrator! It pays better.
[1] https://redwoodcity.stanford.edu/
Wow... 16,000 students, 2,100 faculty, and 12,100 admin.
If you need evidence that we're in a college/university bubble, that's a pretty good indicator.
If you need evidence that we're in a college/university bubble, that's a pretty good indicator.
I always tell students in my field (molecular biology) to at the very least learn to code at a reasonable level and pick up some data science skills. Something transferable.
At any given time in my department, there'd be five times the amount of post-grad students to full-time staff. Maybe more. It has to be obvious that there likely isn't a job at any level at the end of it. Not just high-flying jobs on the path to professorship, but even low skill technical stuff.
As in other fields, women are at a significant disadvantage if they want to have kids (presuming they've made it though the initial cull). The key time for scoring a good number of first author papers in the very best journals is late 20s and early 30s in their post-doc positions. Given every higher position is so competitive, they simple lose out due to the time taken off. Makes me quite to sad to see very very talented scientist friends passed over for this reason.
At any given time in my department, there'd be five times the amount of post-grad students to full-time staff. Maybe more. It has to be obvious that there likely isn't a job at any level at the end of it. Not just high-flying jobs on the path to professorship, but even low skill technical stuff.
As in other fields, women are at a significant disadvantage if they want to have kids (presuming they've made it though the initial cull). The key time for scoring a good number of first author papers in the very best journals is late 20s and early 30s in their post-doc positions. Given every higher position is so competitive, they simple lose out due to the time taken off. Makes me quite to sad to see very very talented scientist friends passed over for this reason.
> The key time for scoring a good number of first author papers in the very best journals is late 20s and early 30s in their post-doc positions.
I think it's really a black mark on the system that it should be OK for researchers to still not have a permanent position in their early 30s ten years after completing their undergraduate degree.
I think it's really a black mark on the system that it should be OK for researchers to still not have a permanent position in their early 30s ten years after completing their undergraduate degree.
But understandable considering the incentives. Grad students and postdocs cost so little but accomplish so much, the whole system relies on them. Just need to keep selling them the promise of opportunity. Unless something changes I can't see this getting better anytime soon. The cult aspect of many top PIs strongly condemning people leaving or considering non-academic positions also doesn't help.
They simply decided what they valued more between later academic career and current family life (as you can have kids later). That's their choice, there's nothing to be saddened about.
The 20s to early 30s is the healthiest time to have a child, for both the child and the mother. Now, you can have children in your late thirties and beyond, but that can get more difficult depending on the specific health situation of the parents.
Also, there is a problem in parity for how having a child affects men vs women. It is easier for a man to become a parent and maintain a career than it is for the mother.
Also, there is a problem in parity for how having a child affects men vs women. It is easier for a man to become a parent and maintain a career than it is for the mother.
I don't think it's much of a problem, let alone a solvable one.
Some women manage to have top careers while bearing children. It's just that most prefer to focus on their family. I'm female, in a field which recently swapped from male to female dominance. The market is flooded with part time jobs (saturdays, or wednesday when school's off) and it's definitely causing some recruitment problems in the field (and on a deeper level, female are less likely to become partners because of responsibilities and work involved, many stay salaried and thus have lower revenues, etc). There has been numerous studies on this topic in my field and family is the biggest factor holding people back (although men also value their off time more than they used to so its partly a generational thing). At least there's work for motivated people, so I don't complain.
To me it's rather obvious that most women don't value their careers that much. Which is not a problem in itself, just stop pretending otherwise, no one's holding anyone back from careers but people themselves. (I guess most men don't either actually, but it doesn't show as much.) I also really don't get why it is such a punishable offense to assume in recruitment that a childless woman in her thirties will be on maternity leave soon as it's indeed a really strong probability. It's not like waiting for the end of probatory periodto get pregnant is a rare thing...
Some women manage to have top careers while bearing children. It's just that most prefer to focus on their family. I'm female, in a field which recently swapped from male to female dominance. The market is flooded with part time jobs (saturdays, or wednesday when school's off) and it's definitely causing some recruitment problems in the field (and on a deeper level, female are less likely to become partners because of responsibilities and work involved, many stay salaried and thus have lower revenues, etc). There has been numerous studies on this topic in my field and family is the biggest factor holding people back (although men also value their off time more than they used to so its partly a generational thing). At least there's work for motivated people, so I don't complain.
To me it's rather obvious that most women don't value their careers that much. Which is not a problem in itself, just stop pretending otherwise, no one's holding anyone back from careers but people themselves. (I guess most men don't either actually, but it doesn't show as much.) I also really don't get why it is such a punishable offense to assume in recruitment that a childless woman in her thirties will be on maternity leave soon as it's indeed a really strong probability. It's not like waiting for the end of probatory periodto get pregnant is a rare thing...
So what's the solution? Hold a position for a woman and then kick out whoever fills it when the woman returns? Everyone has to make choices and this is one of them. If there's a way round this conundrum, a very very talented woman will find it.
No doubt it's difficult, but what would help is to take something more than a person's Scopus index into account when picking applicants for interviews. The initial culling of hundreds of CVs to just a few is almost based solely on this (among the people who are actually qualified for the job and work in the advertised field).
Hiring the best person for the job is the solution IMO, but the system doesn't work that way. Does it really matter if person X has 3 Nature papers and person Y has 2? The real issue (in Australia, at least) is that publication is everything. It really shouldn't be, for a myriad of reasons.
Hiring the best person for the job is the solution IMO, but the system doesn't work that way. Does it really matter if person X has 3 Nature papers and person Y has 2? The real issue (in Australia, at least) is that publication is everything. It really shouldn't be, for a myriad of reasons.
The "STEM shortage" phrase means pay is too high for the very few STEM jobs; it means a shortage of income equality, not a shortage of warm bodies. There are obviously far too many warm bodies in STEM fields.
There is also a peculiar birth-death problem in academia where over the lifetime career of a professor, that prof should birth exactly one new qualified student to replace that prof. Otherwise we're dealing with a pyramid scheme. And one of the metrics of "success" of profs is how many qualified grad students they're birthing to provide short term cheap labor and long term hyper over supply of qualified candidates to be profs. We're merely seeing the breakdown of a pyramid scheme. One way to fix it is ban grad student labor. The undergrads, most of whom are going in to industry anyway, can be the lab rats. Or the prof can hire more postdocs.
There is also a peculiar birth-death problem in academia where over the lifetime career of a professor, that prof should birth exactly one new qualified student to replace that prof. Otherwise we're dealing with a pyramid scheme. And one of the metrics of "success" of profs is how many qualified grad students they're birthing to provide short term cheap labor and long term hyper over supply of qualified candidates to be profs. We're merely seeing the breakdown of a pyramid scheme. One way to fix it is ban grad student labor. The undergrads, most of whom are going in to industry anyway, can be the lab rats. Or the prof can hire more postdocs.
Why would we design a system where only eventual professors have PhDs?
Maybe not 100% but what fraction of PhDs are professors, maybe 3-5% at most, what about fraction of MDs working as medical doctors, I'm guessing its much much higher (with higher wages) since they limit enrollment in school and residencies (they don't rely on cheap grad student/post-doc labor).
Why would we think these fractions should be closely related?
And attending surgeons definitely rely on cheap resident labor.
And attending surgeons definitely rely on cheap resident labor.
Is that really news? Obligatory joke:
Taxi driver to passenger: "Well, someone looks happy today!"
Passenger: "I just got my PhD! :)"
Taxi driver wistfully: "Yeah, I remember the day when I got mine..."
Taxi driver to passenger: "Well, someone looks happy today!"
Passenger: "I just got my PhD! :)"
Taxi driver wistfully: "Yeah, I remember the day when I got mine..."
A professor of mathematics noticed that his kitchen sink at his home leaked. He called a plumber. The plumber came the next day and sealed a few screws, and everything was working as before.
The professor was delighted. However, when the plumber gave him the bill a minute later, he was shocked.
"This is one-third of my monthly salary!" he yelled.
Well, all the same he paid it and then the plumber said to him, "I understand your position as a professor. Why don't you come to our company and apply for a plumber position? You will earn three times as much as a professor. But remember, when you apply, tell them that you completed only seven elementary classes. They don't like educated people."
So it happened. The professor got a job as a plumber and his life significantly improved. He just had to seal a screw or two occasionally, and his salary went up significantly.
One day, the board of the plumbing company decided that every plumber had to go to evening classes to complete the eighth grade. So, our professor had to go there too. It just happened that the first class was math. The evening teacher, to check students' knowledge, asked for a formula for the area of a circle. The person asked was the professor. He jumped to the board, and then he realized that he had forgotten the formula. He started to reason it, and he filled the white board with integrals, differentials, and other advanced formulas to conclude the result he forgot. As a result, he got "minus pi times r square."
He didn't like the minus, so he started all over again. He got the minus again. No matter how many times he tried, he always got a minus. He was frustrated. He gave the class a frightened look and saw all the plumbers whisper: "Switch the limits of the integral!!"
The professor was delighted. However, when the plumber gave him the bill a minute later, he was shocked.
"This is one-third of my monthly salary!" he yelled.
Well, all the same he paid it and then the plumber said to him, "I understand your position as a professor. Why don't you come to our company and apply for a plumber position? You will earn three times as much as a professor. But remember, when you apply, tell them that you completed only seven elementary classes. They don't like educated people."
So it happened. The professor got a job as a plumber and his life significantly improved. He just had to seal a screw or two occasionally, and his salary went up significantly.
One day, the board of the plumbing company decided that every plumber had to go to evening classes to complete the eighth grade. So, our professor had to go there too. It just happened that the first class was math. The evening teacher, to check students' knowledge, asked for a formula for the area of a circle. The person asked was the professor. He jumped to the board, and then he realized that he had forgotten the formula. He started to reason it, and he filled the white board with integrals, differentials, and other advanced formulas to conclude the result he forgot. As a result, he got "minus pi times r square."
He didn't like the minus, so he started all over again. He got the minus again. No matter how many times he tried, he always got a minus. He was frustrated. He gave the class a frightened look and saw all the plumbers whisper: "Switch the limits of the integral!!"
Data so absent that they have to draw an analogy to a different data set without any supporting evidence that such is valid. This is Nature not the daily Mail.
What is the statistic? How many PhD students have jobs in Academia 5 Years after being awarded? Surely they have /something/ that might be indicative they can publish that's better than footballers? Surely..?
What is the statistic? How many PhD students have jobs in Academia 5 Years after being awarded? Surely they have /something/ that might be indicative they can publish that's better than footballers? Surely..?
Article cites one hard number:
>Global figures are hard to come by, but only three or four in every hundred PhD students in the United Kingdom will land a permanent staff position at a university. It’s only a little better in the United States.
>Global figures are hard to come by, but only three or four in every hundred PhD students in the United Kingdom will land a permanent staff position at a university. It’s only a little better in the United States.
But I claim that number is really pi (or tau/2 if you must). Will you take theirs one rather than mine as an argument from authority? This is Nature, not the damn daily mail. Digital extraction required![1]
[1] Vernacular expression "Pull your finger out!" Meaning to stop being lazy.[2]
[2] Jokes you have to explain, suck.[2]
[3] People who put footnotes on their jokes are terrible human beings.[4]
[4] There is no [4][5]
[5] citation neededUniversity has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme. I’d love to see PhD programs drop to 3-4 years from 5-7. Especially in programs like biosciences where there are limited job prospects. Universities sell a romantic idealism knowing the likely outcome. Most students are too young or captivated to really do their due diligence. There should be labels on a PhD like the anti-smoking labels on cigarettes.
I feel for the students facing this reality, but I think this comment in the article can lead to dead-ends.
"""Our survey, for example, shows that one-third of respondents do not have useful conversations about careers with their PhD supervisors."""
I remember speaking once with a few professors about what their work was like in industry. I was caught off guard when I was told they never worked in industry and had their whole careers in academia. Silly assumption on my part of course, but it was jarring nonetheless to be told so much point blank. It really put into perspective for me the angle at which advice was coming from.
"""Our survey, for example, shows that one-third of respondents do not have useful conversations about careers with their PhD supervisors."""
I remember speaking once with a few professors about what their work was like in industry. I was caught off guard when I was told they never worked in industry and had their whole careers in academia. Silly assumption on my part of course, but it was jarring nonetheless to be told so much point blank. It really put into perspective for me the angle at which advice was coming from.
Overall, this is overwhelmingly true, to the point that I feel slightly embarrassed to want to discuss edge cases. But here we go. We already know that prospects for humanities and social science PhDs are extremely grim[1]. However, economics might not be so bad[2].
Prospects for science are better, but we need to distinguish between fields. Computer Science PhDs encounter a completely different market from Biology PhDs. In a field like Biology, there is probably great variance even between sub fields.
There was one more great link I wanted to share, but I can't remember were it is or find it. It ranked graduate degrees by degree and university (i.e., MBA from Stanford, JD from Harvard, etc). You don't see any PhD or MS degrees on there until around spot #30, which was a PhD from MIT. Unfortunately, that's not granular enough - a "PhD" from MIT makes about as much sense as a "Masters" that includes the MBA degree. You can figure that since it's MIT, the PhD degrees lean toward the technical, but I'd really need to see PhD in CS to make the comparison. If this data were available, I'd guess that some PhDs from elite universities are actually very well paid on the level of elite JD or MBA programs. Even then, PhDs have vastly higher attrition rates and longer and less certain completion times[3]
[1] "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go" http://www.chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/4484...
[2] "If you get a PhD, make it an economics PhD" http://theweek.com/articles/452770/phd-make-economics-phd
[3] Attrition rates often shock people who don't know. The attrition rate at an elite law, medical, or business school is typically well below one percent. At elite PhD programs, they can reach or exceed 50%. It's not an exaggeration to say that attrition rates at elite PhD programs can be 100 times higher than a 2 year MBA or 3 year JD program at the same university.
Prospects for science are better, but we need to distinguish between fields. Computer Science PhDs encounter a completely different market from Biology PhDs. In a field like Biology, there is probably great variance even between sub fields.
There was one more great link I wanted to share, but I can't remember were it is or find it. It ranked graduate degrees by degree and university (i.e., MBA from Stanford, JD from Harvard, etc). You don't see any PhD or MS degrees on there until around spot #30, which was a PhD from MIT. Unfortunately, that's not granular enough - a "PhD" from MIT makes about as much sense as a "Masters" that includes the MBA degree. You can figure that since it's MIT, the PhD degrees lean toward the technical, but I'd really need to see PhD in CS to make the comparison. If this data were available, I'd guess that some PhDs from elite universities are actually very well paid on the level of elite JD or MBA programs. Even then, PhDs have vastly higher attrition rates and longer and less certain completion times[3]
[1] "Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go" http://www.chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/4484...
[2] "If you get a PhD, make it an economics PhD" http://theweek.com/articles/452770/phd-make-economics-phd
[3] Attrition rates often shock people who don't know. The attrition rate at an elite law, medical, or business school is typically well below one percent. At elite PhD programs, they can reach or exceed 50%. It's not an exaggeration to say that attrition rates at elite PhD programs can be 100 times higher than a 2 year MBA or 3 year JD program at the same university.
I am currently pursuing MS in Biological Sciences on animal behavior. I want to do Phd then Post-doc and then continue in the science field. But I am not very talented. Most probably I may get stuck after Phd or Post doc.
I don't want job. But looking into these kinds of articles now and then, make me think "what are the alternatives ?" What about the people who do basic science like in theoretical physics or pure maths?
I don't want job. But looking into these kinds of articles now and then, make me think "what are the alternatives ?" What about the people who do basic science like in theoretical physics or pure maths?
I’m doing a PhD in Theoretical Physics, I hedge the uncertainty of academia by finding small opportunities in other fields to do work in. Internships in science communication, teaching at the university, part time work for a tech start up. On their own, none of them are a safety net for jumping out of academia if you have to, but if you accumulate enough experience over the years, the hope is that transitioning to industry goes a bit smoother. There’s also a few fellowship/transitional schemes opening up for PhDs in esoteric fields to go into things like Data Science/Software Development. I think you just have to keep a level head and pursue things while it seems reasonable and always keep in mind the dream can pop at any moment and you may have to move around and go into something else.
Yeah. That's a good piece of advice. I usually spend time on data analysis, learning computer security, web designing or any tech related stuff but as hobby only. I know basic of these things but not a "pro" in one field. I guess better to keep learning new things, any time opportunities might pop up as you have said.
I hope you like kids. All my biology teachers in high school had done research degrees and found that there were not very many research jobs available.
There are different possibilities for doing research. Note how the current top comment here talks of becoming a "professor", and the featured article talks about "permanent staff position[s] at a university".
If what you want is to do research, then what you want is not necessarily one of these. There are lots of research labs, both public and private, where you can get a permanent position. If you're in animal behavior, you might end up in a zoo, doing research part time or full time. These positions are overlooked by these articles since there you are not a "professor" at a "university". In other words, "X% of PhDs become professors" is a very misleading statistic.
But yeah, that is still not enough to employ all the PhDs out there. I think in theoretical physics or math you just end up going into finance...
If what you want is to do research, then what you want is not necessarily one of these. There are lots of research labs, both public and private, where you can get a permanent position. If you're in animal behavior, you might end up in a zoo, doing research part time or full time. These positions are overlooked by these articles since there you are not a "professor" at a "university". In other words, "X% of PhDs become professors" is a very misleading statistic.
But yeah, that is still not enough to employ all the PhDs out there. I think in theoretical physics or math you just end up going into finance...
> What about the people who do basic science like in theoretical physics or pure maths?
In my experience, those who did not do numerical work mostly look into positions in management consulting, finance, or insurance.
In my experience, those who did not do numerical work mostly look into positions in management consulting, finance, or insurance.
I feel there could exist "academic industries." There should surely be a way to do similar research for industries. With proper infrastructure I feel like companies can own and sell research materials, allowing them to hire academic researchers to do academic research related to the companies field. In fact, with even better infrastructure, an individual could own and sell research materials
The hard truth. I wonder if a new scheme of collaborative research (to share costs) out of academia can possibly pop out. But this is hardly possible given the high costs of equipment and consumables, especially in the natural and technical sciences.
Bygone are the days (in the 18th-19th century) when a single brilliant scientist could singe-handedly revolutionize his field in his home lab (the "garage" of the day).
Bygone are the days (in the 18th-19th century) when a single brilliant scientist could singe-handedly revolutionize his field in his home lab (the "garage" of the day).
I think you've got it from the wrong end. Most academic research I've seen has been so tainted by corporate funding, publish-or-perish haste, over-formalization, misuse of statistics, egos run wild, or some mixture of them all. Then there have been cases where novel research has been stomped into the ground by professional groupthink, like in Yudkin's case. At the same time we had guys like Shulgin being incredibly productive all on their own.
Think of MDMA alone. If it really ends up being a useful treatment, you just know a pharma company would insist that it ran them billions of dollars to develop, and that they should have a God-given right to gouge for it, but it came for considerably less than that from a real expert puttering around in his shack.
Sometimes I wonder if the independent researcher is our only hope.
Think of MDMA alone. If it really ends up being a useful treatment, you just know a pharma company would insist that it ran them billions of dollars to develop, and that they should have a God-given right to gouge for it, but it came for considerably less than that from a real expert puttering around in his shack.
Sometimes I wonder if the independent researcher is our only hope.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I just implied sharing the costs for expensive equipment and consumables, what the out-of-academia scientists then do is up to them. I did not imply they are not independent.
But it is certainly close to impossible to coordinate without some kind of sci-funding.
But it is certainly close to impossible to coordinate without some kind of sci-funding.
Mostly picking at your last sentence. Even so. Once money starts sloshing around, the middlemen swoop in, the costs explode, what started as collaborative becomes institutional, and all of the institutional pathologies reinstate themselves.
If you are ever in Bath check out the Herschel museum. He was the guy who discovered Uranus, various comets, and other feats of astronomy. Music teacher by day, self-taught astronomer by night, including making the telescopes he needed, by hand, in the back room of his house.
Fast forward to today and you need a multi-billion-dollar orbital telescope or a massive array of radio telescopes to do new work...
Fast forward to today and you need a multi-billion-dollar orbital telescope or a massive array of radio telescopes to do new work...
> Bygone are the days (in the 18th-19th century) when a single brilliant scientist could singe-handedly revolutionize his field in his home lab (the "garage" of the day).
The rate of major paradigm shifts needs to decrease over time. If it doesn't, then we're working in a scientific livelock or chasing after a moving goalpost.
The rate of major paradigm shifts needs to decrease over time. If it doesn't, then we're working in a scientific livelock or chasing after a moving goalpost.
Don't tell Peter Mitchell that his garage experiment won't work!!
> Bygone are the days (in the 18th-19th century) when a single brilliant scientist could singe-handedly revolutionize his field in his home lab (the "garage" of the day)
Source? (Genuinely curious.)
Source? (Genuinely curious.)
It is assumed due to the higher knowlege and specialisation level that the world has these days, but such moments of change does not come along very often, and people have always been confident about how there is no way their understanding of the world might be severly lacking in some way. So it might just be that all is as it always has been you just have to look at it using a large enough time frame.
I've heard of a contemporary mathematician who had small contributions and did it as a hobby. The recent article about insect population decrease was possible thanks to data collected by hobbyists too iirc (but ended up written by scholars I guess). I don't know if there are many other examples.
This is true, I earned my MS in Biology in 2009 (a rough year to graduate). I was able to land a position as a laboratory manager but ended up teaching myself Ruby to solve a few problems on the job.
I've ended up in Silicon Valley in software engineering and I'm quite happy but wish I would have considered job prospects in my field of study a little harder before committing so much time and effort. I might have ended up in a CS program and would have been better suited to succeed earlier.
Biology is definitely interesting and I learned how to think scientifically, and "how to think" about problems. So that component was rewarding.
I've ended up in Silicon Valley in software engineering and I'm quite happy but wish I would have considered job prospects in my field of study a little harder before committing so much time and effort. I might have ended up in a CS program and would have been better suited to succeed earlier.
Biology is definitely interesting and I learned how to think scientifically, and "how to think" about problems. So that component was rewarding.
This is an academic industry wide problem, not just for junior scientists. When tenured professors stay on their job for 40 or 50 years and new universities/positions aren't created each year for newly minded PhDs, it's going to create a pyramid like structure in academia with the comfortable professors at the top and legions of phds on the bottom struggling to get to the top.
Ask philosophy, history and even economics PhDs. The research/academic/etc opportunities simply aren't there because it is structurally impossible. And as time goes on, it's only going to get worse and worse.
Ask philosophy, history and even economics PhDs. The research/academic/etc opportunities simply aren't there because it is structurally impossible. And as time goes on, it's only going to get worse and worse.
What about creating more private research centers? Where the benefits are not tied to individual company profits or have them hoping for patents stash. OpenAI is an example of one of such initiatives. Similar centers can be spun off more often. Does CERN have satellite labs across the world? Sure committing to funding can be a problem for private entities (companies/families/individual billionaires). Perhaps govt should these entities tax breaks for funding such centers.
They can always move to Pakistan.
Phds from abroad is one of the most well-paid positions here thanks to the recent influx of numerous private business-minded universities opening up in every city.
Phds from abroad is one of the most well-paid positions here thanks to the recent influx of numerous private business-minded universities opening up in every city.
Interesting. Its different in India, where it's not the salary but the prestige that drives people to become professors. Even the research opportunities are limited, and industry pays much more.
I've shared this anecdote before: When I was a grad student in the late 80s, we learned about the oversupply of PhD's compared to the number of available faculty jobs. In fact I remember it as a topic on discussion boards in my earliest experiences with the Internet.
I told my dad about it. He got his PhD in the 50s. His reply was: "Oh yeah, that was common knowledge when we got our degrees too."
He enjoyed a long career in industry, as have I, so far.
I told my dad about it. He got his PhD in the 50s. His reply was: "Oh yeah, that was common knowledge when we got our degrees too."
He enjoyed a long career in industry, as have I, so far.
This problem has been a structural feature of the academic profession for a long time -- Max Weber famously wrote about it almost 100 years ago: http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber...
Yea, i went into a phd program in biomedical sciences, spent 2 1/2 years doing computational biology, studying math, computer science and machine learning, not to mention working on project, then left. It was at the point where the prospect of out competing 7/8 of my fellow phd students was not work it, when all of my skills, where transferable to industry, even without staying for the phd. Part of me wishes I did stay, and I'll probably go back for a masters at some point. who knows. Anyway, the system really is designed to get phd students to do the heavy lifting, at 30k a year, for 6 year stretches. Why would I do that, when I have dropped out, and tripled my salary?
Interestingly, I've heard recently from two different sources (both in biomedical sciences) that there is a shortage of professors in Germany. As in foundations or national initiatives having funding for them but there aren't enough candidates
I know someone who has a PhD in a specific field. They lost their job three years ago and have not been hired since. I can’t even imagine what going to school for that long then being underpaid and discarded must feel like.
Adding insult to injury, you might have to take the PhD off your resume to get a job in industry! I found that outside the biggest companies, HR departments routinely throw out any overqualified resumes.
How are these odds compared to other similar ventures full of uncertainty, such as start ups ? And if the odds are comparable then why is our culture viewing start ups positively but PhD negatively ?
Because when you "win" at a PhD you (eventually) get tenure, which these days mean lifetime position of high stress and low salary.
Where are you getting the belief that PhD's are viewed negatively by our culture? Or that startups are viewed positively for that matter? A quick google search and you'll find hundreds of articles warning about joining startups and bashing startup culture.
Because VCs own a stake in start-ups.
Doing a PhD thesis these days doesn't necessarily makes you cut out to be a scientist. One can speculate if job prospects differs across disciplines.
Just because one is a good scientist doesn't necessarily mean one is cut out to be a professional scientist.
I would argue the opposite is more plausible; if one is a good plumber, one is likely also a good professional plumber. I would like to see if this trend is cross disciplinary or say it is mainly within say social sciences or humanities. Personally, I have meet many university students and PhDs whose intellect at best was ordinary.
What I meant was that the skill set to become a successful professor (grantsmanship, political wheeling and dealing) is antithetical to being a good scientist.
A question: how it is for people doing research but not in traditional academic settings (e.g. no profit foundations)? As far as I understand, you're tied to grants anyway to get money, but there's no clear concept of "tenure":
I work in such a place, but it's outside the US, so I was wondering about what happens there.
Science like everything else is driven by money and "success." Mind you, the Scientific Method is a wonderful ideal. However, it is implemented by humans. Humans that more often than not have been struggling. Humans under stress do irrational things.
Are there junior scientists who don't know how dim the prospects are for an academic position are?
I've been hearing this for two decades. Seems like the sort of thing that any mildly educated person would be aware of, let alone smart people in the field.
I've been hearing this for two decades. Seems like the sort of thing that any mildly educated person would be aware of, let alone smart people in the field.
As others have mentioned this obviously isn't a secret but the environment at top schools is very cult-like especially in certain labs and pursuing non-academic tracks is looked down upon. The problem arises when you are objectively more accomplished scientifically than your peers and you think you might have a chance and realize that it will take 2 postdocs, 10-15 years and more politics than science to get a tenure track job these days.
I'd be interested to see how the institution at which you studied effects the probability of a successful career. If you're a masters student at a top uni, do the numbers change significantly?
[deleted]
As someone in the process of applying to PhD programs right now, these comments are quite disheartening... scary even.
I thought there weren't enough people with STEM degrees?
[deleted]
In 2017 the research path in computer-heavy subjects is not academy-bound anymore. There may be early problems in getting credit within the learned circles, but a couple of good papers and one good presentation at a good conference under your own ltd umbrella solve this for good.
Do you mean just publish on your own account, not under the auspices of an institution (aka "academy")?
Is "ltd umbrella" your own "pty ltd" company - instead of an institution? Or you mean, just within your own specialised field?
Is "ltd umbrella" your own "pty ltd" company - instead of an institution? Or you mean, just within your own specialised field?
When I was a PhD student, I gave a few talks and blogged about this issue. I would present all these statistics in my talks about what they needed to do to be competitive, and people just absolutely hated me for it. One person said she wanted to punch me in the face. That said, she emailed me years later to tell me that she became a professor, despite those statistics. If you have a lot of tenacity (doing a postdoc), are willing to settle for a school that isn't top-50, and are reasonably productive (a few papers per year) it is doable. Every single one of my friends that graduated and still wanted to be a professor, is one now, but it took 3-5 years of additional work. This is true for my friends in psychology, computer science, EE, and neuroscience.
Of course, now all my other friends say, "Why the hell did you choose to be a professor where you work 80 hours per week and make less than most undergraduates with CS degrees, even when your area of expertise is AI?"
Lastly, I want to add that a PhD is a degree in learning how to do research and in becoming one of the world's foremost experts on a particular topic. There are lots of great things to do with a PhD that aren't being a professor.