Why (Not) Do a PhD in Computer Science?(blog.skanev.org) |
Why (Not) Do a PhD in Computer Science?(blog.skanev.org) |
While it may seem like a burden for some people, I think that describing your research in a very limited space (something like 8 pages) teaches you very valuable skills. You should also write it in a way that most of the readers will understand your ideas easily, considering the fact that the readers and even conference/journal reviewers often have very different backgrounds. I have seen papers with very good results being rejected because of bad explanations and also not so impressive papers that get accepted because they are very nicely written.
Do industrial research labs really employ freshly minted PhDs - who probably haven't acquired the most important skill in modern research: the politics of attracting funding/backing?
That being said: it's all about curiosity and people. So if you're curious and have the time / money... go for a PhD!
They work in high frequency trading mainly using Java.
I supported a derivatives trading system written in java that was canned due to performance issues, and where I am now we had java FIX protocol gateways that we've replaced with C++ components, again for performance reasons.
I'm not saying java has performance problems in general, I do understand that for many applications it's a good and performant option, but when you're dealing with sub-millisecond response times it has issues. If anyone is using Java for applications like this, I'd love to know how they get round these issues.
2. US professional degrees have dropout rates of 3%, approximately. The Ph.D. with lowest dropout rate, engineering, has a 35% dropout rate. Pretty much everyone who can be admitted to a Ph.D., funded is a guaranteed admit to a pro programme that will on average make them more money.
One should do a Ph.D. if one will not regret it even if one never holds a faculty position, i.e. it's more consumption than investment, or if one got into a TOP programme in one's chosen field. Economics seems to be in the process of collapsing from top 5/6 to top 2, CS has been 4 for a long time, but the principle is the same everywhere.
That wasn't meant to attract undue attention to it, only because the term has no universal definition.
Apart from economic issues I agree with your points. If someone expects the Ph.D. to pay off in straight economic terms, different story.
> ... guaranteed admit to a pro programme that will on average make them more money.
By "pro" did you mean Ph.D.? If so, not any more, not necessarily. The economics are changing, and the combination of rising costs and the fact that a Ph.D. candidate is out of the job market longer, conspire together to make it a less attractive option. There are cases where a Ph.D. graduate makes less money than a professional degree in the same field.
I'm not disagreeing (and I'm not sure I understood you), only saying things are changing and the claim isn't true across the board.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/law-school-r...
[1] just noticed that these are 1L attrition rates. So actual rates may be a bit higher.
I hear that a lot, and I hear the argument that industry doesn't give you that type of opportunity, but I firmly disagree: in many places, people with bachelors or masters degrees are put in research positions in setups that resemble the Bell Labs of lore. And while most software shops aren't doing new things, a growing number of large firms are exploring new frontiers. (and even some finance firms, god forbid)
"a PhD teaches you how to ask the right questions"
What you need is a mentor, and a surprising number of people who decided not to do a PhD have the right mindset and actually help train people.
"Take this argument too far and you find yourself in theoretical math,"
Many of the people at the forefront of industry work find themselves delving in theoretical math (as a really oft-cited example, functional programming drawing from category theory)
"a lot of smart people tend to do research and PhDs. "
A lot of smart people decide that the PhD is heavily bureaucratic and that it would be easier to do more intellectually stimulating work in industry.
"I do it because of vanity"
Fair enough :)
There were a combination of things that decided me. One is that a PhD is not that much of an asset in the workplace. Especially considering the consequent time investment. Another is that you have to deal with all the BS of academia: doing research that doesn't interest you with your promoter, writing papers with little to no interesting content, etc...
Academia also has that "symptom of immaturity, the dread of doing what has been done before". There are many topics, often well studied which could use a clarification/simplification of the theory. Or you could make a tool for a particular domain that doesn't suck.
All in all, I think I prefer to get a "regular job", and toy on the side.
Like you however, after I did my masters and spent 6 months on my own research project, I realised that a PhD would not be for me and went into industry.
Maybe it differs away from software engineering - but my experience of grads, even Oxbridge PhDs is that I will code circles around them with what I learned off my own back in my spare time... and mainly because I learned it off my own back - or in many cases reinvented solutions without any hints or assistance.
Sorry. I'd like courses to produce valuable, employable engineers - my experience is that they do not.
Maybe it differs away from architecture - but my experience of grads, even Oxbridge PhDs is that I will build circles around them with what I learned off my own back in my spare time... and mainly because I learned it off my own back - or in many cases reinvented solutions without any hints or assistance.
Sorry. I'd like courses to produce valuable, employable builders - my experience is that they do not.
Just like mine, your experience is not necessarily indicative of the world at large. There's a reason google love hiring PhD's, there's a reason why a well known startup in London (dealing with high performance java tooling) prefer PhD candidate, there's a reason Jane Street is full of PhD's and there's a reason why half the hedge funds in London are full of math and comp sci PhD's
Take your Node and RoR skills home kid.
However, after careful consideration, I realized that: 1. I am not entirely sure if my enthusiasm will be enough to push me through a PhD 2. You can obtain a great skill set, meet loads of smart people and work on intellectually stimulating problems in industry, too.
That's why I plan to work for some time and then re-evaluate my situation and maybe apply for a PhD, who knows.
But here I am.
Most PhD people I've met (selection bias) don't do work that's too closely related to their degree (just like I don't, Enterprise Java dev != comp sci). They do all make a lot of money though.
* look at memory mapped data in java (basically using sun.misc.Unsafe lets you deal with things like malloc and free)
* look at increasing use of primitives and collections that utilize primitives appropriately
* properly profile / size your eden space
yada yada ... i think a lot of HN people have generally just wrote off java as not as fast as C, not as productive as python/ruby, and not as exciting as lisp, haskell, FOTM. Java's a fine tool like anything else...just need to use it appropriately.
AFAIK, mark-and-sweep GC was removed from the JVM years ago (except on Android, where Dalvik used it until 2.something). I can't help with the rest of your post though.
I'm just showing you how it's possible to do a PhD then get a good paying job at the end. This removed the worry of missing out on 5 years of salary.
Why do people want degree graduates? Because it shows they can finish things, because it shows they are smart? because it shows they have drive? Many reason are given for hiring grads.
Somebody with a PhD in comp sci would have pretty much proven they are good with very difficult problems and have the drive to see things through to completion.
What qualities do you think it takes to finish a PhD? Some employers seek out those qualities and a PhD is a good indication that you have those qualities.
Yes.
> Do industrial research labs really employ freshly minted PhDs - who probably haven't acquired the most important skill in modern research: the politics of attracting funding/backing?
Yes. How do you expect freshly minted PhDs to learn the art of attracting funding and backing?
Out of interest, what are some examples of the "research facilities" you are talking about?