Comment by biounit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by biounit | Hacker News Reader

Interesting perspective. Certainly get a good feel for your potential before striking out on a startup. And have as much savings as possible. I did the PhD and while doing my Postdoc I started a company. I did many years as Research Professor before quitting and focusing on my company.

Comparing the two situations I'd argue the business option is far better for a number of reasons. The most important being freedom. To survive in academics now is an awful game of proposals and nonstop stress. Success rates are very low and there is intense competition. And all for very little (no) payoff. And it is a sales job. At the end, before I finally pulled the plug I often likened academics to a situation where you're selling something that people may like, but they don't want to pay for it. If you do it right with a company, people are begging to pay you. And the reality is the business route is much more challenging, just in a different way. Everything is on the line.

I do think promoting a "startup" in the conventional sense where you have VC funding and explosive growth is disingenuous. There are many opportunities where a PhD scientist can carve out a niche where you have a company with 1-10 million in revenue. It affords an excellent situation that, if sustainable, is orders of magnitude better than the academic lifestyle that is so often idolized.

Does a startup have?

Proposals and Stress = Check

low success rates and intense competition = Check

Need for sales = Check

I can't help but think you essentially have the same situation in academia as one has in a startup, only "it's different." The difference to me is the illusion of control. One may think that they are in control of the startup vs. the bureaucracy of government/academia/established business.

I posit that most things that are required by business are, in fact, not under your control. The illusion of control is there and one may feel that actions are leading to certain outcomes, but the truth is they have no direct control of the outcome. "Luck" plays the same role in the bureaucratic or private enterprise affair... some have it and others don't.

Chance of extremely high returns = Check (not so much in academia)

Chance of nice pension and a job for life = Check (not so much for a failed startup)

I am not saying one is right or wrong; the pension could "poof" go away with legislation for example. However, I will say there are compromises/choices to be made. I am quite indifferent to the matter as we all choose a path... The difference lies in how much we think we control vs. how much we actually control.

Chances of a nice pension and a job for life are pretty low in academia these days.

A quick back of the envelope calculation of the value of a $150000 salary over 30 years is 2-4 million (depending on what you assume as your interest rate).

What are the chances that a person doing a startup will leave the startup with 2-4 million dollars? How does it compare with the chances of getting tenure at a university that pays $150000 on average?

I would disagree. Just read the list of nobel prize winners and how many of them are academics. These are often actual paradigm shifts in how you think of the world that lasts generations, not decades.

Compare this with the impact a successful startup has and it does not quite compare. A successful startup creates new jobs. Novel science that can be applied creates entire industries.

When he/she says high returns I'd imagine he/she is referring to monetary gains.

So impact withstanding, a Nobel prize winner is awarded roughly 8 million SEK, which is 941320 U.S. dollars. Now, disregard their monthly salaries, as the time it takes from winning a Nobel Prize varies from an infinity to once or twice and consider the portion of Nobel prize winners compared to the number of scientists and measure that against the number of businesses owners that rake in 941320 dollars a year out of all of the business owners that there are and I'm sure you'd agree that if you are optimising for personal economic gains going the academic route is not the wisest choice.

Yeah, working in academia, with its endless proposals and grant applications, is a bit like running a start-up that never succeeds.

"It's different" is a big deal. In academics, if you're research oriented, your success is 90% or more based on your ability to bring $ in the institution. If your research field is on an upswing - novel, deemed important, hot with the funding agencies - you're good. It extremely challenging when things turn. Pivot is virtually impossible, especially before tenure. I'd argue that with business you don't necessary have to be producing the next big deal. There are plenty of mundane products from which a lot of $ can be made and you can survive. That's what gives you the freedom.

I'm not discounting the difficulties present in each scenario (or the luck). However, after ruminating about all the pluses and minuses, I believe one is likely better off trying the business route.

Despite what SV wants the world to believe, business success is 100% based on how much money you can bring to your business/company as compared to the cost to operate said business/company.

I see your point and concede that if you have research in an area with no funding, you are most likely dead in the water.

I don't see how that is any different than a business. The simple fact remains that you have no control over what is going to be "hot" and what is going to be "dead." How many times can you afford to be wrong? That is the ultimate question, isn't it?

>low success rates and intense competition = Check

Not as low or intense as academia IME :(

I'd be interested in looking at the data in order to find out just how success rates compare between academia and startups.

This is like saying that Leo Messy scoring goals is luck.

As a business owner that meets other business owners every day I believe "luck" is not that important.

There is a lot of space for normal business in the world, that solves a problem, give a service or creates simple products. You can be good at it or not. Most successful owners I know are not lucky at all.

Luck applies to the "changing the wold" thing, but 99% of business are not that way. People at HN has a distorted view on that reality.

What is luck?

Does Messi score a goal on every attempt? Does he score a goal on every third attempt?

To me, "luck" is everything you don't control. You can call it fate, reality, "the grind", or life. The fact is you don't have complete control over most aspects you think you have control over. It is an illusion.

From what I've seen on HN, many commenters are experts on what won't work.

The faith that big things come from little ones is a bigger factor in success than is often acknowledged.

If anyone thinks that startups aren't _all about_ sales, they are in for a rude awakening. The truth is, your idea/technology doesn't actually have much to do with the success of a startup. It's all about how much money you can raise (sales), and as a prerequisite, how much traction/customers you have (sales).

Just look at the Yo app. They got $1 million in investment (for some reason). Their technology was nothing special, in fact it was literally written in a day. But their CEO apparently had an in with some investors, or they were _very_ good at sales/pitching.

There's more than one way to run a startup. There are startups that are very product focused, with very little personal salesmanship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com