Comment by peterwoerner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterwoerner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have a PhD (in mech engineering) and work in industry.

My experience was that I basically had to pick up a new physics set and tool set every year as I jumped from algorithm development, to constitutive model development, machine learning, and quantum computing. In all cases they were tackling problems in different areas: new toolset to learn, new math to learn and new physics to learn. I thoroughly enjoy working on research problems, however I felt that there was a lot working on made up problems and forcing a square pegs into round holes so we could declare success to the funding agency when really it was a probably worse way to tackle the problem than industry standard.

Pros: I was forced to ride a learning curve with a new skill set and new area of expertise every year. I have learning to pick up skills very quickly.

I took a lot of cross discipline classes in physics, mechanical engineering, mathematics, scientific computing, chemical engineering, and materials engineering. I have a large amount of cross discipline knowledge.

I found the work fun and I basically had no boss which was nice.

The downside: I worked 60 hours a week for $20,000/year for 5 years. Lost wages ~ $500,000

The tools and skills I developed for my PhD only peripherally translate to the work I do in industry.

Advice: Get a job, the PhD will be waiting for you in 2 years if you decide you want it then. Plus it sounds like you are thinking about getting a PhD because looking for a job is hard.

I took a job after doing my MSc, with the thought of going back to do a PhD in a few years time. I did go back after 5 years, but didn't finish the PhD - I only stayed for a year.

I mostly thought that I had to do a PhD to keep learning. But I was wrong - I learn every day as a developer. I also realized that I liked broad problems rather than narrow. E.g. make a system good enough in all dimensions vs working on "perfect" overload protection.

I wrote more about it here: https://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-prog...

> Advice: Get a job, the PhD will be waiting for you in 2 years if you decide you want it then. Plus it sounds like you are thinking about getting a PhD because looking for a job is hard.

Almost no one who takes that advice returns to get a PhD, the income is too hard to give up and often life moves on which makes it hard to take the financial hit and devote the time.

The only way it worked for me was to not need much money (tuition covered and receive a stipend) and have 80+ hours a week to geek out over things that interested me. Absolutely no way I could do that now with kids. That may be one of the reasons almost everyone in my program was in their mid 20s, and the hand full in their 50s after their kids went off to college.

Not sure. I'm in my 20's and have done well enough in industry (programming) and with side projects to not have to worry about making money any more. Now that basic needs are met, the question is how to spend my time in the ways that are the most interesting to me.

As just someone with some business savvy and programming skills, I could go work as a staff engineer somewhere—but that probably won't be that interesting or impactful. If I go work at FAANG I'll probably work on ads or tweaking existing systems—a cog in the wheel.

So the idea of going back to school to try for a PhD in some interesting field is now something I'm considering seriously. I graduated from college 5 years ago and I remember thinking about how badly I wanted to stop studying and start making money in the 'real world'. Funny how retrospectively I can see how that was all subliminally motivated by finances; and now that such pressure has subsided, life is much more about fields of interest and purposeful work.

The question is then, will a PhD always lead to meaningful work, or am I digging myself into a hole, and I don't really know the answer to that.

> Almost no one who takes that advice returns to get a PhD, the income is too hard to give up and often life moves on which makes it hard to take the financial hit and devote the time.

These are all fair points and worth thinking about for the OP (or others in a similar situation). I got engaged and married while pursuing my PhD, and I found having a wife difficult, it wouldn't work (for me) with kids (although there were a few).

I worked for two and a half years before going back to school but I lived like a student for those years, so I didn't end up with a lifestyle change. I also saw a reason to get the PhD--I wanted (and still do) to be a P.I. on research endeavors.

Almost no one returns, but I don’t think money is the reason.

This is fantastic. I fetishize learning and I'm quite envious of the stuff that you got to learn. For me, the ability to learn hard things is what a PhD trains you for. Yes, it's not financially rewarding in the first few years of your career but with the right tools, mindset and some guidance from peers and one's advisor, you can put a PhD to good use.

That said, I'm not a PhD. How do you recommend one learning multi-disciplinary skills these without one?

If you have reason to suspect that the job market will be somewhat recessed in the coming time then getting a PhD might be a reasonable strategy to ride that time out.

I tend to disagree with this.

PhD's tend to work in advanced areas of companies. When recessions hit, R&D is one of the first places to take a hit.

It's the opposite. R&D is a long term investment. When a company starts a new project in a recession then the recession will be over by the time the project has been completed. When a recession coincides with the completion of a project then you can't travel back in time to undo the decision.

Recessions generally hurt companies that sell directly to consumers the most. Business to business companies are usually affected the least.

I think the idea is that you spend the recession years in a relatively safe albeit badly paid position which can potentially lead to more lucrative opportunities in the post-recession years. This makes some sense except that your skill in predicting recessions is likely horrible and you probably shouldn't be planning your career based on it.

Some years ago I remember somebody (maybe Tim Bray) had a post that the people who had the best careers in Tech would go to secure government positions during recessions, where they would generally work on crafting the standards other people would have to follow, after the recession they would move into a period of private consulting on the standards they had just designed. I think the PhD argument is a variant of that.

It is of course correct that if you are so good at predicting recessions that you could use this strategy effectively then probably your best monetizing possibility would be just predicting recessions and investing based on that. But then it is not sure that people will do the most effective thing either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com