Hacker News Reader

Comment by azhenley | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of field, you probably shouldn't get a PhD. (Disclaimer: I'm a professor.)

Counterpoint: I've got a Phd (Physics). I did not pursue physics as a career but I think about and read physics research papers and textbooks _almost every day_ and derive enormous pleasure from the pursuit.

Sure, I could teach myself everything I learned in grad school on my own time (I guess) but to me, those stipended years wherein I had no responsibilities other than to learn were the best years of my life, and they have served as the springboard for more learning in this, much more busy, period of my life.

Would it be better if I had made full professor somewhere? Sure, but in the end the education was its own reward. I consider the trade offs a bargain.

I agree completely with this. I have an Applied Physics Ph.D. and have a similar experience. I think that if you are getting a Ph.D. for a reason other than enjoying the learning and the education, then it doesn't make too much sense. However, if you have a great pleasure in the pursuit of the field and the research in it, then it makes sense to get a Ph.D.

We don't give enough credit these days to education being its own reward.

Getting a Physics Phd is fine because it looks great on a resume. It shows that you are very good at applied math. A History Phd is almost a negative, IMHO.

Not really the point I am trying to make: if you love History, getting the PhD might be worth it. Money isn't everything.

I disagree. In math, I had a survivable wage from TA/RA gigs during my whole graduate career, and I escaped the experience with less than a year's (grad school) income in loans taken out in my undergrad. Saw the writing on the wall, networked a bunch, and found a good job and now I'm making more than my supervisor ever will. Could I do the work without what I learned in my PhD program? Maybe I could have stopped after a Masters... but then I'd have missed the networking opportunities and (given the options available after my Masters) I'd have settled for a job with much lower satisfaction.

On the other hand, I feel like I've defined myself in a narrow specialization, so I might miss opportunities because they don't fit that.

But definitely don't get a PhD if your plan is to become a professor. Unless nepotism will go in your favor.

I’m a professor too.

This really depends on the field. For any field, you need to think about the outside options (I.e., non academic). If they are good and you would be happy, a phd may be a good move.

In economics, the outside options include government, policy (foundations and think tanks) and the private sector. Many are lucrative and / or rewarding in other ways. Furthermore, unlike in CS there are some roles in economics and policy which you cannot fill without a PhD.

It may be a good move!

I remember seeing an analysis about a decade ago when I was deciding on grad school.

And if I recall correctly, Economics was basically the only field where it made financial sense to get a PhD, taking into account opportunity cost etc.

I manage our PhD program in economics. We are not highly ranked yet our students do well on the job market. The bigger hurdle is getting into a PhD program. The qualifications of the applicants that we can't make a first-round offer from our program is astonishing.

There are definitely some parts of economics you want to avoid though. If you're interested in anything that fits in the "Freakanomics" classification, the job market is going to be challenging, and I'd personally not recommend getting a PhD if that is your area of interest. I chaired a search for a labor economics faculty position a couple years ago and found their job market to be absolutely brutal. Many, many top candidates with good publications were applying as postdocs. Some of them, in spite of their outstanding publications, could not find academic jobs even after completing the postdoc. I don't think any of them will be living in poverty. A tough job market nonetheless.

I strongly disagree. A lot of R&D groups at major companies require them since the work is so specialized and you won't be learning that material in udnergrad.

In the teams I've worked, every member had a PhD, our manager had a PhD, their director/VP had a PhD... everyone up until the C-suits.

It was necessary and expected.

So I think it really depends on your field.

I didn't say that there aren't jobs that require a PhD (even ones with a lot of openings and great pay). I said "you probably shouldn't get a PhD."

I feel that it would be a great service to prospective students everywhere if colleges (or the government) tracked outcomes and reported on them.

Something like "89% of history PhDs are employed in these salary bands (list them with percentages), and 3% are employed in the profession associated with their PhD".

I'm not arguing that student's don't stand to benefit from this sort of reporting, but...

I bet most history departments would tell you that they are not interested in the commercial success of their PhDs. That's not the purpose of their institution or in alignment with the academic tradition.

Exactly. I've seen this rationalization so much. It's like practically outrage at the mere suggestion that education should have some kind of functional purpose outside of itself.

It is not uncommon for departments to provide placement information for the graduate students that have completed their program. I've never seen salary information though. No one goes into academia for the money.

The University of Michigan has a really nice online tool:

https://tableau.dsc.umich.edu/t/UM-Public/views/RackhamDocto...

According to that 22% of history grad students from 2015-2020 got tenure track positions. That's quite a crapshoot for investing 5+ years in a career path. And of course you could fall off the tenure track. And Michigan has a top history program.

I seem to recall during the Obama administration they we trying to require this but I think the colleges lobbied to water it down.

I somehow get a feeling that if the prospects were actually good in any sense, colleges would advertise them whenever they had the chance (is there even reliable information about how salaries are distributed? Not just means and standard deviations).

I got an undergraduate degree that has 0% unemployment rate with good salaires because there are so few graduates, but for a PhD (that I was thinking of getting) there is no guarantee that even the places where I would work are good enough in terms of research or teaching.

I'm in an R&D job as well. I agree that a PhD is expected, but I disagree that it's necessary. Most R&D work is so specialized that PhDs are not much closer to it than MS graduates, PhD dropouts, or just people with relevant work experience. Hiring is much easier if you relax the PhD requirement.

There are some limited fields where a company or university will pay you to get a PhD (usually tied to post-doctorate work) - and pay beyond a stipend; a real salary.

Those can be worth pursuing, but otherwise you may want to consider just resting on the incidental Masters you get as part of the PhD program ...

> Regardless of field, you probably shouldn't get a PhD. (Disclaimer: I'm a professor.)

Depends on the field, doesn't it? Some fields, like History, don't open any opportunities other than academia. Other fields, like engineering or medicine, basically lets the student practice their field in industry and commerce.

If studying a certain field means that the only thing you can do is teach that field, then that's a pretty sure way to go into poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com