Hacker News Reader

> I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school modeled by mentors (professors, parents) was built on a growing post-war pyramid of faculty jobs and research opportunities, now it has become a saturated pyramid in many fields. So then students find themselves not competing easily for a growing number of jobs, but waiting to see which senior professor retires or dies and opens up a spot. Or else leave for industry. And woe to those who go into fields where there is not a lot of industry to exit to.

I was basically told I would not graduate my PhD program if I didn't do my dissertation in a machine learning application of my field of interest.

The intersection existed but after a year of trying to motivate myself I could not. I ended up quitting. It's more politics than it's worth and I was in competition with students from other countries who had infinitely more funding, infinitely more time, and infinitely more energy than me. I was doing night classes and spending every other waking hour I wasn't working pushing my research.

There is a lot of myth baked into the PhD along with a lot of romanticization of deep innovative work. From school that is pretty much fed to you of scholars and that you need to get a PhD to be known as one. E.g. Newton, Gauss, Kelvin, Tesla, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, etc.

There is a massive misreading of the general situation though like the parent comment mentions. I think until before WWII academia was a rich mans profession. I would bet that people who got into academia were those whose parents had the means to support their education and that they could either independently or through patronage carry out research. This is what most people miss about a PhD or a scholar. It was exclusively a rich mans (and in very exceptional cases a woman married to a rich man or a man married to a rich woman) business. A more extreme example Carl Jung’s wife supported her husband’s research even when he was having an affair with another woman. Remember that cabin he built so eloquently described in “Deep Work” with a walk in the woods. It might have been with the wife’s money.

Post WWII government funding for research exploded but there were not enough researchers. Universities brought in more and more professors for their government funded programs and government funded student loans. All professors want tenure track. To handle tenure track you need publications. But now we have a problem - the professors aren’t wealthy. They need to apply for patronage (ahem - government grants) and need to write proposals. The problem is “professorship” is an up or out profession. You get 7 years to move up or get out. In time, the government grants have reduced, the number of professors has ticked upwards. You have a complete rat race for scraps. There are some well-funded departments that continue to attract great students. But by and large its the stress of grant writing that will eat at you.

So, in the end the profession itself hasn’t changed much. You’re still petitioning the “rich man” for “patronage”. It’s just that now there are many more petitioners. It’s just not worth it.

That being said, there needs to be some mechanism to acquire deep advanced skills as you continue along your professional journey. A masters with a thesis mostly works and can get you a considerable way through. It could be specialized so that you get more time for focused research as opposed to filling up your time with pointless credits. I did a PhD when I was working. It was stressful - but only from a time perspective. I never had stresses of money or career for which I’m thankful. I also had a very considerate advisor. I cannot think of a position in industry today except in research labs that really need a PhD. Everyone going for it needs to look out and understand that.

> I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school [...] Astronomy? Not so much. [...]

Ph.D. in astronomy has been "do not expect a job" for at least 2 full generations now. I recall talking to an astronomy professor from (?) Univ. of Michigan ~1982. Supposedly, it was SOP to tell the kids in UM's "freshman astronomy for potential astronomy majors" course that Ph.D.'s should not expect jobs. Jobs were "possible" at lower levels, if you were clever about it. (Make sure you got lots of experience running the planetarium, maintaining high-end astronomy equipment, etc.)