In the kindest possible way: screw all of you!
Then you're going to have a great time during your PhD, good luck and have fun!
> screw all of you!
"Disregard!" https://stepsandleaps.wordpress.com/2017/10/17/feynmans-brea...
If you have a good advisor, your passionate about your project, and you got some good funding, you'll have a wonderful time of exploring interesting ideas and becoming a competent researcher. Good luck!
I hope you have a similarly rewarding experience. You will encounter unfair systems and unscrupulous people, and it will be frustrating. The data will be confusing as hell. My only advice is stay true to yourself. Maybe look into some of the new trends that could fix academia -- pre-registration, open access with public comment periods, reproducible code, etc. For inspiration, I cheer for crusaders like Data Colada who are trying to save the academic system.
Yes, a highly motivated college dropout with a computer, a strong financial safety net, and the right social connections can be in the right place at the right time to seize big opportunities. Most people are not in that position. Many high-impact technologies need more than what just a computer can do.
The main thing is to be self aware enough to know the path you’re on, what paths are available to you, and how to make the most of the connections and resources you have available to you. The second you start to get pigeonholed, wrap things up and move on.
That seems like good advice.
I have a PhD, got an academic position and then worked in various companies (startups, big tech company). These paths aren't exclusive.
I'm glad I did the PhD.
- it gave me time to work on a variety of interesting topics. In my company, I always feel rushed and don't have time to learn as much as I'd like to.
- I had more than one career. Working only in industry after graduation would have been pretty sad I think. Not that it's bad but it's great to see something different
- I developed some skills (for instance talking in front of audience, write scientific papers) and got to meet a lot of interesting people, and worked in different countries.
I also learned that research wasn't for me but it was worth doing the PhD anyway. If I had to do it again, I would pick my topic more carefully, and go straight to industry rather than pursuing an academic position (which I actually didn't like). Also money wise, even though I'm not materialistic, the pay was too low. Certainly enough to live, but not enough to secure my future and retirement.
> You still have to be realistic
I'm expecting it to be very challenging. But that's the point — isn't it?
Good luck to you too.
I wish you the best of luck for your PhD, a caring and supportive advisor, and great results!
Also, this is HN, which revolves around an occupation -- computer programming -- that is unique in terms of having high demand while remaining flexible about how and where people learn their skills. Not all fields are that way.
I got a PhD in physics, in 1993, and have worked in industry since then. There are a couple of "negatives" that I still think are wroth pointing out:
1. PhD programs have very high attrition, and you bear most of the risk on your own shoulders. It's worth going in with eyes open, and knowing the risks. Getting out with your PhD may require some compromises along the way. I won't necessarily call them ethical compromises, but perhaps compromises to the (typically) idealistic views that many students start out with.
2. The little nub of specialized knowledge shown in TFA is your research, not your brain. You can do specialized research without becoming a specialized person if you want. This is a personal choice (academic freedom and all that). My dad, who also had a PhD and a good industry career, always told me to avoid hyper-specialization.
Don't forget to learn how to code, just in case. ;-)
How many people do you know who “failed to meet the standard”? Zero. If you do the time and work for your professors you will get the reward. There is no risk.
> PhD Envy" is a real part of office politics
The most vocal critics are not bachelor degree holders, but those who did it and had a bad experience.
It could be because you realize you don't really like research - that involves reading and writing a lot of papers, going to conferences not just tinkering. It could be because you had the wrong professor who failed to lead you and left you by yourself. It could be because you gave up at a low point, where most PhD student go through. It could be because after 4 or 5 years your professor keep saying "you're not ready yet" (I've seen that in humanities).
So it's not really a problem of "not being good enough", but it definitely happens.
1. Your experiment fails to produce a result after a few years of effort (my project, we don't know to this day what went wrong, and I was lucky to find a new project).
2. Loss of funding or institutional support. (A large program at my state's university pulled its support for a process that required regulatory approval, and an entire group of faculty and students all had to leave.)
3. Your advisor quits, changes jobs, gets fired, goes to prison, dies. (Many cases).
4. Your advisor holds your thesis hostage until you publish a certain number of articles (a friend of mine, she sued and won).
5. Mental health issues (high incidence of clinical depression).
6. Personal animosity between members of your committee (another friend).
How these risks instantiate themselves is that you have to start from scratch, often with a completely new research project, and finding one isn't guaranteed by your department. You are almost completely at the mercy of one person -- your advisor. There is virtually no oversight.
Most of these are factors in any employment, and I would argue things like chance of losing funding at your job is worse than academic funding threats.
In comparison, most PhD students work for a very low salary on the expectation of a payoff after something like 3 to 6 years. Framed that way, being forced to either start over or depart is incredibly costly.
Unfortunately, that is not always a positive as many real life situations require you to make decisions under extreme paucity of information and reverse or change course at short notice. For such professions and roles it is a liability.
I'm pretty sure that without the research done by people with PhDs and people who don't give up at the first hurdle, we wouldn't be able to be sitting at our keyboards now having this conversation. Of course, it's not for everyone. Maybe it's not for most. But I don't think you should write all of it off as 'signalling'. Some research simply cannot be done without several years of focus, outside of industry or 'the real world'.
It's hard to believe this 'sucking up to those with money' thing applies everywhere, though it's easier to imagine it applies in certain domains.
Physics (since it's supposed to be rigorous) seems like a less likely area than some to be driven by politics and trends, but I suppose I can imagine that competing research programmes and ideas benefit from a certain amount of marketing and smooth-talking of people with funding rather than relying purely on empirical evidence for their claims.
Physics may be in some sense more falsifiable, but it is absolutely subject to politics and social norms, both in how it lies about itself for money, and literally in which theories are chosen (since we can rarely empirically distinguish between them)
Academia is rare for having the engineer also be the salesman
My wife is the lead mechanical engineer at a small company and she definitely doesn’t have to go around convincing customers they need her products
Everyone else basically had to reformulate their research to pretend it was applicable to the government's funding subject de jure. This led to some quite large stretches in definition to achieve "<Main area of research>, and some applications in <funding stream>". This very much felt like it was sucking up to money.
I got out of the academia in the end because it felt like the more senior I got the more time I spent applying for funding and managing the spending and the less time I spent doing research/development. (Also given I was in a UK public sector institute, the pay was shit due to 40 years of below inflation pay rises crippling the institution).
I left because the only path forward here in Germany is to become a professor, aka a life full of admin and sales
As the commenter above observes, physics is (supposed to be) falsifiable, so it should be clear when you have a result and when you don't. In the some of the more 'wooly' disciplines, this is not the case. You can write BS and as long as you're able to argue sufficiently eloquently that your particular strain of BS is valid, you win — in some cases, you needn't even supply data or perform experiments. It is in those fields that I assume the forces of politics/fashion/social pressure are strongest.
There is a technical floor to participate, but to potential funders all the physics project proposals from Physics professors sound equally probable. They are going to choose projects based on internal initiatives (fad), name recognition, track record, etc.
I feel like people are needlessly bitter about all of this stuff. Life isn’t fair; no one ever said it was. And why does anyone expect that you’d be able to get research funding without having to form relationships and make some effort to sway influential people in your direction? Yes, it’s not ‘pure research’, but it’s still part of life. I don’t see how it could be any other way… unless we get AGI as promised and then we’re free to sit on our backsides all day and become philosophers with infinite funding.
As I mentioned, my wife is a mechanical engineer. "All" she needs to do is do her work, and her manager will be happy. Going out and selling to customers and convincing them they want your product is not her job.
In academia, you can do the work, you can know it's excellent and groundbreaking, as I did for my own work, but unless you go out and sell it, no one cares. You can't just do science, you also have to do sales.
And, to pre-empt a response, yes, it is true that you still have to "sell" the idea that you've done the work properly to your boss in the industry, but it's totally different to in academia, where you will very often be in the situation where no one even knows that you've done any work at all, let alone is expecting something from you. Academia is just a very different working dynamic. Much more independent, much less collaborative, much more responsibility, much less praise
Best of luck for your PhD! You might want to check out this ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/uri_alon_why_science_demands_a_lea...
I'm only very junior, though, so I don't have total confidence that I'm right. But I'm pretty certain I am.
A math PhD might take 6-7 years to complete and I hope that, at the end of it all, you won’t have to come to London to look for C++ or Ocaml jobs at hedge funds or banks.
...this is the discouraging negativity I'm talking about. I do, respectfully, wonder what your agenda is.
I am not trying to discourage you, just a different perspective.
I hope you achieve good things, and have fun while at it!
Every country is different.
If anything, take it all with a "grain of salt" and reflect on whether or not anyone you meet might resemble these comments. Hopefully, not your future self.
Good luck in your career.