Software jobs, PhDs and over-qualification
semanticlifescience.wordpress.com
semanticlifescience.wordpress.com
1. Your PhD has real-world applicability. Which is not hard.
2. Your potential employers could apply those skills.
3. You can actually code pretty well, too.
I think this third item is often the issue. PhDs often have underdeveloped programming abilities compared to industry vets the same age -- too much classwork, not enough larger-scale projects. There are good ways around this: graduate research assistantships that require reasonable code, collaborative research that requires you build your part of a system, internships, etc.
At least for the places that I've worked and do work now, if they think you can get the job done, you're in good shape. Then again, I don't apply to the 1000-monkeys on 1000 typewriter coder/body shops, either.
My rather opinionated thoughts on my 3 year failure of a PhD is here: http://jamie.ideasasylum.com/2008/07/things-i-learnt-during-...
When I applied for software engineering jobs the recruiters ignored my 3 years of Java/Python programming for the PhD and my 4 years of embedded Java programming for research labs. All that counts is the time when you were delivering code to paying customers in a commercial setting :(
Someone offering a helpful suggestion: Dude...if you have a PhD...there is no excuse for you to not be able to remember your C coding with barely a day's effort. [This refers to job interview questions about the complexity of linked lists and such.]
The PhD having job seeker: ...there's a mental mode where you're doing those low-level things and you do lose it after college and after not working any more with C/C++. Reviewing it doesn't help that much. I dislike the notion that I just went to the job and then realized I had to practice.
That's not to say that things are bad out there. When I got my Ph.D., recruiters would cold call me ("Want to work in the financial industry?"). Now I'm actively looking and rarely get called back. I guess I need to network a bit more...
The article's use of the "plain ol' developer position" phrase suggests that this person had a different problem. God forbid they said that in an interview... They were apparently not interviewing for jobs they actually wanted.
If you actually want the job, you'll be interested in it, you'll explain why you're a good fit, and you probably won't describe it as a "plain ol'" anything, even in jest, even to yourself. Otherwise, why waste the time?
This is true, at least in Einstein's case. Or, s/patent clerk/surfer/g, s/Einstein/Garrett Lisi/g But the romanticism has gone out of proportion.
I don't. PhD correlates with smartness, and smartness correlates with wages. Please take care not to assume causation.
But should you get a PhD just to make money without a love for research? Each year of industry experience at a young age will be more valuable to you than a year of study. Yes, you can get stuck. You can also get unstuck and learn ten different languages under ten different employers, as I did.
I would guess from your experience "building scientific instruments and software to control them" you would be able to find a job doing dev. If you can swing it while you're still a student, I would highly, highly recommend you do some internships with companies writing software, even if it is doing the same type of code you currently do. If you can't do that, pick up a minor in CS while doing your physics grad work.
FWIW, it sounds like the author here was really applying for the wrong job.
I left academia for two reasons: pay and a preference for programming to the drudgery of publication. I started my programming career near the peak of 2000 tech bubble and had doubled my salary within with a couple of years. Six figure programming salaries are far more common than six figure salaries in academic research.
An additional bonus which I did not anticipate was the competitive advantage I would have. Competition for academic positions is quite intense involving many capable people. This is likely why salaries remain low. In programming the typical skill level is much lower.
Wrong. Usually employers look for someone to get the frickin job done without rethinking the problem. Classic example right now: I have PhD in Strategic Planning telling me to make the algorithm calculate the Economic Order Quantity when creating the Purchase Order. The Buyer immediately gave me 4 reasons why that will never work in the real world: the vendor will have to interrupt set-ups for plan changes, the bank will never approve that line of credit, the rev level may change before the end of the run, and oh, by the way, that many won't fit on the truck.
"...trying to get a plain ol’ developer position..."
You have an attitude problem. There's nothing "plain ol'" about what we do every day. While you were busy in your ivory tower for 8 years, someone had to keep the world moving.
"companies want the 20 year-olds to code quick and turn out an app with a 6-month lifetime"
On what planet? You were obviously too busy in college to actually find out what really goes on in the real world.
"6-8 years in graduate school under constant stress torn your ego into to pieces"
Poor baby. Get a job. Feed, clothe, and shelter a family. Deliver something every day to someone who is depending on you. For those of us who have been doing this for years, earning a PhD sounds like a vacation.
"Deliver something every day to someone who is depending on you" - this is exactly what you have to do in a Ph.D. program all the time - you have coauthors on papers that have to be shipped, and yours and their future depends on it.
In the corporate world, you also have to deliver, but at least what you're doing is well known to be possible. In academia you have a constant feeling that you might be against an impossible problem, and the results will never come together.
Plus in the corporate world, you can work 9am-7pm at most, rather than 11am-2pm as in grad school. And the pay is 4x higher. Now what sounds more like a vacation?
(Of course, here I was referring to a PhD in Computer Science. I don't know what's Strategic Planning, so I can't judge there.)
I really don't mean to pick on you (or anyone else), but inaccurate claims about that with which you are not familiar deserve response.
"There indeed are plain old developer positions..."
Of course there are. And for everyone of those, there is someone else changing the world.
"this is exactly what you have to do in a Ph.D. program all the time"
Fair enough.
"In the corporate world, you also have to deliver, but at least what you're doing is well known to be possible."
Not my experience. "Do x, y, and z by the first of next quarter or you're out of business." You frequently don't know if what you're trying to do is possible. But you have to do it anyway. This happens all the time.
"you can work 9am-7pm at most..."
If only.
I admit that my "vacation" remark may have ruffled some feathers, and I love what I do, but it would be my dream come true to quit work and go back to a college PhD program. I know I'm not alone in this.
AFAIC, work is to make a living, education is what we live for.
"Do x, y, and z by the first of next quarter or you're out of business." Sure, but new developer hires in large companies are absolutely not in a position to decide where the business is going, and won't be for quite some time. The article and my comment were about the entry-level developer positions.
"And for everyone of those, there is someone else changing the world." Absolutely, and I greatly admire such people. But you won't change the world in an entry-level developer job. I tried such jobs, they were very easy and I suffered a lot the lack of opportunity to change the world.
I was just a bit upset at the dichotomy of "industry = responsibility, having to deliver" and "academia = lack of such responsibility". I think we know better now what each of us meant.
"You have an attitude problem"
Case in point, if you want a lower level position, remove the PhD from your resume. Stop over-thinking the problem. It's a perfectly valid solution to say you have a masters or bachelors instead so you can feed your family. Employers are perfectly valid in excluding PhDs if they are concerned about over qualifications costing more or leading to boredom.
I think the other major problem is that people take PhD's that won't help them get a job. I've known forensic scientists who've been stuck in deli counters, because there's only a handful of available jobs in the entire western world. I've known journalist grads who've been flat out rejected because of their degree, because it teaches them poor skills (the main skill desired now is the ability to write with personality, which journalism courses actively discourage).
So I'm sure there's a lot of ways that can contribute to a PhD making you unemployable, however it's probably always down to poor choice or poor judgment.
Personally I'd love to get a PhD in physics out of pure interest. However, the one thing I'd worry about, and I've told to friends going the PhD route, is that taking a PhD keeps you out of the career field for 10+ years. So you have to really evaluate if 10+ years of experience is better for you career wise than a PhD and 0 years experience, because all the fields I'm interested in (career wise, not academically) don't give a damn if you have a PhD, so even though I'd like to have a degree in something I'm not going to waste my time.
What we're doing has very little to do with any of the science we perpetrated, though!