Hacker News Reader

Comment by short_circut | Hacker News Reader

I am currently about a year away from my PhD in computational physics and chemistry and looking out towards the future I have very similar sentiments to this professor. Finding a decent job in academia is very very difficult. Even when you do get one it really won't be worth the work and time you have to put into it. At least in my field it is much better to develop your skills elsewhere and use that to enter into industry. I just wish someone had told me this 4 years ago.

View on HN

The world for a graduating History PhD is totally different than for most STEM majors. Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation. At least in the sciences its /possible/ to graduate debt free. Also in the sciences its entirely possible that your specific domain expertise will land you a job.

Not to say a history PhD is useless for finding work, but its likely more difficult to find work than say a Physics PhD (which has a 96% employment rate 1st year after graduation, according to the APS[1]).

[1]http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/phdinitial.pdf

"Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation."

This is incorrect. It's absolutely possible to earn a humanities doctorate without going into debt (at least for the postgraduate degree(s)).

You didn't actually refute the claim you quoted. acadien didn't say it was impossible; the claim was that it's extremely unlikely.

It is kind of correct... from a certain point of view. While there's probably a lower rate of funding for PhDs in the humanities than in STEM fields, there's also fewer people getting PhDs in the humanities than in STEM, by at least a factor of 2[1]. I'm not arguing that humanities PhDs are cushy by any means, but it's not necessarily as bad as that.

[1]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/

In the following sentence, he does imply that it's impossible.

The 2011 NSF survey reports that 51% of humanities PhD graduates hold no degree-related debt, and that only 22% fund their degrees through their own resources. Compared to life/physical science students, more humanities PhDs fund their degrees by going into debt (by about 25%), but the majority of humanities PhDs graduate without debt and fund their degrees through fellowship grants and assisstantship positions, just like graduate students in STEM fields.

Anecdotally, all the humanities departments I am familiar with fund the vast majority (90%+) of their doctoral students.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4

Yes, that was poor wording. I meant to imply it is often difficult to graduate debt free for STEM majors as well. TA stipends simply aren't enough to pay the bills these days.

I don't mean to imply a STEM major is more valuable than a History PhD either, simply that its (likely) easier to get a job after graduation. Honestly, its a damn shame the public doesn't appreciate both of these areas of work more as they are the cornerstone for improving society.

As a soon-to-be-graduating CS PhD I agree with the author that a PhD is probably not worth the opportunity cost. I have a standing post-doc offer, but the pay is much lower than what I am offered in industry for skills I gained in my spare time. I made the calculation and the PhD cost me about the same as a house in the bay area in lost income and if the job I get does not align well with my research it will cost me even more in opportunity cost.

I think one of the core problems is that people, for whatever reason, enter PhD programs for the wrong reasons. Something I have been told several times is that you should only do a PhD if the opportunity to work on the research it involves is worth it. If you find yourself worrying about opportunity cost, you shouldn't be considering it in the first place. I found that to be wise advice.

I agree that the degree should not be the goal. However, I do not think a student should enter a PhD program unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it. Liking research is not a good enough reason for taking a PhD in my opinion.

I learned a lot and pushed my theoretical understanding during my Phd, and I can not imagine being without that. However, most people is probably better off finishing off with a masters (including my former self) and getting that downpayment instead of a PhD degree.

  > unless they are mature enough to consider the opportunity cost and make sounds judgements about it.

But couldn't that be said for virtually anything 20-somethings do? What about working for a startup? Or starting one? Those things involve opportunity costs too. I agree with you that it would ideal if everyone could have the benefit of wisdom and maturity before making life decisions, but that isn't going to happen. In the meantime, if you enjoy research, I say do a PhD. If you enjoy working on startups, I say do that. It's not like either of those things (provided the PhD is in STEM) are going to lead to a life of insurmountable poverty...

This is what's hard to hear for me. The knowledge that academia is more or less impossible to get a job in has been out there for much more than four years. It's obvious if you take even the most cursory look at job openings, career advice comments on sites like these, the news, etc. But somehow, students continue to finish up their degrees only finding out toward the end.

How is it that so many students are unaware of this until the end of their education? Is it just the quintessential American "you can be anything you put your mind to" wishful thinking? This question goes doubly for humanities PhDs, because at least you can get a job elsewhere.

For me I was always reassured by everyone who mattered to me that with a degree in physics I could go just about anywhere because my analytically skills would open doors. Hearing that day in and day out breed in a sense of brainwashedness. Perhaps I am the one who is wrong. I certainly hope so.

To be fair, a degree in physics is pretty killer. Of all the PhDs you could get, that would be the one, for my money. Physics folks are highly intelligent, by and large. In fact, I don't know if I have met a single person who got a physics PhD who wasn't also smarter than me. People who matter will respect that. Probably still a net financial loss compared to going directly to industry, but not nearly as bad as many of the other PhDs out there.

You can at least apply your skills elsewhere. It might take some self-learning beyond coursework, but lots of data scientists and financial researchers have your background.

But that Phd in history....

Sounds like you're doing a very similar PhD to me - good to see other computational researchers here (despite the circumstances, so to speak...)!

I'm also acutely aware that while staying in academia would be great (despite all the bad things like crazy hours, crazy people, etc.) there is simply a very good chance it's not going to be possible, or if it is it'll be crazy competitive.

The litmus test I always think about is a colleague [postdoc] I worked with years ago. He was disgustingly smart and capable, and applied for over 100 tenure track positions before getting one. He also had an educational pedigree and publication record most of us can only dream of, and was a great guy to boot. If it takes someone like that 100+ applications what chance do the rest of us have!?

Because of this, I've taken on the rather larger responsibility of running the labs computing resources, both hardware/software. It's a lot of work (I'd estimate I spend maybe 20 hours a week doing sysadmin related tasks) but it does also give me a totally inappropriate level of responsibility which I hope will be valuable either inside academia, or in industry. I also really enjoy it, which is a nice bonus.

I guess it would depend on the kinds of tasks you are doing. Depending on the work involved, you might simply be preparing yourself for a junior sys admin position. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do, but it certainly doesn't require a PhD (or any degree, really).

At least computational physics and chemistry has practical applications.

History - not so much.

Our society doesn't need so many history graduates. History should be a hobby, not something a million kids each year dedicate their life to.

I don't know. I think in a society that valued education more, there would be a place for more history professors. This would bring down class size, for one. I also believe a well-rounded education better prepares someone to give back to society and avoid over-simplified political messaging.

Universities, in pursuing profits, are cutting costs. This no doubt good for their bottom line, but it might be bad for society as a whole. With the downplaying of the value of history and the humanities, perhaps people are less prepared to think outside of their narrow technical specializations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com