How to apply with a PhD that is 'on hold' | Hacker News Reader

How to apply with a PhD that is 'on hold'

22 pointsdangowango18 comments

I have completed both BSc and MSc at very renowned universities of my field. I started a PhD-program, but decided to drop out after a year, as this specific program didn't suit me as well as I thought (poor due diligence on my side here...) I still intend to complete a PhD at a different university, but first I want to get three-four years of experience, when there is a good opportunity. How would your approach be in selling this in a CV and job application? What would be a recruiters' PoV on this issue? Is it acceptable to start, recognize a dead-end, and turn around? How can one emphasize that it wasn't a 'drop out', but rather 'decided to leave'?

I'm 26, and have 2 years experience through internships in several market-leading companies (within this highly specific field, too) with outstanding recommendations.

Thanks!

View on HN

My PhD program is 'on hold' as well. It's been 15 years, but someday I plan to get back to it.

Depending on who I talk to, I say "I found I liked programming better than my research", "I grew distrustful that the simulation methods were meaningful", "I wasn't getting the support I needed from my adviser; I was one of 14 students and he traveled a lot", and "I was doing too much CS for a physics degree, and too much physics for a CS degree. Only in retrospect years later did I realize that I was actually interested in molecular informatics." (I've spent the last 20 years working in structural informatics, bioinformatics, and chemical informatics.)

I don't think you understand the difference between undergraduate and graduate schools. Grad school is more like a job. You don't "drop out" of working for McDonald's, you quit, and explore other interests.

Also, it's not like leaving graduate school is uncommon. Attrition rates in graduate school (math and physical science) are 25% within the first four years. See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/07/doctoral#sthas... , and after 10 years of graduate school only 57% end up with a degree.

See also http://chronicle.com/article/PhD-Attrition-How-Much-Is/14004... , "She rejects the term "dropout" to describe someone who leaves graduate school. I agree with her that the word "connotes individual failure" when someone may simply be departing for a better opportunity."

I don't think you have to or should stress in your CV that you intend to go back and do a PhD.

From a recruiter's point of view being a PhD dropout might be even better because it could mean that you won't go back and you will stay being productive where they hired you after they invest in training you the first couple of months/a year.

I'd leave it open ended. In practice, it's just your plan, it's not a given, it can change based on many things. If they ask you, you can explain that it wasn't a good match and that you may or may not try again but right now you want industry experience. You could sell it as wanting to do practical, useful, not ivory tower things which could possibly in the longer term give you a better idea what would be worthwhile research if you ever decide to go back.

Perhaps your context differs, but as a grey-haired hirer of MS and PhD technologists into commercial positions I have learned at least two things. (1) Though you must mention them, graduation from a renowned university and even cool internships do not correlate with productivity and desirability. (2) I am quite interested in long range goals. I try not to giggle at particularly wishful ones, nor those naively lacking branches. I hope that a branch direction considers staying with us, assuming we provide acceptable compensation, professional growth, opportunity for research, contributions to society, etc. If our investment in the employee is only a stepping-stone, shouldn't I feel a little exploited?

If it were me, I probably wouldn't mention my intent to finish the PhD, since that says "if you hire me, I'm planning to leave at some point."

Not that everyone isn't planning to leave at some point, but it's probably not the best message to send up front.

> How can one emphasize that it wasn't a 'drop out', but rather 'decided to leave'?

There is no difference between these two things, unless you're focusing on the not always implied "dropped out before I got kicked out." Realistically, this is not something you can emphasize until the interview. With a completed MSc, assuming you're in a STEM field, it will not be difficult to get to the interview step at least as often as you would without that year of PhD study.

Nobody cares about your qualifications, and most people drop out of PhD programs.* If you're asked in a job interview "why did you leave your PhD program?", you can honestly say "because I am interested in exciting, lucrative, market driven opportunities such as this one." Focus on your experience (which you have), and keep your head up. You'll be fine.

*I just dropped out of grad school, and nobody seemed to mind. Feel free to email me about that if you want.

My narrative has always been "I could do research about building cool software or I could actually build cool software. I've opted to build things because that's what I enjoy more. I still keep up with research in my area of interest, but what really gets me excited is building new things."

I think you sold yourself in a very straightforward way they way you put it above. I'd skip the due diligence explanation though, it feels self-important where no explanation should be necessary, but that might just be a culture thing. It might work for you.

How to structure your job application depends on so much more than why the PhD didnd't fit you. I would think more about what job you are applying for, and why you think it would be a good experience.

To start with you need to at least have an idea about what you're looking for. That may well be impossible at 26 (it was for me), but you can get a good idea by looking around what's available. It's not the end of the world if you change your mind later.

How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend 5,6,7 years in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified to find other possibilities?" -- H. Schopper

Given that cheap and disposable trainees — PhD students and postdocs — fuel the entire scientific research enterprise, it is not surprising that few inside the system seem interested in change. A system complicit in this sort of exploitation is at best indifferent and at worst cruel.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7766377

There's probably a bias towards hiring a Ph.D. dropout than an actual Ph.D.--you've just demonstrated the ability to be pragmatic, which industry prizes. Don't stress about it.

I'd like to see a source that grounds that line of thinking in the real world.

Of course, one could see the situation that way, but I see no reason why you couldn't also argue, for instance, that he has proven he's unable to follow any kind of activity that has not been set in a rigid path beforehand. Or that he only went to University to party[1]. I made those up, of course, which is why I wonder if there's a source for any particular line of thinking.

I know there's a slight bias against PhDs in industry[2], but I don't really know anything for this particular case.

[1] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2729

[2] http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=100990

Yeah, it'd be nice to see related stats. In the absence of them, I can only speak for the interviewing and hiring I've done, i.e., my own bias. That bias generally is that with a Ph.D.-no-work-experience-hire, I'll have just hired someone who's extraordinarily knowledgeable and capable in some aspects of job performance (research, algorithm analysis, etc.) and almost helpless in others (teamwork, version control, reading code they didn't write, writing code to be maintainable over time, letting well enough alone). Such wild disparity in skill levels can be hard to manage.

(I do think colleges are generally getting better at making sure students have some of these skills, and GitHub's popularity has also helped. So, hopefully this bias becomes obsolete.)

Someone who starts down the Ph.D. path, then says, "you know what? that's not for me right now", has just demonstrated some uncommon wisdom and self-awareness.

I would just not mention it and re-frame it as a research position or something like that. Just something where you don't have to lie and that describes what you did there.

In my opinion as soon as you need to "explain" your CV things are getting complicated and you are at an disadvantage over those which have no-explanation necessary CVs.

Of cause the opinion is only valid in situations where you have no previously established relationship with the company/people who are involved in the hiring process.

> What would be a recruiters' PoV on this issue?

A typical recruiter is primarily concerned with finding a good match for his client. His role is to quickly ascertain -

1) Can you do the job? 2) Will you enjoy the job? 3) Can we handle working/living with you?

Relative to your PhD program, it's enough to say after several years on the academic track, I've decided it's time to transition into the private sector. No need to dwell on the dead-end or future plans.

Just mention PhD on your CV and job application as "deferred" and number of years completed or remaining. I do the same on mine with MBA. It makes for interesting conversation during interview as I only had two more quarters to complete MBA before dropping out.

Also don't mention dissatisfaction with PhD advisor et al, doesn't sound good. Instead focus on why PhD wasn't in line with your expectations at that point in your life.

How far along in the program requirements were you? You may not have gotten this far, but for others reading the thread I'll point out that I've seen some people list "PhD (ABD [1])" on their resumes. You could also just list that year as additional graduate work.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_but_dissertation

I always just said that I left for a few semesters for financial reasons, and discovered that I preferred industry over academia. It has the virtue of being the truth (for me), and no one will ever press you to explain your finances.

I wouldn't mention my PHD ever. You have an MSc and 2 years experience thats all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com