![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
Google's Ph.D. Advantage 572
Frisky070802 writes "The New York Times reports on Google's success and desire in hiring Ph.D.'s (free registration required). It says that Google's willingness to let every employee spend 20% of his or her time on an independent project is a compelling motivator and that they estimate that Google has as many Ph.D.'s working for it as Microsoft, which is 30 times larger. How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"
Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Funny)
PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper
or as a guy with a PHD once told me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe that the sole reason for getting a degree is to gain knowledge, then no. If you believe that a university education is about learning to learn, then yes.
A BS (BSc, BA in the UK) demonstrates (in theory) an ability to follow a prescribed course of study at the pace set by the lecturers but with the self-discipline required to go to the library rather than goof off. You should make a good worker bee who doesn't need to be continuously supervised.
A MS (MSc, MPhys, MChem ...) demonstrates an ability to function independantly within broad parameters to achieve a general objective set by your supervisor. You should be capable of working at a remote site without seeing your direct boss for six months (and you should be capable of picking up the phone when you need help - rather than just sitting and stewing until someone demands to know what you have been doing for months).
A PhD demonstrates that you can determine your own goals, demand information and contributions from a wide range of individuals (even people who are senior to you in an organisation), set your own schedule, work towards a project goal that is years in the future and say with a tough project longer than some people stay at one company in Si Valley (at least during the "new job every six months" boom :) Furthermore, you have demonstrated that you don't need someone to have done it before - you have proved you can create something original!
Of course, these are all grotesque generalisations, and I know several PhDs I wouldn't trust to drink a glass of water without close supervision and paramedics standing by. Equally, there are other paths that demonstrate the same skill set. Furthermore, it can be hard to maintain one's non-conformist, independant spirit when one is producing a PhD thesis that must, by definition, conform to your examiner's views.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
Type 1 is the type you're thinking of. None of them generally need anything beyond a BS, and their coursework was mainly focused in 'software engineering' disciplines.
Type 2 is the type that develops new algorithms and does research. They need the postgrad work, and their coursework focuses on algorithms, math, and suchlike.
I really think that we need to split these degrees apart; the first should become 'software engineering' or something similar, to help convey the difference between the application-oriented (engineering) and the theory-oriented (science).
(disclaimer: I am a EE who does algorithms; I work with type 2 when I'm doing algorithm design and type 1 when we need implementation, and appreciate both)
Re:PhD means a single-minded goal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, configuring a W2k proxy server is roughly equivalent to plumbing, and has nothing to do with CS.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world. In the event you actually research or do something worthwhile your expertise is basically a very tiny narrow slice of the pie in your discipline in which you possess astonishing depth, and you are likely no more knowledgeable about the rest of your field than a masters candidate.
I've worked with a number of Phd candidates in computer science, chemical engineering, history, and life sciences, and then EXPECT (yes, I said expect) one of two things to happen when they graduate:
1. A company offers them quite a bit of money to do the research that *they* love
2. *poof* Tenure track faculty position
in reality now, its usually
1. Teach as an adjunct
2. Try to convince private industry that you're okay taking that 60k a year position as a chemical engineer.. I'm not overqualified, HONEST!
I think the most perverse observation I've made is that it seems like MBA's and doctoral business students have no trouble getting work around here. How depressing.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
He now works as a computer programmer.
This may seem a little weird, but if you think about it, a PhD [hopefully] shows that you're willing to apply yourself to something and do hard work. People with PhDs should be the most intelligent of the bunch, as they managed to get the thing.
So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less. It shows that he has skills beyond merely chemistry.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Funny)
Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Informative)
Since the moderators obviously didn't understand the joke: A doctorate from Oxford is a D.Phil (short for "Doctor of Philosophy"), in contrast to most other universities, which use the term PhD (Philosophiae Doctor, which is exactly the same thing in Latin).
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)
2) PhD slave labor wages are less than those of any given malaysian factory child if you count the total number of hours worked and divide that into your scholarship/stipend/grant/etc.
3) If you are not a US citizen/permanent resident and are on a scholarship to get a PhD in the US, you are fucked. Bring the vasoline and bend over.
4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.
5) If your PhD is not in a subject actively investigated by the corporate world be willing to accept an academic position after getting your degree, or find another subject. It's heartbreaking to see people get their degree and realize they are either stuck in academia or worse, take a job in industry doing work outside their expertise making the same they would have as a masters (i.e. degree worthless).
6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go. I can't recommend it enough, if I personally thought there was money in a PhD this is what I'd do myself. If your professor administrates whatever finances your degree, and you are above broccoli intelligence, he WILL try to hold you as long as he can (5-7 years in most schools). If your company is paying the bill they are quite good at getting you in and out ASAP. Avg stay of corporate funded PhD students in my experience was 3 years. Do this!
7) Stupid people can get PhD's far easier than smart people. Simply put, professors want stupid people out of their hair, if they can't wash em out, they graduate em. Just like elementary school.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the field. I'm currently working on one in EE. Whatever work I do for my advisor is fair game for my thesis. Almost everyone I know here has a similar agreement with their advisors. There are a few whose thesis work is not related to their assistantship, and they're the exceptions one has to look hard to find.
The arrangement is beautiful - I get paid to do my PhD.
In fields that are closer to science, one usually becomes a teaching assistant, and thus life is nastier - their paid work is independent of their thesis work.
Besides, I don't see the complaint. The point of getting an assistantship is to support your PhD financially. If you're willing to pay for it yourself, then you're free to spend all the time on your thesis.
2) PhD slave labor wages are less than those of any given malaysian factory child if you count the total number of hours worked and divide that into your scholarship/stipend/grant/etc.
I've known factory workers in third world countries (not Malaysia, though), and frankly, your statement is offensive. With my lowly stipend, I get far more benefits and opportunities, not to mention food, than they do.
And the math is deceptive, anyway. At least in my university, if an advisor wishes to fund a graduate student, not only does he have to pay his wages, but his tuition fee. Given that I'm an out-of-state student, that amounts to about $35,000 to $40,000 a year. Considering I officially work only 20 hours a week - he's spending quite a bit of money.
3) If you are not a US citizen/permanent resident and are on a scholarship to get a PhD in the US, you are fucked. Bring the vasoline and bend over.
The majority of engineering students are non-permanent residents. While the situation is worse for them, only a few get treated as you mention.
4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.
Agreed.
5) If your PhD is not in a subject actively investigated by the corporate world be willing to accept an academic position after getting your degree, or find another subject. It's heartbreaking to see people get their degree and realize they are either stuck in academia or worse, take a job in industry doing work outside their expertise making the same they would have as a masters (i.e. degree worthless).
Well, I guess PhD's need to think more about their motives. I'm in it for academics, and I'll be glad to be one of those "stuck".
(However, if you're in engineering, the point is still mildly valid as most of your research funds will come from industry).
6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go.
No thanks. It is a good idea if you know you want to work for them later on, but I don't want to be bound to a contract when I have alternative methods. I'm also not in a hurry to finish early. Grad student life is a nice one if you're paid enough not to starve. I certainly don't work as hard as industry folks, and have plenty of free time.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're good at what you do, there'll be good jobs for you no matter what path in life you choose. If you're a lazy slackabout, then you're screwed no matter what. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer about whether a PhD is a good choice -- it's about whether it's a good choice for YOU. This is the real reason why people tell you to do something you love -- chances are, you'll be enthusiastic about it and do it well, and success will follow naturally.
Re:Is a PHD so great? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I have some perspective on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's not to say there aren't some really smart PhDs out there. We have them here too and they are fun to work with. But there are plenty that aren't.
Working here has really shown me that having a PhD doesn't mean your smart, just means that you could play the game long enough and well enough.
Don't have to be rich (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, The University of Northern British Columbia, UNBC [www.unbc.ca], has recently halved their tuition for Master degrees and removed tuition completely for their PhD programs. Granted, it'll still be a couple of years before they offer a PhD in CompSci, but one can't complain about being free.. I guess they're doing this because they want to become a more research oriented university - and it sucks to live in northern BC... trust me, I know.. (On the bright side, there are some great profs and a really low student/prof ratio. And the cost of living - I'm paying $300/month cnd, everything included.)
Here come the ignorant assholes... (Score:4, Informative)
I work as a "Senior Software Engineer", doing serious C++ programming including use of Win32 API, Winsock, OpenSSL, MySQL, etc in a multi-threaded multi-server multi-system programming environment which powers telecommunication systems which require very robust programs capable of maintaining the best uptimes possible. There are many developers who do work that makes my job look simple, but considering I only have an AA in CompSci, I think I am doing fairly well. I work on the same level as individuals who have BSCS in CompSci and some who have 20 years experience in development. However, I don't have a lack of appreication for their superior education and experience. I am working towards my own BSCS, Master's, and maybe even Ph.D. someday. Not to try to bring in a major paycheck (I already do very well), and not to try to be better than those who only have a BSCS, but because Computer Science is my field. It is my study, my hobby, and I have dedicated my life to it. Since I consider myself a (budding) Computer Scientist, it is simply my responsibility and my desire to continue to advance in the field and learn everything I can about all of the many aspects of Computer Science.
People with vocational certificates (MCSE, CCNA, etc), are often fine employees to do the work they've been trained to do. I find Bachelor's degrees in Computer Science from trade schools like Coleman College to be offensive mockeries of a real BSCS, which I have worked for years to gain, while they took a few classes in outdated languages like COBOL and FoxPro. (We have one such person working in our customer service department.) But people who actually attend a university, any real university, and learn the science of computers, are a league above those who would criticize what they cannot attain.
Just because you couldn't make it in college doesn't mean college has no value. Just because you didn't stick it out long enough to learn something, doesn't mean colleges don't teach CompSci principles which no self-taught person will understand and appreciate. The only reasons to not advance your education further are your own reasons, so to attempt to apply them to everyone and make blanket statements about higher educational levels than your own seems more like a desperate attempt to cover your insecurity that there might be people out there who know more than you do, even if your non-tech manager and your family members think you're the God of Computers.
Keeping your employees happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I'm guessing that a lot of those PHD's independent projects have something to do or might eventually be integrated into google (PHDs researching information retrieval, web page ranking algorithms, you name it).
Re:Keeping your employees happy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Keeping your employees happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keeping your employees happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this isn't karma whoring, I don't know what is. They aren't using the "opensource development model", they are giving their employees what they want. You're pandering to the slashdot crowd and spinning it the right way to get your comment up to +5.
I swear, these "Dude, that cool thing is totally like open source! Isn't open source great?" comments are really getting old, and they're generally just a bunch of bullshit made up to please the mods.
Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Quite a few. Any kind of scientific research, for example.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
(Dr.) Troc
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
At 3M, you used to be allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time. Thanks to the new CEO/regime from GE, the 15% "Innovation Time" is quietly going the way of the dodo. The focus on stock price over all else (such as real, tangible, actual profits) will be the death of many a formerly powerful and truly innovative company, I expect.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
From Monster.com;
"Ph.D. a plus" returned: Jobs 1 to 50 of 399
"MCSE a plus" returned: Jobs 1 to 50 of 503
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ph.D. a plus" average pay: $150,000 out of 399 jobs
"MCSE a plus" average pay: $32,000 out of 503 jobs
Working smarter not harder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Working smarter not harder (Score:3, Insightful)
Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?
Its fine that Google is doing this now, but they are still small and closely held. The key is if they become a mature and larger company and still retain these factors.
Re:Working smarter not harder (Score:5, Interesting)
Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?
Actually, vs. "Throwing more money and people at the problem" that the rest of the world has been doing.
=Brian
Re:Working smarter not harder (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
a good argument for using a 'traditional' business model. There is no doubt Google has beaten the odds, and they have done some things differently. I.e. the radical notion of becoming profitable *before* the IPO.
Google is a good case study. Everything they do should be reviewed for lessons in success.
700 PHDs? (Score:4, Funny)
Slightly O/T, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember when a local telecom company tried to up-size their education level. They insisted that *everyone* in the building have a university degree. No exceptions. This meant that janitors, cafeteria staff, etc. had to have university degrees to mop floors or serve burgers. As I recall, they changed this policy after about 6 months.
Re:Slightly O/T, but... (Score:5, Funny)
So the telecom was hiring english majors?
Badum-ching
Waitaminute (Score:4, Funny)
Once you get Ub3r Big and popular you need more JD's
Is the PHD the best thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is the PHD the best thing? (Score:5, Funny)
Like reading Slashdot?
Re:Is the PHD the best thing? (Score:5, Funny)
PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what is known as "being over-qualified", and it's a killer. You wouldn't think that, after all that hard work in getting through school and finally getting a doctorate in a hard science or engineering, you'd have trouble finding work, but you do. Ever see a PhD working a helpdesk? Not a tech PhD, that's for sure.
Also, the amount of free time provided to PhDs at Google to do their own thing seems like it would be pretty standard - after all, they've hired the best and the brightest, how else do they expect to retain them? Isn't this standard at other companies, too?
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:5, Informative)
Having hired helpdesk technicians for years, I can say that I've never turned down a Ph.D but have turned down more than a few types with postgraduate degrees. If you've got a Masters in any IS field and are applying for a $30k helpdesk position what are the chances of you sticking with me when that good job does come along? If you decide to move on I wouldn't blame you at all - but new employees mean my company incurs siginificant training costs, and it's generally a few months before the techs are operating at a level that actually benefits the company. Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.
I know I'm part of the problem, but for helpdesk (and even Tier 2 deskside support positions) having a postgraduate degree actually hurts you - because there's no way I can keep these guys. Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile ;-)
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time? The customers are often frustrating, the pace can be exhausting, the work rarely has long-term personal satisfaction associated with it... If you get some PhD, hire him / her and feel very lucky to have a (presumably) competent employee for the few months that they are with you.
Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.
Get use to the "would you like fries with that" crowd, then. Face it: Help Desk is no ones ideal job. Why would anyone stick around for an extended period of time?
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:4, Informative)
I hear you, but I can promote helpdesk technicians to fill Tier 2 slots - IME the guy with the postgradual degree will more than likely leave the company. If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
From earlier, however:
Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile
Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.
I don't know how many masters you actually have applying, but many may stay with the company. This number can be increased by promoting them to the second tier faster. As a way out, you could provide a one month trial period; state that as they are masters, you expect more
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:4, Interesting)
That it is.
I do hear you loud and clear, honest - and agree with quite a bit of what you say. I can't ask applicants to sign an employment contract - if I could get them to stay for a year or so in *some* position in the company I'd hire the guy with the Masters in a second.
[whine]
I don't have the authority to promote from the helpdesk to a design team because ADP support and application development are two different divisions in my company - the best I can do is recommend. In almost seven years I've been sucessful in placing a desktop tech in the development section only once. I don't have enough personal horsepower in this company to pull something like that off ;-)
[/whine]
I agree that it'd provide real-world experience to the guy with the Masters - and it would build his skill set considerably. But again, my primary responsibility is to the company, not the applicant.
Let me ask you a question, DrkShadow - if you had an MS and I started you at the helpdesk at $30k would you sign an agreement to stay with the company for a year?
All a matter of degree (Score:4, Insightful)
Also lots of education does not equal highly competent, espically in customer service type jobs (which helpdesk is). Most of the professors here would be TOTALLY unsuited for the help desk and doa much worse job than our students that ear $8/hour. Even the professors best suited would only be on par with a deceant student. Yes they could be trained, but that takes time and if they skip as soon as that's done, it's a loss. Training takes staff time (and therefore money) in additon to meaning less efficecy from the person being trained.
RTFM? Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's how to solve that problem. (Score:5, Informative)
After that I went to some more temp agencies, but I dumbed down my resume. Instead of "software engineer" I was a "computer programmer". I put a 2.2 GPA (my school doesn't officially give out GPAs anyways...). Most of the skills in my skills list were removed and I replace them with my hobbies. All references to money, like how much money I saved a company, were removed.
Suddenly I had 2 offers for jobs at one agency and 1 offer at another agency. They were the same types of jobs that the first agency was giving out. It's surprising the number of companies willing to pay $14/hour for dumb ex-computer people.
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a clue: I know plenty of Ph.Ds, ALL of whom are gainfully employed and highly sought after. I also know alot of 20-something sysadmins with no degrees. They're the ones out of work.
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:5, Funny)
Essentially, someone had a Ph.D but was looking for some sort of relatively menial but steady work so he could continue to eat.
In order to avoid being thrown out for being over-qualified and therefore requiring more pay / risk of leaving for better work, he changed his resume to the still truthful:
He was hired, and told that his soon-to-be employer "approved of hobbies."
- Neil Wehneman
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Amen (Score:4, Funny)
Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you usually get a higher pay as a PhD it's usually not enough to counterbalance the 4 or 5 year lost of pay while doing your PhD.
I'm not saying that there are no PhDs who make a lot of money. But if you study to make money, you should stop before the PhD.
Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: Every company which does any kind of research?
Seriously. In areas like biochem, getting a job (or at least, a good one) without a PhD is near-impossible.
Ph. D = cool job (Score:5, Insightful)
that's odd... (Score:3, Funny)
I always thought Microsoft had more phd than Google. Wait, is it spelled fud or phd? See? Their phd has already phdded my fragile mind! Ah, phuk 'em.
Project orientation (Score:4, Insightful)
PhD = Management (Score:3, Interesting)
There are also long term offsite programs where you can go get a Ph.D. and this is also popular. However, of all the people that I know here with Ph.D's the majority seem to migrate into project management, essentially doing nothing but running a small team, writing proposals and giving presentations. Eventually they move into fulltime management where they even give up driving the technical direction of the programs they may at one time have created.
Google outsource research too! (Score:5, Informative)
Job choices (Score:3, Insightful)
Any major company that does research, where ownership is the companies.
Google, where it appears you can profit from your own side jobs. The regular job is doing cool research too!
Good choices, for different goals.
It's not the amount of PhDs but the amount of PHBs (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone can hire PhDs. Even the government. But there may be a corporate culture that doesn't take risks, that cares too much about short-term profit, that is affected by political considerations. In Google, the nerds seem to run the show. They have the business people, and great branding. But the technical side of things is the priority.
Slashdot reader are naive (suprise!) (Score:4, Insightful)
The transistor? Nuclear weapons? Drugs that save your ass? What other technology came out of Bell Labs?
The real innovation in our society is done for the most part by people with PHD's. Amazon.com, eBay - these are small innovations compared to the above. The groundwork was laid by the PHD's creating the underlying technology.
Boris
How many companies put PhD is a plus (Score:3, Insightful)
Army? Well not really... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is slightly over 5%. Sure, in many industries that would be very high but at a tech company - I am not so sure - and for a mature research organization that might be low (the drug industry or checmical companies).
However, the real advantage is that the *encourage* employees to perform independent research and that they hire people with that mindset. The PhD is a predictor of that mentality but the culture is what makes it work.
I interviewed at Google (Score:5, Interesting)
However, after spending a day being interviewed by 6 extremely bright and creative people, I very much wanted the job (I did not get it, oh well). It is true that bright people want to work with other bright people. Anyway, it may sound strange, but I view the interview process as a very positive experience (also, after 30 years of working, it was the only job that I tried for that I did not get, so I was able to set most ego stuff aside). In addition to the interviews themselves, I got to have lunch with Peter Norvig and before I left the Google campus a nice person let me ride a Segway
It really is true that a few very good people are way better than many above average people.
One of the most fun times in my career was when I had a boss who has a PhD from MIT and hired many other PhDs and MSs from MIT - some of the best colleagues that I ever had.
Personally, I think that I am going to invest in Google stock, but I am likely to wait for a few months after the IPO (or make a low bid for the IPO).
-Mark
Re:I interviewed at Google (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a hacker (at heart), and I always look to rapidly coding something that works and is solid.
At Google, it seemed to me that their main focus is on algorithmic development. In the few months since I was at the Google campus, I have found myself "slowing down" and spending much more time thinking through issues of scalability and efficiency (and not just use a "good enough" algorithm, or pull my copy of Cormen/Lieserson/Rivest Algorithms book from my book shelf and not do much original thinking).
Anyway, I thought that it was cool that an investment of one day actually changed some of my own attitudes about software development (and I am an older guy, coding since the 1960s
-Mark
"Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men" (Score:3, Insightful)
phds (Score:3, Insightful)
just as technology follows a path from small company/innovative to commoditization, so does ed requirements in an industry; its not that anyone needs a phd, but many cutting edge technologies come out of universitys, and those people have phds.
Google is fortunate - they have a monopoly posistion (at least de facto for now) and that allows them to hire top talent; as soon as the cash flow drys up, the phds go; look at the formerly world class att res labs.
There are a small number of companys that consistently do good science, such as ibm and corning and 3m; i suspect they hire phds because innovation is a character trait of people who are not interested in money, and those people often wind up getting phds, because it is a fun way to get to play with toys and do cool stuff.
Ph.D == Piled Higher & Deeper (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, my last boss at my last job before I retired had a Ph.D. A most brilliant fellow. Able, capable, competent, easy to work with. I suppose that in retrospect, I stayed even longer than I might otherwise have because he, and his boss too, were so easy to work with.
I've known many (Score:3, Insightful)
I think another poster hit the nail on the head when he said that PhDs are overqualified in a teeny, tiny area of study that only they actually care about. However, the "Doctor" title brings out the Ego in many of them, disabling their critical thinking skills (i.e. - "This project is a total waste of time and will never come to anything"). In essence, they're the reason many failed projects go horribly overbudget before they finally die.
Re:I've known many (Score:4, Insightful)
a) It means that someone is more likely to be willing to do something for the knowledge rather than the direct money. This is, IMHO, a good correlation to knowing what they're talking about.
b) It means that they probably have at least some reasonable ability to deal with things abstractly.
c) It means that they have a certain degree of stick-to-itiveness.
d) If you're lucky enough to get someone who did their thesis on the area that you're working on, they probably know the area very well.
Honestly, perhaps because I've been lucky enough to work mostly with PhDs in *academia*, I've found that a PhD doesn't seem to make people arrogant. I personally suspect that if anything, it's a bit humbling -- you realize how much there is to learn.
Ph.d. thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on this is as follows... It's not about finding a job... it's not about adding another bullet in a CV to impress someone... it doesn't have to be useful or practical.. it doesn't have to cure cancer (although some people do this for a phd)...
I think a phd is a long thought exercise. You prove to yourself (and to a bunch of other people) that in a finite amount of time, you can understand an area, the issues involved, and you can come up with something innovate, something new... a new problem or an new solution to an old problem...
how to get a job after all that, is an orthogonal issue... maybe deserving another phd...
PhD: knows what is a significant problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is, who (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to know how google manages all this mess.
How long after IPO does this stuff last? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two reasons to IPO--to generate capital to expand or to cash out. Certainly I can't image Google needs the former, and while I don't begrudge anyone the right to cash out on their creation, I hope they realize that by definition, they're giving up ownership. Maybe they're strong enough leaders, and will start off with enough shares to be ok--I certainly hope so becaue the list of technology visionaries who were ousted from their own company is already too long.
I guess I am cynical today.
Ph.D. Passion (Score:5, Interesting)
As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes
Not much to add, probably, but my $0.02 anyway, focusing on my own perspective which happens to be exactly as worthy (neither more nor less) as anyone else's.
I'm a Ph.D. candidate in a non-tech field. You can't realistically be hired for academic jobs in my field without a Ph.D. and it's rather hard to be hired even with a Post-Doc. Of course, a lot of people I know work with "only" a B.S./B.A. or M.S./M.A. but none of them has the type of job I'm aspiring to, which happens to be academic.
There's a lingering feeling that college degrees are like honorific titles that "institutions of higher learning" thrust upon bright people. Of course, this feeling seems stronger with people who associate education with employment than with people who are driven by their passion for knowledge. For a variety of reasons, I happen to belong to the latter category: I'm an academic because I'm passionate about select academic subjects. Though I'm really looking forward to other phases in my academic career, I thoroughly enjoy the life I chose. Thing is, I'm not the only one like that. Sure, some grads constantly complain about not being free to do what they please but academia's incredibly satisfying for those who do it for the "right reasons." Yes, I'm helplessly naive in thinking I'll get a tenure-track position relatively soon, but since high school I've been prepared (by advisors, peers, etc.) to fight my way through.
In other words, contrary to popular belief, you don't begin your career after you get your degree. Your degree is an acknowledgement of a certain of things you have done at an educational institution and your career began with your choices.
Interestingly, I've been looking for menial/mindless work before I take up a teaching fellowship. It seems that my résumé showed me to be overqualified to flip burgers or force people to buy security systems but I eventually found work in a nearby café. It might surprise some, but I'm quite happy about this. The reason is, it's not necessarily about the money. It's about doing what you like and liking what you do.
Most of the time, doing so goes with inspiration, perspiration, fun, friendship, and most likely some beer.
meanwhile... (Score:4, Funny)
My experience with PhDs at a startup... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, we were a small startup and I had heavy interaction with basically all members of both the software/hardware teams working on basically parallel processing. To make a long story short, having a PhD didn't lead to a correlation between being good at implementation OR design, or really anything. Out of 5-6, only one was truly good at actually programming/implementing, but I figured their strength was in their ability to help out designing some of the horrendously big and complicated stuff, and the algorithms underlying. However after over 2 years of work at this company, many code reviews, design meetings, etc, it was pretty clear having a PhD in EE/Comp Sci didn't particularly mean you had a handle on algorithms or design, either. I still vividly remember a presentation over a design prototype one of the PhDs had developed on his own (approximately 1-2 months of solo work) that was absolutely ripped to shreds at the most fundamental levels during a code review meeting. It was actually embarrasing to be in the room.
Anyway, my experience there pretty much killed whatever mystique or respect I previously had behind having a PhD. To me it seems to mean you 1) Did a research project, which may or may not have been relevant to anything at one point 2) Had 5+ years to do it 3) May or may not have learned a lot about the subject. I don't mean to belittle it, but I think in general theres a *lot* more fluff surrounding a PhD than meat.
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
How To Avoid NY Times Registration (Score:4, Informative)
If the article is relatively new, it will probably tell you "Sorry, no information is available for the URL" but will then offer you a link to the address you just typed in. The HTTP-Referer will then be google.com and you can read it without registration.
A few extra keystrokes, but gets around the registration process every time.
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
They actually think they're cleverly saving costs by hiring the cheapest incompetent monkeys possible. After all, they just bought that magical "+3 cloak of productivity (+5 against bugs)" (i.e., some snake oil baroque framework or server software), so now they don't need anyone competent on those computers any more.
Plus, hey, everyone knows that programming computers is easy. Even the neighbour's geeky kid is doing it. Surely a drooling ex-burger-flipper off the street can do it just fine too.
(Funny how the same people who can't even program their VCR's clock, or keep spyware off their computer, nevertheless think that my job is something easy, eh?)
True story: I know of a team which actually hired people via reverse online auction. Whichever monkey wants the least money, gets the job. No skill needed. (Again, it's not a joke. Sadly.)
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as a PhD is no guarantee that the person will grok what you're hiring them for - even if it's supposed to be right down their lane of education - the lack of a PhD doesn't guarantee that the person will not grok what you're hiring them for.
Of couse the odds are in favor of those with PhDs, not contesting that
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
But that was not my point.
My point wasn't necessarily that they should ask for an education or a PhD, but that they should at least try to get someone _competent_. If you will, merely along the lines o
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Link and Thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:4, Insightful)
even their cluster for their massive search index probably took some mathematical experimentation to determine a proper arrangement and setup.
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:5, Insightful)
If your measure is number of lines of code per day, then perhaps not.
If your measure is new algorithms and technologies that no-one has ever thought of before then I'd say the advanced degrees are a little more pertinent.
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that the majority of employment in the software development field falls between these two posts and does not generally require a degree (if some other conditions are met).
Having worked with both graduates and non-graduates (my category), I can say that there is very little distinction. I have worked with graduates that even if you explained something to them 10 times a day for 5 years they still wouldnt get it.
Infact I would even go as far to say that non-grads are generally slightly better, but generally the grads that bring the average down are those that came to CS for the money rather than talent, this is rarer in non-grads in the craft.
The bottom line seems to be that regardless of education, the most important attributes that make a good coder are a tendancy towards logic and analysis. This is a talent, not a university award.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:5, Funny)
Right, that's a pretty common mistake, and I see a lot of newbies make it. In fact, the actual relation is thus:
Re:Advanced Degrees (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are describing right now is a very narrow scope of vision. It is perfectly ok, and even expected from a one year guy - don't get me wrong as I'm not bagging on you. But you are seeing instant gratification, lines of code per hour, faster embedded loops and search routines, and frames per second. What you are not seeing, if I had to guess, is long term maintainability, group cohesion, the ability to integrate different routines together or reuse the existing development effort going forward, the overall architecture of the bigger system, scalability, usability in a business environment, reduced downtime when problems do occur.
In the same way that the overclocking crew can make a single uberMachine run 12.6% faster than a machine off the shelf, a tightly focused coder can write small blocks of code that are quite a bit faster than something written by an old school coder. From a business perspective, however, neither is particularly attractive when considering a large scale rollout of a massive business initiative. You simply can't have users running computers that sound like jet engines to keep their overclocked CPUs cool, and you can't have coders winging it to shave CPU cycles at the expense of long term stability, usability, and interoperability. Sure, you can read your in-line assembly and make it work - but can the guy over in maintenance keep it working without screwing it up or needing to rewrite it from scratch because he doesn't understand what it does?
When (if) you stop to think through all of these things you will take longer to write your individual lines of code than the next generation of hot coders. For every five days on a project, a full day needs to be dedicated to understanding what the customer (internal or external) needs and envisioning how you will design it. A full day needs to be spent doing documentation (documenting the code, user dox, developer design and intent, interaction conventions, installation, maintenance routines, etc.) and delivering the product. A day designing the system architecure, and two days actually doing the work come between the envision and delivery. In theory you could sit down and do the actual 'work' in two days, but someone has to be responsible for the other stuff - not doing the other stuff is why projects fail.
A day will come that you decide that hand building your own machine and getting an extra 7 fps isn't worth the hassle and you will just order a Dell. There will also come a day that you spend time documenting how you understand the customer's expectations and go over that document with the customer before you start designing how the system will work, and you will do that design before you start to write the code. And there will come a day that you write an official separate document describing the code you just wrote. Look forward to that day, consider it your next Graduation Day, and celebrate that day. Because the day after that is the day the youngsters start hassling you because they code faster than you do
Re:PH.d.........BAH HUMBUG (Score:3, Insightful)
How to lie with statistics (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PHD =worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary education system in the US is broken, but the secondary (university) education system in the US is still pretty sharp.
Some other notes: that chart rates the amount of schooling students receive, not the level of education they receive. Of course, its a lot easier to rate 'years attended' than 'worthwhile things learned'. Also, Germany is ranked 12, the US 14, and Japan 25. I don't hear anyone making accusations a