Google's Ph.D. Advantage

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?

[harryjrsd]

BS = (obvious)
PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

or as a guy with a PHD once told me...

[Hooya]

PHD = Permanent Head Damage

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[elhaf]

I used to think the same thing until I stared working on one. Investigate what it really means to get one, and what it takes, and you might think different(ly).

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is: is it really relevant for most jobs? I doubt it.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Prendeghast]

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?

[Kiryat Malachi]

I've found that there are two types of CS:

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...

[Kiryat Malachi]

I don't know what PhDs you or Soros know, but most of the ones I've been lucky enough to work with have theirs exactly because they have presence of mind, adaptability, and the experience of taking an idea and forging something new about it.

Also, configuring a W2k proxy server is roughly equivalent to plumbing, and has nothing to do with CS.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked at two universities, and I'm still happy with my undergrad.

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?

[It'sYerMam]

A PhD is not necessarily so you learn about the subject. My dad did a PhD in Chemistry, and wrote a thesis on "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate" (Making cement, to you and me.)
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?

[cperciva]

So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less.

Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[cperciva]

Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.

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?

[Austerity Empowers]

I have a MS in EE. I was offered a scholarship to do a PhD. However during my MS thesis work I worked closely with PhD candidates and suffered perhaps a fraction of what they did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I do, but I eat corporate shit for $$$ alone, so I declined. My observations are as follows:

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?

[Beetle B.]

1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

A PhD isn't about learning facts. It's about learning HOW to do research. It doesn't matter that one's topic is the The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate". The important thing is that when told to find out something new about "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate", you can do so. The same person can also be told to find out something new about search engine algorithms, and hopefully do a good job of it.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[nodwick]

The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world.

That's such a sweeping generalization that it's awfully easy to take a few potshots at it. Since this is Slashdot, I assume that computers and the internet play a big role in your life. Well, the packet switching technology and ARPAnet that made it all possible owes a lot to a bunch of PhDs at UCLA led by Leonard Kleinrock [ucla.edu]. Like being able to chat with your friends on your cell phone? Ever heard of Andy Viterbi [ieee.org], who went off to found Qualcomm by hiring many of the top researchers (yes, lots of them were PhDs) and developing the CDMA technology now used in North America? And of course, there's Claude Shannon [bell-labs.com], the so-called "father of modern communications". Just a few of the more "practical" PhD guys you may have heard of.

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.

Again, I'd have to disagree here. A bachelors is great for giving you a good grounding in the background material you'll need in your field. A masters degree is primarily about teaching you how to do independent thinking, which is going to be important once you start moving beyond the basics and into new innovation. At this point, you'll have started developing the skill set, but won't have the experience. A PhD is where you really get to know your field well (much better than a masters student, by the time you're done), and understand what's been done and what's left to do. It's also about learning to develop relationships with other top people in the field, both in industry and academia, and learning about more than just the technical aspects of your area.

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

What's wrong with aiming high? I'd hate to think anyone would start any endeavor expecting not to do well.

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!

You're generalizing again. Just like in every other line of work, whether you get a "good" job or not when you enter the real world depends largely on the individual. I've certainly known people who ended up in exactly the situations you describe. On the other hand, there are also many others who are doing very well. Our lab's also got a graduate this year who's starting tenure-track at USC, and another who's tenure-track at Stanford. One of my officemates just turned down a 100K EE job (a 2-body problem), and another had several offers in the 90-100k range as well.

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?

[jabberjaw]

Start here [phdcomics.com].

Well, I have some perspective on this

[Sycraft-fu]

I do computer support for an engineering department on campus. Means I deal with supporting PhDs (and masters students and undergrads). For many of the PhDs, this isn't an unfair generalization. They are so focused on their one little area of expertise, that they seem to loose all basic knowledge. This is an engineering department here, so people should have a little technical skill. None the less I've solved printer problems that stumped a room full of masters and PhD students by turning the printer on (really, twice). They ought to have the basic electrical knowledge and problem solving skills to figure this out. The DID at one time to pass the undergrad courses.

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

[willy_me]

at least in Canada. Typically, PhD students teach while they're working on their PhD. They don't have to, but they can typically pay their way through school. Other then that there is always student loans. My sister has ~100g of debt from ~8 years of student loans, but with her MD it won't take her long to pay it off.

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...

[BasharTeg]

Here come the ignorant assholes who will knock on getting a Ph.D. because they can't get one. Sure, I'll accept that a Ph.D. isn't terribly practical for many jobs. Our department is hiring programmers right now, and I would probably veto a Ph.D. applying for our junior software engineer position. But I am sick of hearing everyone with lesser education cover for their insecurity and lack of accomplishment by knocking higher educational goals.

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...

[SoTuA]

...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive.

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...

[bjackson]

I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[quadra23]

...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive. I agree totally. Having an army of PHD's doesn't guarantee anything unless they enjoy what they are doing and able to use all their skills effectively. It also helps if they able to branch off into things that they enjoy as hobbies for a time as well. The more flexibility an employee has in doing their job (within reason) the more successful they will be in completing the job. Just watch all the other companies following Google after this becomes a big success.

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to see how google has adapted bits of the opensource development model to fit their needs. Just let people do it because they want to do it, don't force them. See, even the deleopment model is is free (as in freedom). =P

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

Quite a few. Any kind of scientific research, for example.

Re:Umm...

[troc]

Here at the European Patent Office a vast proportion of the patent examiners have PhDs. It's by no means mandatory but it is almost expected.

(Dr.) Troc

Re:Umm...

[Some Woman]

Very true. 3M for example doesn't even "prefer" Ph.Ds. It's a requirement for a job as a chemist. Additionally, you're allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time. Supposedly Post-It notes were a 15% project.

Re:Umm...

[Chuck Milam]

"3M for example....you're allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time.

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...

[EinarH]

Errrhhh..

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

From monster.com:
"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

[afidel]

Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem. If Google tried to use the naive clustering model their expenses would have massivly higher and their scalability and fault tolerance would have been much lower. It seems that Google realizes that the best way to hire and retain the people that will continue to come up with the smarter aproaches is to offer them things that not many other employers are, time to do what intellectually stimulates them for instance.

Re:Working smarter not harder

[GoofyBoy]

>Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.

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

[SandSpider]

>Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.

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

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Microsoft went public back in '86 for another reason, too. Employee stock options weren't worth much until the shares they represented could be traded. The company itself didn't benefit very much from the IPO -- it was ten years old, and highly profitable already -- but the employees did.

Don't forget

[plopez]

90% or more of start ups and product launches fail, mostly in the first year. That track record is not a
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?

[Quixote]

On this page [google.com], they claim to have only 50 Pigeon Harvesting Dogs (PHDs). Now they're up to 700? Wow....

Slightly O/T, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for Google, but let's hope they don't get carried away.

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...

[grassy_knoll]

This meant that janitors, cafeteria staff, etc. had to have university degrees to mop floors or serve burgers.

So the telecom was hiring english majors?

Badum-ching

Waitaminute

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Google is focusing on the wrong aspect, they have got their foot in the door allready, they need to take a page from other big corporations.

Once you get Ub3r Big and popular you need more JD's

Is the PHD the best thing?

[StacyWebb]

Although having an advanced degree is great, some of the best tech sector innovators come without advanced degrees. -- Also most employees spend more than 20% of their work time on personal goals anyway.

Re:Is the PHD the best thing?

[mgs1000]

Also most employees spend more than 20% of their work time on personal goals anyway.

Like reading Slashdot?

Re:Is the PHD the best thing?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I spend a good 60-65% of my time at work doing my own projects (and, yesy, about 10-15% of that looking at Slashdot and sites like it). But, I work for the government, and there isn't much to do most of the time...

PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Noose For A Neck]

I guess it's a good thing to see someone hiring a lot of PhDs these days. Most people with PhDs in technical fields (especially the sciences) these days have a lot of trouble finding any kind of employment, because once someone sees that "PhD" on your resume and you're not applying for, say, thermodynamic research at GE or machine translation research at Google, they just toss it in a wastebasket.

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

[pointbeing]

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.

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

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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?

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

[pointbeing]

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.

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

[__aawavt7683]

If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.

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

[pointbeing]

Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.

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

[Sycraft-fu]

Sure you might have nearly 100% turnover, but on what time scale? Someone who is a PhD is probably gone first chance they get, maybe even a month or two if they can find a better job that quick. Somone entering in to the tech industry you can probably get a few years out of. Hiring someone for a couple of months is just not worth it. The search procedure is time consuming (and therefore expensive) and it DOES take time to train someone to work efficently, even if they are highly (or over) qualified. If they skip after a couple months, after you finally have them trained, it's a looser for you.

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.

[Safety Cap]

The primary goal of the helpdesk is to get the customer to actually RTFM.

For the "internet" helpdesk, the point is to keep your call times up. When I worked help desk for a (now defunct) company, we were graded on call volume, average call duration, and how well we stuck to the script. Solving the customer's problem was the lowest priority. Our "top" performer would always do the 'try x and then call us back if it doesn't work, okay bye' trick, and it worked.

Here's how to solve that problem.

[MongooseCN]

I was applying for temp work and the first agency said I was over qualified and probably wouldn't enjoy the work they could give me. They said they'd look if they really wanted me to but then never got back to me with any jobs.

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

[Gudlyf]

You're probably right about employers considering PhD's as overqualified for certain jobs, and you'd think that the PhD's would figure that out and simply not post that they have their PhD...? I understand that certain employers would fire someone for lying about their educational background on their resume, but would they really fire someone because they claimed less education than they really earned?

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[GPLDAN]

I call posts like these, the "slashdot slant". Since very few Computer Science Ph.Ds read or even bother with slashdot, and since it's mostly filled with early-20s sysadmins - the skewed bias is sometimes laughable. They rationalize that being a Ph.D makes you overqualified and makes it hard to find a job, but they have no real evidence to back it up.

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

[Landaras]

Someone told this story on Slashdot regarding over-qualification months (years?) ago...

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:

Education
Diploma: Smalltown High School, 1975

Hobbies
B.S in Mechanical Engineering, Foo State University, 1979
M.S. in Physics, University of Bar, 1981
Ph.D. in Physics, University of Bar, 1984

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

[keraneuology]

PhDs are supposedly experts: somebody who knows more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything there is to know about nothing.

Re:Amen

[GoofyBoy]

You might want to get an extra PhD in "Punctuation and Capitalization in Modern Society".

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[starm_]

It is a well known fact that you do a PhD not for the money, but for the gain of knowledge, for research experience, and maybe the advancement of science (Because you like research)
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..

[k98sven]

How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

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

[192939495969798999]

If you have a Ph. D and you're working at Google, you've got a great job. Ph. D jobs are worth the work for the degree, believe me. However, don't think you'll just be able to glide into getting that degree like you can with a BS... because professors will not just let you out! A Ph.D is designed to figure out which people actually can be creative and think of new stuff, and to keep out the "Ivan make basket" (you need communications skills) or "i learned it in 24 hours, and I think I'm a god now" (how many patents do you have? I thought so) folks.

that's odd...

[maxbang]

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

[The Ape With No Name]

If you can finish original research and a dissertation, then most likely you can finish any project handed to you if you have acheived a PhD. Most likely! All of the "high-end degrees are unnecessary" whiners never had to teach, research, write, suffer an advisor, AND find time to sleep all for 12000USD a year and a tuition waver. My advisor makes every boss I have ever had look like Caspar Fucking Milquetoast. Science PhDs tend to be particularly motivated, but don't discount us social science types, just because we want our summers off and tenure someday. ;-)

PhD = Management

[superid]

I work at a research lab of roughly 2000 people or so. The majority of employees are engineers (all kinds), math, phyics, chemistry, etc, majors. We have a lot of opportunities for education including on-site masters programs in Computer Science, Electrical Engineer, and Ocean Acoustics.

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!

[manmanic]

It's not only a matter of internal PhDs at the company which help along their R&D efforts. Thousands of developers outside of Google are using the Google APIs [google.com] to create new Google applications. Some notable hits are BananaSlug [bananaslug.com] and GoogleAlert [googlealert.com] (the latter of which is indeed the product of a PhD, according to this article [poynter.org]). The fact that Google is able to tempt so many to build on their platform is another sign of their popularity with the academic nerdy elite.

Job choices

[BCW2]

Someone with a Doctorate degree looks at a University, where labs and resources are for research, but everything will be owned by the school.

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

[Lurker McLurker]

I think one of the reasons behind Google's success isn't just the sheer number of PhDs they have. Its the PhD's having the power, rather than the PHBs (pointy-haired bosses). It's one thing to be working with intelligent, science-oriented people. It's better to be working for intelligent, science-oriented people.

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!)

[boris_qd]

What is innovation? - you can be coding monkey without a PHD - sure. If you like it then don't get a PHD. But where has the real innovation come from?

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

[arivanov]

A lot. Very few make use of it though...

Army? Well not really...

[jonasmit]

The article never even states how many Google employees have PH.D's anyway - only that it is probably more than 100 (out of 1900).

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

[MarkWatson]

To be honest, when Google flew me to California for an interview, I was luke warm about the idea of working for Google because I love my life style living in the mountains of Northern Arizona.

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

[MarkWatson]

One more thing: in just one very long day of interviews, I had my attitude adjusted re: software development:

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"

[Dr. Smeegee]

This American Magazine article was mentioned in the NYT piece. I can't find it anywhere! Does anyone have a copy or an excerpt?

phds

[cinnamon colbert]

A phd doesn't imply anything. If it comes with good work, and good recs and from a top univ, then you might be considered smart and productive; if you haven't done anything with your 5/6 years, and your recs are bad, then you are an overpaid donkey. and every permutation in between.
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

[LorenzoV]

Alas, my experience with Ph.Ds in the workforce has been less than satisfactory. I can recall one gorilla with a Ph.D at a former employer who could not seem to get anything done. Poor slob; his first manager, the poster child for the definition for PHB herself, could not seem to find a way to dismiss him. Instead, she transferred him, with no warnings or cautions to the receiving organization. He ended up working on a project I was on. It was dismal! ... It took close to a year for the company to "get it" and release him.

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

[HerbanLegend]

I worked for several years as an intern at a giant Pharmaceutical company, in research and development, where EVERY employee had a PhD (except me!). To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with their range of knowledge or their overall competence.

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

[0x0d0a]

"PhD" obviously isn't a qualifier for "knows what they're talking about". It doesn't even mean "pretty good". However:

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...

[algedeon]

I am about to finish my Phd in CS and during these long years, I came to realise that part of the Phd process is (maybe) to figure out what is this all about... be able to answer questions of the form "Does it help me to find a job?", "Should it be useful?" etc.

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

[peter303]

By the time one becomes a PhD, they should know what is a significant, doable problem in their field. Masters students or beginning PhD students oftern choose the wrong-size problem. It may be something triviable and already doen by someone else. Or something that may take decades and gigabucks. A right-size problem can be done in about two years. Sometimes an advisor lets the student learn the hard way by letting the student work on a wrong-size problem. The coursework and skillset difference between a masters and PhD is often not that great.

The question is, who

[melted]

who owns the fruits of their research. Most employment contracts in high-tech companies are pretty anal about that. No matter when and how you develop the code, even if your own spare time and using solely your own hardware and software, the company 0wnz0rz the code. And there are also provisions about conflict of interest...

It would be interesting to know how google manages all this mess.

How long after IPO does this stuff last?

[multimed]

Call me cynical but this seems like another one of the things that differentiates Google & contributes to their success--yet I seriously question whether most of it won't go away once they're a publicly owned & traded company. At any given time, a large portion of stockholders are short-term, looking for a quick profits. I mean what percentage of Google shareholders will look at this and think, "20% of their salary expense is going to things not directly contributing to the bottom line, we gotta get rid of that waste." Just like they'll say, "If Google just puts a few ads on their front page, revenues will double!" Now I'm not saying capitalism in the US isn't the best real world solution. But what makes it work--herd mentality--also makes it less effective in certain things. It just seems like a number of great companies, in particular technology oriented ones, lose their competitive advantage, if not their soul when they effectively turn over the reigns to a herd of short-term thinking owners.

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

[Enkerli]

Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic.
As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes /. comments into a broad picture. Not just "a Ph.D. is worthless/you can't do anything without a Ph.D." but a whole array of different points.
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...

[flacco]

...i'm looking for a job that says "college drop-out a plus" that doesn't involve cleaning solvents.

My experience with PhDs at a startup...

[tyrantnine]

I worked as one of two junior programmers at a startup (now dead), which at its height had approximately 10 or 11 people on the software side of things), and 5-6 of those were PhDs (and 6 or so hardware guys, I think half also had PhDs). Most all of these guys had very impressive resumes/CVs, and were being paid enormous salaries... though some were light on working in industry

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

[kwoff]

That link required me to register. I noticed that if I typed the original URL into the browser, I was also required to register, but when I did a search on Google http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=as cii&q=google&btnG=Search+News the story for the NY Times was a regular link. So apparently they're using the HTTP-Referer now instead of partner=GOOGLE.

How To Avoid NY Times Registration

[andyrut]

If you've got a NY Times link that requires registration, you can skip it by copying and pasting the original NY Times URL directly into regular Google Search [google.com].

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

[Moraelin]

Bingo. Those were my thoughts when reading about that too. Most people nowadays don't just avoid PhDs or a CS education, they just want anyone competent.

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

[Animaether]

At the same time, there's the group of people who can indeed code as well as, or even better than, you but never followed a formal education on it. Thefore they lack the precious PhD title.

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

[LWATCDR]

There is a BIG difference between coding and what you would want a PHD in CS for. Shure there are lots of people that can code most applications. It does not take a PHD two write a CMS, accounting system, point of sale, or even a spreadsheet. We just hired a programmer with a BS in CS. He did not know what a hash was! I bet he could not code a quick sort to save his life much less decide which sort to use for a given task. Now if you want to set up a server farm that can handle billions of searchs a day then you might want to invest in a PHD or two. A person that has a PHD might not be any better than a really talented person with out one but you can bet that a person with a PHD is not dumb, or lazy, and knows how to learn.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[Moraelin]

I can only aggree with you there. I don't have a PhD either. And call me arrogant if you will, but I think I coded better at, say, 16 years old (i.e., before even starting college) than some of my co-workers do at 30+ years old. And the co-worker I respect the most in this team didn't even finish CS college.

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

[banzai51]

Seems Google is proving that PhDs are worth the money. A stark contrast to the current conventional "wisdom"

Re:Link and Thoughts

[mattyrobinson69]

ARGH! I made a website for my mums boss last year. He was such an arsehole. He was convinced that computers were easy to use, programming is easy and all that crap. What topped it off, is despite computers being so easy, the only way he knew of opening outlook was to open internet explorer and click on the envelope at the top. i hate people.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[1000101]

Most PHD's aren't code warriors. Sure, most techie PHD's can write code, but the jobs they hold aren't usually your average joe coding position.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Anonymous Coward]

you seem to suggest that all google people do all day long is code. yeah, you're correct in naiveness. a lot of mathematics go into the type of stuff they do (the company founders were PhD dropouts, and the algorithm was something they were working on for thier theses).

even their cluster for their massive search index probably took some mathematical experimentation to determine a proper arrangement and setup.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[razmaspaz]

Yeah...but Google doesn't need programmers. They need brains. Sure it is easy to write code and do it well without a degree in Computer Science. But to create an algorithm that effeciently searches millions if not billions of pages and returns the most relavent thing throughout the ENTIRE Internet is a little daunting and takes someone who has had some advanced training.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[hoggoth]

> advanced degress != coding ability/work output

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

[D-Cypell]

You act like there is no middle ground between... "I write Javascripts to make cursors flash purty colors" and "I invent new programming languages with a soldering iron!".

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:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Advanced Degrees

[YouHaveSnail]

I may be naive seeing as I'm only 20 years old and just getting started in the coding field (at my first job programming, I've been here just over a year), but it definitely seems to me that advanced degress != coding ability/work output.

Right, that's a pretty common mistake, and I see a lot of newbies make it. In fact, the actual relation is thus:

advanced degrees = work output * coding ability

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Glonoinha]

You are probably correct, from your point of view. A self taught coder, even a guy with a BS/CS or BA/MIS degree in his first year in a code writing position is likely to write a good tight sort routine or a nice tight SQL statement that is 12.7% faster than the bubble sort or select statement an older guy / guy with a few years of experience / guy with better 'credentials' might use - same way some AMD/ATI fanboy is going to put together a computer that uses liquid cooling to keep his overclocked record setting system running circles (18.9% faster!) around the off the shelf Dell system an older guy might be using.

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 /grin.

Re:PH.d.........BAH HUMBUG

[mozumder]

Well, considering that that U.S. Government is the single most powerful organization in the world, maybe the PhD's did help...

How to lie with statistics

[MyNameIsFred]

The page you reference is a great example of how statistics can prove anything. Your page lists school life expentancy. The differences are explained by the fact that many countries require 13 years of compulsory education vice 12 in the US. Look at the numbers here [nationmaster.com]. Now look at average years of schooling [nationmaster.com] which includes non-compulsory eduction. By gosh, the US is number one.

Re:PHD =worthless

[Kiryat Malachi]

Of course, many of those foreign students got their degrees at US universities.

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