Slashdot Mirror
Ph.Ds in IT - Good or Bad for a Career?
LordNimon asks: "I'm thinking about getting my Ph.D. (I currently have a Master's) in computer engineering. I've heard all sorts of stories about Ph.Ds being less likely to find a job than their less-educated counterparts, but not a lot of credible evidence. So, I was hoping to hear from Slashdot readers on their experience. Do you think getting a Ph.D. in CompSci or CompEng will improve or worsen my career outlook in the industry? Has anyone witnessed someone being turned down for a job because he had too much education? If you're a hiring manager, what is your opinion on someone who has a Ph.D. and is otherwise already qualified for the position?"
"Carl and I have our Master's, but Homer just showed up when the plant opened."
All the PhD's I know have stayed in the education field. Two teach, and one has a research position at Microsoft's Education dept.
It's conceivable, sure, but you're a lot more likely to get turned down for a job for a lack of education than too much education.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
My experience with having a PhD differed depending on which side of the
Atlantic I was on. When I was in the UK (where I got the qualification) I
definitely met resistance from some companies who asked me bluntly why I had
bothered to get a PhD if I wasn't going to do research, and seemed suspicious
that I might be too "academic" for their jobs. Only one company, ICI, was
positive about my doctorate stating that I would start at a higher pay grade
because of it.
In the US I've found that the PhD was a plus, people respect that you did
the work to get it and generally are interested by the topic I choose (security).
I have not had a negative reaction here.
In my current position where I hire people the more education the better, as
long as the person has the skills required for the job. So I have had to choose
between a person with a PhD who had just learnt C++ and a person with a Master's
who's spent 2 years coding in C++ then the Master's wins. What's going to be
important with your PhD is to demostrate that you have practical experience along
with the studies (could be through a summer job, for example).
John.
More important than a Ph.D. is excellent karma on slashdot.
One of my co-workers tried ofr other jobs and they always thought they would not want to accept the offer since it what they assumed would be lower then what a PHD would accept so he had to call back everytime and make a first offer in this economy when he was just happy to have a job.
Well i have some experience in this as my mother has two master degrees. She has alot of trouble getting her foot in the door because of her education. Most heads of departments do not want someone with better backgrounds then them.
Where ever you go, there you are.
99.9% free of PhD's, is this even a relavent question?
I dunno about a phd in CompEng for an /IT/ job, but if you were designing boards/chips/big ass systems, then yes, it will help...
... hi bingo
So, yes, having a PHD means that you will request a higher salary (which is ENTIRELY normal), therefore reducing the number of opportunities you can have. But is it a bad thing ? I do not think so. Maybe you'll end up looking for a job a bit longer, but you'll most likely get a high-pay job, with many benefits, and a job you will like, or in which you'll have some type of control/supervision.
the last professor that I had was a PHD. He was a moron. I think that your knowlege base and work experience should stand on its own.
Is a job the only reason why you want a Phd?
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
and my preference when interviewing to select people with solid commercial experience rather that mostly academic backgrounds. I suppose for specialised applications a Phd will be a benifit but not for the vast majority of positions.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
... while you look for a job.
I would think in education a PHD would help as schools like to have those.
As for real life programming I don't think it would hurt you as long as your salary requirement didn't skyrocket and you attitude doesn't put you 'above' doing some trivial work. Having seen phd's hired and not hired I think it is mostly in their attitude.
I not only saw this happen...I contributed to it.
We had an opening for an entry-level or mid-level developer position. Had a fellow apply with 2 masters and a Phd. I couldn't really see that the job would be challenging/interesting enough.
Most employers are not interested in being a way-station on someones career. I figure if I really need a job, tayloring the resume to suit the position is essential.
Bad for productivity.
There are at least two people holding PhDs in my department (I am in the MIS department of a large retailer). Both of them are worker bees, although they are definitely well respected. They are not part of the "good ol' boy network" so they probably won't make management, but management around here definitely listens very closely to them.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Since I am still in school working on my degree in applied physics, I don't have a great deal of insight to offer. However, I have heard from several of my friends that are working and there seems to be an unwritten rule that bosses like to hire smart people but don't like it when employees are smarter/better educated than them. To me, it appears to be an inferiority complex.
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
you'll spend 4-5 years on this. you won't make money these years, but barely survive. after that to take advantage of the degree, you must go post doc (no money for 2-3 years), only after that your PhD is recognized, then you go to research labs to make some decent money, still less than sr engineers.
so, you'll ruin 6-8 years: not earn 500-600k, which is a lot of money if you look at the interests etc.
And since the number of people with PhDs is relatively small to begin with compared to the other groups, the perception that they don't get indistry jobs as often is easy to understand.
I'd say you should go for it and get the degree. I don't see why it would decrease your chances of getting a job in industry, and in the case of a tech downturn (again,) you could probably still turn to a job in academia.
Take it from a guy that's been in I.T. for 15 years and doesn't have a degree in anything... it's easier if you have an education. Though A PHD might be a bit much for the average I.T. shop.
I dont think you should get your PhD unless you know you want a job that specifically requires it. That would pretty much be college professor or running a large research group. It is true that people will be reluctant to hire you for jobs that do not need a PhD if you have one.
If you want to go back to school and learn more about computers, perhaps you could pick some other field and get another masters applying computers to solving problems in that domain. Not only might that be fun, but it will make you a lot more marketable as well.
But having done a phd, if you're concerned about it, just leave it off the CV. I doubt anyone will ask you to account for the missing years, but if they do it' not exactly hard to talk about your 3 years' work as a volunteer teacher in Mozambique.
Honestly though, I doubt a phd will have a negative effect on any applications. Equally, lack of a phd will have very little effect (except in very specialised roles), so I don't think you need to worry. The correlation is likely to be an extremely weak one, but newspaper just love publicising such reports, no matter how significant or otherwise the results are.
A friend of mine applied for a job he was more than qualified for. He lacked a piece of paper that said he had done an education. If I would have applied, I'd get the job (I think), without being nearly as experienced.
In my experience, businesses are more interested in diplomas then in experience. Having completed an education doesn't prove you're an expert in a given area, but that have mastered a basic skill in working as a professional. And that is probably of much more value than in this case technical knowledge. (Most of which you'll learn on the job anyway...)
As a B.E. in Comp Engg I am planning on applying for further studies. However the authors question brings a question to my mind. Should I app for MS or PhD. It is generally considered more difficult to get a PhD admit but easier to get aid in PhD than MS. Of course the point raised by the author of the post seems to add another facet to these questions. Would some of you post-grads out there have any advice?(Note I have 2 yrs of Job experience and am also seriously thinking of going for an MBA but selling my soul for money is turning out to be a bit of a drag:))
**Life is too short to be serious**
Just having a Ph.D doesn't mean you're any good at the job... it has to be relevant to it in order to open up the doors to get the interview. After that, you actually have to be able to "cut the mustard".
ps. I've stopped mentioning my honours degree and don't put the letters after my name in normal correspondence. I only use them in a job application when the job requires them, otherwise I run into the "sorry chum, you're too qualified" response if I'm lucky to get a response.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
As a hiring manager PHD's arent particulary atractive in and of themselves. With the poor state of pratical education persoanly I would rather hire a person with more experience than an over educated one. The only roles that generaly seem to be looking for PHD's are CTO and senior research positions and either of those again want to see a lot of expereince.
No sir I dont like it.
A Ph D (in engineering and science) is a certification in the ability to do research. Generally theory based, and often without a "real world" product in sight.
Read lots of papers, write some papers, get published.
This has as much to do with computer engineering in most companies as having your IBEW (electrician) certs.
If you want a career in research -- either in an academic institution or a semi-private or private lab (think Bell Labs or Lawrence Livermore Lab), then get a Ph D. If you want to "do" computer engineering, than a Ph D won't likely help you.
It is certainly not likely to result in a pay differential from a master's degree equivalent to the time lost earning the Ph D (4 - 6 years generally).
P.S. I'm a Ph D student in Systems Engineering (similar to operations research)
Support a few technologists in Washington.
A friend of mine went for a job with a Phd in systems design. He had done alot of research into the process of software design and use and was told.
...' and he thought he might hack it as a Perl programmer. I am so green with envy.
"We are looking for someone with experience in this area - but not as much as you have"
Fear of the egghead no doubt.
He found employment in a company that had no interest in him having a Phd or not.
But your best bet is to get your Phd and set your sights higher, become a PHB!
His present job title starts 'Director of
The purpose a Ph.D. is to prepare you to do research. I don't think learning the ins-and-outs of literary searching, statistical analysis and hypothesis testing, etc... will help in most jobs in the industry. The time/money might be better spent elsewhere.
Most schools I think the Ph.D. is about 36 credits beyond a masters, typically 6-12 are dissertation credits. Of course, the big part of the Ph.D. is the dissertation, which in some schools you can opt-out of and earn an A.B.D. degree, which is "All But Dissertation".
Disclaimer: IANAPh.D.
Everyone just called him "the doctor" and no one could figure out what he did. I did see him complain about the printer/fax machine alot, though.
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
Well, maybe not exact same, but currently I am a college student working for my BSCS from a technical school. They have a 5 year masters program, and given the current market, I can see where that might be the wise move. However, I have heard some things that give me pause, mainly that people with a masters fresh out of college don't get the jobs.
The reasoning is that a masters demands more money, after all, I've been to college for longer and know more. However, I don't have the work experience to compete with other people who have recently gotten their masters (after being in industry for 10 years). Also, it sounds like I will get the same job with a masters degree that I'll get with a BS unless I go into some academic area (like research).
I don't know how many of these apply to you, but I know I'll take a good hard look at the market next spring and decide whether I should stay in school for another year.
My experience is this - you want to teach or do research, then PhD is the way to go, otherwise, I wouldn't bother. If you are a hands-on guy that wants to have an IT job, I would save my money...go buy your wife something nice...you'll get more out of it.
Most PhD folks I've known in industry were full of book knowledge but had almost no ability whatsoever to apply that knowledge. Obviously there have been exceptions. I'd suggest that for most jobs a BS or MS in Computer Science or Engineering is more than sufficient.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99lega cy/9-2-1999.html
If you want to do research, a Ph.D is a must. If not, it is a waste.
I don't think it will do much good nor harm in today's job market. And you don't have to advertise that you have one when job searching if you feel it's going to scare employers away. However, a PhD is still a pretty assume accomplishment in my book!
If you're a hiring manager, what is your opinion on someone who has a Ph.D. and is otherwise already qualified for the position?
A hiring manager may fear (or envy) your higher education, or fear you may displace them (your higher degree may make you look better suited for management.)
Now for the field I'm want to enter (mol. bio.), research and teaching (at the college level) you need a Ph.D. to be taken seriously and get a job. (Not to say I agree with that, but that is the impression I've gotten from others).
Just my 0.02 USD...
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
(Posted anonymously by a regular contributor).
Is always hiring friendly faces. I'm sure your PhD won't be held with disdain there, in fact, it'll probably be a non-issue!
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
is not necessarily to get a job. it may be a nice side effect from time to time, but isn't there value in the learning itself.
for the record, i'm satisfied with certifications and an AA in computer science; philosophy is the only higher degree i persue.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
My PhD was based around networked information systems like the Web and Gopher, back in 1992-1996. My PhD improved my technical skill set a little, with extra programming experience, and early awareness of protocols such as HTTP, and standards such as HTML. But the real advantages came from the other part of earning a PhD - the ability to present your ideas to others, whether that's on paper, or stood at the front of a room. The ability to organise my thoughts, to analyse problems and come up with solutions, to think outside of the already known base of information and come up with new ideas, to manage my own time, these were all the skills that I picked up between graduating with my first degree, and being given my PhD.
As a manager looking to hire someone, I would expect someone with a PhD to have the skills mentioned above. But you can also pick up those skills "on the job", or just have them as innate abilities, so as ever it would come down to how you present yourself at the interview. Having a PhD would certainly not count against you.
Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never come across the "overqualified" argument myself, and I'm very happy that I had 4 or 5 years dedicated to researching something that I found extremely interesting, in a superb learning environment. I think the skills of analysis and logical thinking are very handy in the IT and programming enviroments.
I just look at degrees as a piece of paper that shows someone has learnt some discipline towards accomplishing goals. The subject and type of degree are secondary, it's the process the degree program puts you through that is important to me. PHDs - generally show a (perceived) higher IQ and ability to theorise and write copious amounts. It will make you stand out from that bunch of resumes, but it also raises a red flag over you; are you too intellectual to be pratical? Only an interview can find that one out. We did hire a guy with a PHD once, he applied for a systems administrator job. He quickly got promoted a few levels as he was unbelievably bright and 'wasted' doing Unix installs and the like. Now he's director of IT at a brokerage.
When I look for a candidate, being a PhD is impressive, but it doesn't say a lot about how well you would work in a corporate environment. Deadlines and attitudes can be different at a company than in a university setting. While interviewing one PhD, it was apperent to me that he wasn't used to a very fast paced schedule with indefinite requirements.
Basically, you're going to have to start at the bottom like any other college grad. I wouldn't worry to much about it much though, once you get out here, you'll prove yourself pretty quickly and be fast tracked as far as raises and promotions go. Just don't expect the PhD to land you even 80K (in florida) out of the gate.
-no broken link
It happens - I've been turned down for jobs, because people look at my education and think, "He's not going to be here in six months." I know Ph.D.'s who can't get work; my mom has two degrees from Vanderbilt and can't find work. It definitely happens...
Web Design & Software Development
My mother definitely seemed to have had a harder time getting a job because she had a PhD. (In English, for a teaching job) The basic deal is either
/. is PhD free, 0.1% of /. is a helluva lotta people ;)
1) A big company has to pay you more for a PhD because they have policies and don't have the leeway to say that a PhD took a Master's level job. Therefore sometimes relatively equivalent candidates will be decided in terms of who's lighter on the pocketbook.
2) A company with the leeway to offer you less money and benefits thinks you won't take it.
But I think it's worth it, because when you find a job it'll probably be a better one. My advice is to find a job, get a PhD, and then you have the leisure to look for a GREAT position.
In response to another comment: Even if 99.9% of
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
but a proper balance between the qualifications in most fields lies between practical experience and education. Too much on the scale in either direction can often have an adverse affect when compared against others who are better balanced.
My penny and a half.
I have interviewed 1000's of potential engineers for my company, and I have learned one important fact while doing so.
In engineering education doesn't amount to squat.
You either have it or you don't. It seems to be like art. Education can make a good artist a better, but the raw talent must already be there.
In fact of my 3 best engineers 1 doesn't have a degree and the other 2 do, but low level and not in engineering.
I am also as yet to interview a EE/SE PHD that has any ability or talent, and I have interviewed hundreds of them.
Evil Man
Unless your research topic is somehow directly related to the job, I would given other candidates serious consideration before hiring you.
/know/ I wouldn't pay more for a Ph.D candidate in IT - unless, like I said, the position was somehow related to their research topics.
There's also a stigma that Ph.Ds are too accustomed to the life of academia. While sometimes you need to impress to get a research grant or whatever, it is much different than industry in terms fo goals and objectives - and thus, would you really be a good fit in my company after having spent all of that time in academics?
You're also specialized. You've focussed yourself on a single research topic and closed a lot of doors by doing it. This, of course, can also happen in industry with years spent in the same position. You close some doors - but you have the key to that one specific area - just make sure you choose the area wisely!
Did I mention Ph.Ds are convinced they are deserving of higher salaries than others?
I'm sure you've heard all of the above arguments before. I don't neccesarily prescribe to them myself, but they do hold some merit.
If it came time to fill a position I can't imagine ever seeking a Ph.D - if an application rolled in from one, I would give it the same consideration as any other, only it might be tainted by the above mentioned negatives.
I
..mork
"So you know what B.S. is?"
"Yeah."
"Well, M.S. is More of the Same, and PhD is Piled Higher and Deeper."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I have a Ph.D. in Applied Math (not exactly computing, but close). I started out teaching at a small college, that didn't work. Now I work in a corporate programming shop. I know that I make more and have more interesting things to do because of the degree (and having done the job well for several years). I even started in an entry level job, since I had no full time work experience in programming.
On the flip side, that degree is your ticket to teaching. If you want to work at a small college, you can do so any time. Many schools are in a near constant search for a good computer teacher. You can do that part time or full time, your choice.
All that said, don't go for a Ph.D. unless you know why you need it. You don't need it to work in a corporate setting. If you don't have a need, you probably won't finish. Ph.D.'s are not like other degrees, there is no date when you know it will be over. Those without clear goals usually quit.
If both candidates are equally qualified, then I'll have the Ph.D. candidate; but usually, experience is an important qualification - if both candidates are the same age, I'll often take the one with more experience before the one with a Ph.D. What would really make my mind up was the references they could both bring with them from other companies - that will help tell me a little about how they work in a team, how they get on in a work environment, lot's of "soft" issues that aren't easily checked in an interview.
It's not being over educated that stops you from being employable, it's too much thinking.
If you really want to get a PhD make sure it closely tied in to a real commercial application. Education can just be a great way of avoiding any real work, and employers know it.
(I've got a single BEng desmond and "work" as a line engineer)
I was a senior programmer for a small software company, and myself and another senior programmer were designated the "front line" for filtering resumes and performing first round interviews for programming positions. One resume that came across my desk was from a Russian immigrant who had a doctorate's in computer science from the Univeristy of Moscow. His cover letter stated that he was looking for either a Junior or Senior Programmer position.
We rejected it right off hand -- he was either WAY too qualified for the position, and would abandon ship as soon as a better opportunity came along, or he was not nearly as bright as his Resume would indicate, and had fudged his way through University. Either way, PhD == Not qualified for a simple programmer's position anymore.
Unless you wish to become a professor or a top researcher/scientist at a prestegious lab somewhere, my advice is to stop at a Master's degree.
I don't think it will make much of a difference in the job market, so do it for yourself.
It all depends on what you want to do once you graduate. If all you want is to me a coder, and maybe move on to management later, there's no reason to get a Ph.D.
However, if you want to work on real Computer Science, like in a research lab somewhere, go ahead and get it. But software development today doesn't have too much do with the theoretical Computer Science they teach in most Doctoral programs. You'd learn more working on a real-world project.
funny, I just decided recently to get a PhD, because I've always idolized the Alan Kays of the world and the famous research labs, where of course a PhD is a minimum requirement (so far as I know). So it's no question in my mind. So I guess the question for you is - do you want to do research? do you want to be the world authority on one subject area? I think those are the key questions.
must... stay... awake...
When you have a PHD you are able to get into a lot of the really cool R&D stuff that people with their Masters and especially Bachelors wont even be considered. But you may have a harder time getting into entry level or mid level positions just because you are over qualified. But I am sure most companies will hirer a PHD if they know that you are really interested in the job and you are not just taking it to pass some time before you got a better one. As well if you want one of those lower level jobs don't expect to get higher pay because you have the PHD. A lot of companies just dont have a budget for a 120k a year job. so you may have to settle at 30-60k
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm a final year AI PhD student.
Once down the road of Academia, it gets harder to get back into industry from what I gather. Not impossible, but if you take a post-doctorate post for an extra few years or so, you may suffer.
Also, when I graduated with my first degree it was simple: I looked for CompSci graduate jobs. I had loads of offers. Now, I'm going to be looking for a job fairly soon and I'm so specialized, I'm not sure what's best to look for. I could get a graduate job and hope that my PhD will help me climb the corporate ladder quickly or I could try hard to get a job in my chosen field. This could be quite hard (anyone else heard of constraint programming?).
Actually, I'm off to read the comments posted now because this is gonna useful for me too.
Obtaining a PhD in "Computer Science" is irrelevant.
First, after 25 years of computer science degrees, there has been no significant development in this field. Yes, processors have gotten faster and systems smaller, but there are no radical or revolutionary changes. Why? "Computer science" is an undefined field. It wavers between mathematics, physics, engineering, business, and management -- unfortunately doing none well. It is an anathma -- a hold over from the gee whiz 60s. Businesses continue to hire "computer science" grads to do "the computer work." The insinuation is that someone who "knows computers" can somehow solve business problems. Rarely is this the case. I usually compare it to hiring a materials science engineer (someone who researches new types of building methods) to build a kitchen cabinet. You probably are not going to be happy becuse you hired the wrong person. I feel sorry for the companies that continually advertise "great new IT position, BS in Comp Sci required" and then grumble that the IT department has lost touch with the business goals.
Second, the IT industry, as we know, it will not exist in five years. By the time you graduate, you will have a worthless slip of paper. If you really like computers, go into intellectual property law. Intellectual property law will supplant "computer science" in the near future. Not only will IT "not matter;" it, moreso, will no longer legally be able to matter.
I wish the outlook were more positive, but I would not waste time this dying field. (Sorry to thepp sci grads.)
I have an MS in CompSci, and I have a job, but let me say that I'm not real pleased with it. It took a long time to find, I've had to make a lot of sacrifices to pay the rent, and I've got my eyes open for something better. Typically, more people pursue graduate school when the economy blows. That's something to take into account here, because we're in a downturn, but by the time you get the PhD, we might be in an upswing again. The other thing to consider is the kinds of jobs PhD's get. There's always going to be opportunities to teach. There's 3500 colleges in this country, not counting courses you could teach at high schools, online universities... etc. The research is part of the sticky issue. There are PhD research positions out there, but they're hard to find. Most of the folks I know got the PhD and then went on to academia or started a business based on their research. When I was making the decision of whether to pursue the PhD or not, my advisor (who worked in industry with an MS for quite a while before coming back to get the PhD and teaching) told me that relative to the amount of time you invest in getting the PhD versus what you make out of it, you're basically taking a lifetime paycut. That may or may not be true, but I think the thing that will have to govern your decision is how much you want it. If you're doing it with a terminal job in mind, you're probably not going to be happy with the result. If you get the degree because you have a genuine interest in theory, and want to be at the bleeding edge, then the job will create itself as you start a company or work in academia to continually stay at that bleeding edge for the rest of your career.
CS is not IT. IT is not CS. There's crossover, but there'a big difference.
If you get a PhD in CS/CE and spend your time doing IT type tasks, you'll be bored. You'll be doing "mundane" tasks instead of higher level research and development.
Degrees have their place in IT just as certs do, but as we all know experience reigns supreme. I can see the author's point in wondering if a higher degree will be 'employable'. I too wonder what those in HR may think of people who spend so much time hitting the books (presumably instead of dealing with real world situations).
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
My experience as a Ph.D. (though in cognitive science and robotics, not computer science) is that you do tend to become disqualified for some kinds of work. Essentially, grunt work programming, run-of-the-mill system administration and so on will be pretty much off-limits to you.
:) ). It's your call.
There are three reasons, generally, for this: first, you spent years in school whereas your peers went out and got work experience (or just learned a lot about unemployment benefits), so you will compete with people that have experience, whereas you do not. Second, your prospective employer will fear that you will want a higher salary (or other benefits) due to your degree, and they won't want to hire you when they can get a cheaper programmer that can do the job just as well. Third, they will (rightly) suspect that you will not find the work stimulating, rewarding or career-enhancing enough, leaving them with the need to do the hiring process all over again in six months or a year.
That said, a Ph.D. opens up whole new career paths that you really aren't qualified for otherwise. You of course have the research and teaching career path sort-of-open (though that is for masochists only, the way academia is going). You are also suddenly eligible to pursue an R&D career in big corporations. Last (but not least), the added knowledge and insights you get, the contact network (especially if you do a post-doc as well) and the skill you get in doing research means it is feasible to go out on your own with your own company R&D-oriented company (alone or with colleagues).
So, you lose some opportunities at the lower end, but gain some at the top. Of course, doing a Ph.D. is also a lot of fun (at least afterwards
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
IANAPhD, but I'm married to one and I've often thought about getting one myself.
Her advice has always been that the PhD is a **research** degree. You have to **add** to the field of computer science/engineering. That, plus you have to have a clear reason **why** you are doing it, or else you'll never have the fortitude to finish.
Oh yeah, you also have to **publish**. I think the better programs want you to publish every year or so, then assemble them all into some sort of coherent dissertation. If you can't publish, you may be asked to leave.
So, to recap, a PhD is not just "another degree" to make you look better in an interview. You are learning how to be a publisher/researcher and how to add to the knowledge in your field.
If you want to get a Ph.D, then get it. Don't think about its effect on your career. Do what you love and love what you do. If this means doctoral studies, then go for it. Conversely, don't do something out of character just because it might give you a +1 to an ability check. That's for weenies.
-- My comment is above.
I had a friend who decided that while he was studying he would go ahead and do a PhD. He is a highly skilled person who didn't really need the extra qualification because of his experience. The problem now is that nobody wants to hire him because they think he is going to want a larger salary! He doesn't, he just wants a job, but he can't seem to convince anybody of this! Just something to consider...
I'm going into the final year of my PhD in the Uk at the moment (in Grid Computing / Particle Physics applications) and the last few students to leave have had little difficulty in getting $80,000 start salaries.
I know this is a bit less than the US PhD's seem to get (at Stanford it was about $105-120k) however it only takes 3-4 years to do your PhD in the UK compared to 6-8 in the US, which means you're only 25 when you start in industry.
From what I've seen its more age than qualifications which are the problem. The guys who stay on as post-docs until their 30s have problems as they're starting to have families and wanting to settle down while the younger guys are still willing to work long hours and go where work sends them.
If you get a Phd in Comp Eng and stick to hardware, the Phd will not hurt you. I don't think it will help too much in the software field though. I think there is more demand for experienced and highly educated engineers in hardware than there is in software (at least relative to the size of the respective markets).
on what you want to do. I received my PhD 3 years ago, so I speak from some experience. PhDs vs. Masters graduates do *different* types of work (usually). Let me generalize for a moment (of course, exceptions occur frequently).
PhDs either work in academia or work in research labs. Many of my classmates went to Microsoft Labs, IBM Labs, AT&T Labs, etc. Others became professors at universities. A PhD education is 100% research, 0% teaching. It's all about researching new technologies, new patterns, new methods.
Masters or BS graduates normally work in more professional jobs: consultants, programmers, administrators. A Masters is very much a "specialization" and continuation of a BS degree. (A PhD is not a specialization in IS as much as it is an entirely new education in research methods).
I've also heard of some PhDs that find jobs only in research after earning their PhDs. It's said that recruiters won't let a PhD do on-the-line programming because PhDs are researchers rather than professional programmers. I haven't had this experience, though. Although I have a PhD and do lots of research and teaching, I also do side programming jobs in J2EE and Python. I haven't found my PhD to negatively affect my "Masters"-type work or recruiting at all.
YMMV
I work at a very large aerospace contactor. We have been told that we are not looking for PHD's as they usually have too little practical skills, require too high of salaries and cause compensation compression.
Myopic yes, but HR rules the "getting your foot in the door"
Get your PHD because YOU want it. That will see you through all the politics of getting a PHD over the technical issues. Most teach, a few consult and fewer are considered SME's (subject matter experts) in large companies.
Do it for the knowledge not the money.
I have noticed some people getting turned down for a position because of too much education. If the intereviewer knows the job doesn't pay as well they seem to discard the more educated people because they may leave sooner for better paying jobs.
I've been in the IT field for about 17 years and I've seen all kinds. The only consistent issues I've had with individuals with a Ph.D., and I mean people that have 5 or less years of professional experience, is the attitude. They seem to think that because they've had more schooling than most they actually know more. Well, maybe they can explain a left handed grammar better than I can, but most of us out in the real world find little use for the finer points of some theories (I've got a BS in Computer Science and have taken my share of theory classes - RIT in case you're wondering). Yes, there are certainly exceptions and having a good theoretical understanding of Computer Science/Engineering is a good thing - I'd even go so far as to say the more the better. But good professionals have continued to develop their skills and knowledge and new Ph.D.'s would do well to listen to what they have to say and not look down their noses at the rest of the world.
a company hiring someone (except as a head of RnD, where for formal reasons they all want to have a guy with a Ph.D.) has no interest in your Ph.D.
reason: you expect more pay, but your additional qualification is nothing that would have an added value for the company. they would prefer you to work after you masters and to gain real life work experience (that they can use) rather than additional academic lab-experience (that is of no use for most companies)
You sound a bit ambivalent, based on career prospects rather than passion for the work. In the business environment over the past 20 years, I've seen more career paths close than open up. So, just do what you love, as long as it pays the mortgage. Most career prospects are hit or miss, anyway. It's all about who's across the interview table. Remember: First rate people hire first rate people. Second rate people hire third rate people. Be first rate.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
I have a PhD in TROLLING!
I worked with a PhD who was explicitly hired into our group of ~7 or 8 developers because the director of the group wanted a "heavyweight" to lend some academic credence to our R&D group. We developed firmware for laser printers. We also worked with a number of PhD's at IBM's Almaden facility. Later in my career I worked at a smaller firm that hired a PhD into a SW development position, and another small startup firm where a PhD with quite a bit of industry experience was hired as CTO. I've also worked at other companies where PhDs (CS, CompE, or other engineering fielsd) were part of the upper management food chain. In summary, over a 12-year career I haven't encountered a lot of PhD's in the workforce, but the ones I have encountered seem to have gotten along OK, whether it was "grunt" positions, or management, etc. I am currently trying to finish my Masters'. Personally, if I had the time/inclination/opportunity/drive/etc to go further, I would/may do it; I haven't seen or heard anything in the industry that would otherwise deter me from doing so.
Might as well, they are only $15 on the street in India, Thailand or over the internet...
I'm currently writing up my PhD thesis for intended submission at the end of September.
:)
:)
My experience seems to suggest that PhD isn't *generally* useful. What I mean by that is, it is not useful for just an average tech job (at least in the UK). That said, a number of prospective employers have suggested that I could start with a couple of K more cash than I would haev as a graduate, but that doesn't outweight the four years I've spent doing it.
It could well be useful if you want to get a job in the same field as the PhD. Specialisaion on something can be very handy. However, if your PhD is in something relatively esoteric or abstract, then it is probably not much use.
From what I know, the situation is better in the US, where PhDs are more respected. The company sponsoring my PhD is an American company, so some must like it
I don't know of anyone really getting turned down because of having a PhD, but in many cases it won't help. However, maybe others have more experience of this, as I haven't yet got my PhD
Behlal
I don't know about a Ph.D., but I have a Masters degree in computer science from a university with a good reputation for that field, and I had some degree of difficulty finding a job. I had at least one company outright say to my face "Masters students cost too much to hire. We won't interview you." Aside from that, I had more trouble finding interviews than in the past (although, that can also be attributed to the economy). And, out of 4 job offers, only 1 gave me any sort of offer that was more than somebody with a Bachelors would have...
I'm speaking on behalf of my dad, but we've talked about this a lot, actually. He is a senior-level manager for Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, and has worked there for about 30 years. (Since he graduated--does anyone do that anymore??)
/. coder. He has a masters in Engineering himself.
In his career, he has hired, and fired, hundreds of people for management positions down to the ordinary
Basically, he's found that hiring a PhD usually is not worth the bang for the buck. PhDs expect a higher pay grade and salary for their education, which they deserve. However, his experience has been that PhDs are usually overqualified for the positions they are seeking--mid-career codeslinger, supervision, etc. The PhD should be looking for an R&D position or at the directorate level, depending on experience. In addition, my dad has interviewed people who are fresh out of school, and with a PhD. A specific example from the U of Michigan was a guy who had his BSE, MSE and a PhD in Systems Engineering, but had no work experience aside from summertime jobs and internships. As a result, this kid wanted a 6-figure salary for having his degree, but had no experience. My dad ended up hiring a guy with a BSE who had worked in the biz for a couple of years. He has never hhired a PhD as a coder, but has hired them as business unit managers, etc.
The moral of his story was that a PhD isn't required for most coding jobs, and it will hurt you if you try to apply to a job that pays $50k for a BSE but you as a PhD want $100k to pay off that PhD.
You're better off working for a few years, having the company pay for your PhD, and then once you've gotten the experience as a coder, then ultimately a manager, go for the PhD-paying jobs. In business, people are looking at PhDs either for R&D (and that is mostly manufacturing/industry, not software) or for senior/executive management. Remember to expect pay based on what the competitive job market has to pay, not on what education you have. If you want to code, then do it. Don't expect the big bucks until you move into that position that you hate: your boss.
The higher, the fewer.
It is a truely sad state of affairs, and possibly telling of the "IT" world in general, where more education could even be considered a bad thing.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
The real question is why you want the degree. If you are looking for a credential then what is the job you are looking to do going to require? Would a 5 day Java bootcamp be better?
Otherwise, if you are really after deepening your knowledge in the computer science field then you will be that much more employable because of the knowledge, not the letters after your name.
-c
The biggest problem may simply be that while you're getting the advanced degree, you're likely not getting some work experience that they would find valuable, and your past work experience is slipping further into the past. There are ways to mitigate this by continuing to work while studying -- there are even some co-op grad programs.
It's also harder to get a job with a Ph.D. becuase there are fewer such jobs, and the background needed is usually very specific. And going after a job outside of your area of specialization leads back to the first problem, the impression that you're really interested in something else (and you don't fit into their classifications).
It has been an unpleasant surprise that the strongest candidates have had the least education.
I think that graduate CS study is pretty far away from the business world. If I had an idea for a new kind of compiler, I'd be interested. But for designing an application that will be sold to business, these grads had too much theory and too little practicality.
An undergrad degree gives plenty of theory for 95%+ of computing jobs. Skills like Java are trade skills, similar to carpentry or drafting. A masters in car repair would seem silly. We pick them up when needed with a bit of training and a lot of practical experience.
Graduate degree CS folks should look for that sliver of high theory jobs, or get a domain degree, like an MBA.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Software Enginneering positions at Google say having a Ph.D is a plus. Of course, Google was started by two Stanford Ph.D students.
Honk if you're horny.
Experience will make more of a difference than your education level. I would rate a masters with the same level of interest as someone who has an MBA - someone willing to continue to learn. A PhD in computer science would scare me, as the time you spent focusing on earning your doctorate does not really constitute real world experience. Experience being equal, I might take the PhD. A PhD in math, bioinformatics, or something where you applied software development is much more impressive. Given the choice between someone who has worked in the trenches, death marches, fluctuating requirements, and knowing how to say good enough, and someone who spent the last four to six years slaving over a doctorate? Not a chance. You would have to show that you were not an academic if you could make it to the interview.
You really want to impress me? Author a programming textbook and get published. I hear you make almost as much as a grad student too... (grin)
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
just dont touch anything.
I think having a Postgraduate qualification will be looked in a very favourable light by most employers. (Its something that I've decided to do myself) Naturally, some areas of IT won't really care about it - networks and support spring to mind. I would however take comfort in that your PhD will open up all sort of research and advanced computing jobs to you. In an era where more and more IT jobs are being outsourced I think it makes a lot of sense to complete a postgraduate course. Research jobs can't be outsourced as easily and you can be reasonably sure that the academic route will still be available. As well as the more advanced computing/research jobs, you'll find that companies in same area as your PhD, will value it highly. Perhaps you should consider what you'll get out of your PhD and what you want to do after. Doesn't hurt to seek professional careers advice either :) Certainly in the UK, you can get it for free (don't know about elsewhere) through the universities careers service - www.prospects.ac.uk also has a section on postgraduate courses and the motivations for doing one.
Hope thats helpful
An IT Ph.D can be valuable if you wish to consulat, and / or teach IT.
but not a lot of credible evidence. So, I was hoping to hear from Slashdot readers on their experience.
:)
so let me get this straight - you haven't heard much 'credible' evidence from others, so you're going to ask Slashdot users?
If you want to work at Microsoft Research or at the very top of your field doing truly NEW security work, get a PhD.
If you want to be a heads-down enteprrise software programmer building the very latest Java edition of that old VB/COBOL application, then a PhD is definitely a liability.
The assumption is that a PhD is interested in new research, and so yes, it limits you because as a hiring manager, I don't want you running off to teach Discrete Math at the local university because you're bored with 10 hour VB.NET / Java Programming days.
Even a Masters puts you in that category to a certain degree.
Agree with parent as well as the fact that a Ph D is usually too specialized. Perhaps an expert true randomness; for example writing a thesis about using cameras and lava lamps to generate a random seeds.
Yea I learned PhD when I was using JAVA BEANS right after that I used SOAP in my SHELLS and luckily found a nice colored RUBY and PERL but put them down after being chased out by some PYTHON...
Ohh my bad you meant a PhD as in Puff Daddy...
Ain't no need to be hating sh0rty!@
1. More likely to leave for reasons beyond our control (even if we do our best to make work happy, they may decide to go off and do research or go teach)
2. Less likely to work well in the compromise-heavy environment required in commercial development (prefer an elegant solution; sometimes to the point of a huge productivity loss for everybody else, when all that was needed was a select-sort or some other quick get-it-done-because-it's-late solution)
I've worked with a lot of PhD's despite the two caveats above, and have generally observed that if you can get the right PhD in the right position, you can play to their strengths. This usually means hiring them for an architecture position where they can interact with professional organizations; do long-range planning; write neat prototypes; all that kind of stuff that heads-down developers rarely get to do (and which the PhD might be better at anyways).
However, putting a PhD in a development position has been uniformly disastrous at all three companies (huge, medium, and startup) I've worked at. Even at the senior developer level, there's too much compromising and too much "wiring code" to make most PhD's happy; and their tendency to pursue elegance at the expense of expedience no matter what the situation can slow everybody else down too.
I automatically give PhD's a big black mark. I have found that, in general, PhD engineers are much more likely to be lacking in practical experience than your average engineer. Unless I had a job requiring research, I would likely not end up hiring one.
"If you're a hiring manager, what is your opinion on someone who has a Ph.D. and is otherwise already qualified for the position?"
If I'm hiring a manager, I'll look for experience. You can only become a good manager by managing people and being exposed to business environments.
A business degree might help too!!!
Check out the job listings here: http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html Google frequently has job postings that list a PhD as a preference or requirement.
so.. you want Ph.D because you want the better pay? or better job? Why don't you get Ph.D for what you love to do... don't even get Ph.D because you think you can make more money and make your life happier... There are smarter people out there who needs that kind of education because they want to do what they do.. I hate people going into study field for money... it ruins the whole point of education... darn!!!
What makes you think grown men who live in their mothers' basements can advise you on whether you have spent too much time in an ivory tower? They aren't working either.
and I'm making well above the average salary for a programmer/analyst in Canada for the age 21-29 range (i'm 23). I started at a standard salary but worked hard (and smart) and proved that I deserved to be making as much as the more experienced guys. It looks like I will have a senior on my title within 2 years at this rate. All this with surfing slashdot on a regular basis as well.
;)
:).
(
I would say that what really matters is how well you perform on the job. A phd may affect your ability to get your foot in the door (whether because a phd would command more respect or, in contrast, reek of "academia") and may affect your starting wages, but that's all moot after your first review.
About the only thing I can say is you may be making a bit less than someone with only a masters because you don't exactly get to use a lot of the theory you picked up. And you may have a catch-22 with the whole "over-qualified" for entry level (because of the PHD) but under-qualified for senior positions (due to lack of practical experience). And in the end, you may be bored a lot of the time with easy work - I know I am.
I have a co-worker with a phd (but not in comp eng) and he's pretty much treated the same as all the others around here. He's not an exceptional programmer, but he never complains about his salary (unlike, say, the guys in PC support
Of course, this is Ask Slashdot, so you're only going to get a bunch of anecdotes anyways =) YMMV
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
And over-qualification is definitely one of them.
We recently searched for a part-time office admin for our company, and got _lots_ of CVs. But we rejected them all: far too qualified for the job. It sounds bizarre but when someone has too much experience they get bored doing banal things, and when someone has too much training, they often become too arrogant to do banal things.
And banal work is the bulk of it.
Then there is also the question of money: people with more experience and more qualifications expect more pay, and if the job does not justify this, there is a mismatch that will often cause problems.
Finally, many companies have a specific culture (social, business, technical), and it takes time to learn the culture. Extra training and experience can be useful but can also simply get in the way.
Lastly, as people get older, they appear to become more cynical and (in some cases) corrupt. "Sure, I can steal from my employer, after all everyone does that, right?" Perhaps it's an attitude that is there in young and old alike, but I've seen it much more in older people.
Give me a smart, young, motivated mind and I can do more with it than with an older mind with experience and training.
Sad, but for me (and I have lots of experience, ironically), true.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
In the short term having a PhD may be an impediment. Spending between 3 and 8 years (sometimes even more) in an academic environment is in some sense "wasted" time when you could have been gaining experience of the commercial environment. The academic world is very different from the business world.
In the longer term it can be a tremendous advantage, if you work in the field you studied. There is no doubt that getting a PhD is genuinely hard work and most companies know this and respect it. You will be an acknowledged expert in your field. If you specialize in an area that can be applied to commercial problems - for example security, parallel processing, AI, visualization - then a PhD is a almost required if you aspire to be lead the technology division of a company that specializes in that area. A very disproportionate percentage of CTOs of high tech. companies are PhDs.
That said, if you just want to be a software engineer or a sys admin, the PhD isn't going to help you much and you will perhaps always be seen as overqualified.
Finally my most important advice: don't start on a PhD if you don't have a deep interest and genuine passion for the work. You will spend several years of your life learning and discovering more about some arcane corner of the universe than all but a handful of people in the world. It is an enormous amount of hard work and requires true dedication. If you aren't energized by that prospect you won't make it. A PhD is not something you do because it will enhance your career, its something you do because you need to do it.
Sailing over the event horizon
Personally I would hire (and have hired) someone who has an extra 2 years real-world experience over someone with a Ph.D. Any day.
The fact that you're already interested in seriously pursuing a doctorate would already start to make me nervous.
Although theory is nice, I've all too often seen educational types create truely horrible software. Grand pie-in-the-sky designs that have no place in the real world (and rarely function properly anyway). Overdesign is a bad thing (see: PKCS#15, ASN.1, CORBA, GNU "configure" crap, etc).
So unless you're only interested in the research and education fields I would spend the time learning how to write and design good solid software in the real world.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
The disadvantage of having a PhD is that you may cost more with what is sometimes considered in the industry as near-zero experience. You will therefore not be a top candidate for some job offers. I recommend that you follow a management class during your PhD.
I would not recommend doing a PhD to have the title. Working for a PhD is often frustrating, requires great patience, is not 9-to-5, and you need the guts as you watch your non-PhD friends making bucks... and they'll even be making more bucks than you after you finish your BigD!
Do a PhD if you have a strong interest in Science and Technology and/or want to work on a specific project.
Most Phds that I know are gainfully employed in two kinds of jobs: Wall street: The work here is highly quantitative/mathematical in nature. Things like derivatives pricing, risk management models, trading strategy models etc. Most phds irrespective of the field are very quantitatively oriented and hence this expertise is what us used in these jobs. Specialized product development shops: A friend of mine who did is Phd in Imaging, works for a company where his specific specialization is used to develop software products that can analyse image data to detect physical events like physical security breach. So in such cases your narrow specialization in IT would be relevant. For example, if you specialize in network security RSA may be a good place. As far as professional career goes, I think technical specialization is less important than some of the other things like people management, business management, financial management, political savviness etc. In other words professional success is more about building personality traits that help maximise the potential of the whole organization than just maximising your own direct output.
If you just want a job then you are not qualified to recieve a Ph.D and you will most likely never finish a respectable program -- unless of course you use your "silver hammer" :-) ... It's true that most education programs have been watered down to the point that they are almost meaningless but a Ph.D still means something, I hope! ??? or am I showing my age.
I would submit that if you love a subject and you love research (and can afford it) then a Ph.D would be in order. Of course as a means of furthering one's career in the IT industry such a degree is certainly helpful in high profile (Senior Management) roles (value == status) or reseach based roles (value == knowledge) like you would find at intel's research lab for instance.
When applying for individual contributor type roles esp. in a business environment, judgemental hiring managers may be reluctant to bring you on and fit you into a team of educated but "non-academics". In some cases you may be percieved as being over-qualified.
Furthering formal education is a good thing and one can only benefit. Knowledge and skills gained during study will help you excel in your job. You are in control of what potential employers know about you at the time of hiring. Tailor your resume for the job you are applying for!
DON'T get a Ph.D. if you are planning to work
in "regular" industry jobs. It will not help you.
DO get a Ph.D. if you plan to work in a research position in industry or want to be an university professor.
Let's limit that to wherever you went to school with whatever funding you have for whatever degree you received. I am aspiring to a PhD in geography. You can get through without teaching with a research assistantship, but most people at least assist on an undergraduate course or two. Any PhD who hasn't taught at the undergraduate level is really limiting themselves and, sure as fuck, won't get tenure 'cause while research is a big part of the equation, you gotta teach to get promoted. There is no a fatter position to be in than 35 years old with tenure.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
i am a firm believer that a college degree does not a better applicant make, in nearly any field. the one exception i have is for MDs.
that said, suppose it takes 10 years to get a PhD. would you rather hire someone with 10 years of experience and no college degree, or someone with a PhD and no experience?
High School dropout/MCSE here....just had a thought about this and figured I'd share my question.
Would "where" you got the PhD make any difference?
I know that in Ontario, University of Waterloo has one KILLER Comp.Sci program and a lot of companies look at the graduates from that with very high regard. So, now if you got your PhD from here, would it look better to potential employers? As apposed to getting your PhD from a school with a worse reputation for thier Comp.Sci program?
Just a thought.
I have experience with this at our company. It's probably an isolated experience. It more applies to hiring PhDs that have lots of experience teaching that go into the real world.
Our company hired a professor from UNC. This is a professor that took over one of Fred Brooks' classes.
At first we left him to be a zealot for software engineering. We have a great process in place, so he was more the zealot for the entire company. Then the politics came down and forced him to work on a deliverable.
The product took about twice as long as expected. All that software engineering theory just didn't apply in the real world. Build environments, makefiles, message files, and all that stuff you use in the real world were foreign concepts. Unit testing was another issue - most builds that came down the pipe had a simple bug that prevented testers from using the build. It could be argued that much of his code was not readable as well. Lots of one letter variable names, and wrapper around functions that didn't need them. I mean, he did the equivalent of wrapping strlen with a function named StringLength. This was to improve readability.
He's already stated he wanted to join the bandwagon for teaching and instructing in the company, proclaiming the merits of process and all that stuff. He wants to tell people how to avoid the mistakes he's made. Bottom line: he's instructed for so long, he thinks this little experience further qualifies him.
In short, I can't say I recommend hiring a lifetime professor at a major college as a programmer. There's too much unlearning that needs to take place, and too little awareness of how software engineering process works in the real world.
1) There are lots of tech people out of work, so you could very well be over-qualified with a PhD or even a Masters.
2) There are a lot of people out there to work the grunt jobs, and fewer people getting a higher education in IT. This could be an advantage.
It is all going to depend on what companies are around you. If they are all small, private companies doing web work, you may be out of luck. If you are near an IBM office, or some other tech giant who may have a use for someone with a PhD, then you could have a chance.
It is a real issue that people can be overeducated for a lot of jobs.
I used to work at Motorola, and we hired a contractor that was really smart. He was hired to help us test a release of some real-time cellular products. He had worked at NASA for years, and had some good stories. But he was worthless as a "regular" employee. He kept 3 sets of notecards in his shirt pocket, each set being a different color. One color was for process stuff, one was for technical stuff, and the other was for something else. When you would tell him something he would whip out his notecards and write it down on whichever category it fit into. If you ever wanted information from him, he went to his notecards. He was a good guy, and really smart, but he was too smart for the job.
I worked with another guy at a small company who didn't know Unix, but said he could learn it. He had a Masters and was working on his PhD. (I was surprised he didn't know any Unix, but whatever) We thought he was capable of picking it up, but he clearly wasn't. Two months after he started, he still had to refer to his notes to remember how to list a directory's contents. He was a smart guy, but he just didn't get it.
My suggestion? If you go for the PhD, do something in the computer security field. There will always be a need for computer security gurus, and in that field you'll be up against snot-nosed kids for the jobs. :-)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I dont have that much experience, but having worked as a student for companies like IBM and other major german companies, there was no question wether to get a PhD or not - your chances to get a job are simply a lot better with than without! ... no no a PhD just doesnt do any good, you wont get a job ... - all i heard was that a person with PhD earns more, gets easier a job, and has a few more years of fun not working but doing what he likes!!!
No one i asked said something like
At companies like SAIC where they have government contracts, you'll excel with a PhD (or any advanced degree). Government contracts reward companies based on the certifications and degrees they bring to the table. In most of the rest of the IT world, the PhD will be irrelevant. Skills are all that matter. Show your skillset and you'll be rewarded handsomely. Show your lack of skills and you'll be punished. Some doors may be easier to open with an advanced degree and some may be shut due to being "over-qualified", but all in all, it won't really have a huge impact on your career.
The only exception is if the PhD is in very specific field that you are working in and it may have value there. Other than that, considering the number of art and history degrees programmers and sysadmins have, the issue comes back to skills, skills, skills...
Why do I h8 apple?
In my experience ...
someone who tries to get shit working but often makes life harder for themselves or someone else later on by forgetting to design it.
tries to get shit working but also include enough design to make it last/maintainable.
frobs around overdesigning stuff and often forgets the point of the product (i.e. getting it working). Sometimes think too highly of themselves too.
PHD == only if you want to be stuck in a dark room doing research. And you're a bit funny in the head to start with.
Do you think getting a Ph.D. in CompSci or CompEng will improve or worsen my career outlook in the industry?
It depends on where and what you are looking for. If you apply for a position as the head of a university or government IT dept. It is almost a requirement. In many UN and EU positions it is a requirement. In some government jobs it means an automatic raise. In the private sector it is a mixed bag... see below.
Has anyone witnessed someone being turned down for a job because he had too much education?
Yes, Many managers do not want a more educated or smarter person around.
If you're a hiring manager, what is your opinion on someone who has a Ph.D. and is otherwise already qualified for the position?"
I probably would not hire a Ph.D. for operations (complex or not). I would only consider for planning, development, design, or research. Advisory and high level training jobs are possible but rare.
There are two primary reasons for getting a PhD, and they are for teaching at a university, and for doing research at a university or an industrial research lab. If you don't want to do either, or are unsure, then a PhD is probably not for you. The worst decision I've seen by people is applying to a PhD program because they don't have anything else to do and don't know what they want.
One thing that people often don't know is that PhD programs are more about thoroughness, communication, creativity, and endurance than about ability to hack. I'm in the CS PhD program at Berkeley, and I spend more time creating slides, writing papers, reviewing papers, talking to colleagues, and thinking up new ideas than I do programming. I enjoy it a lot, but depending on your goals, this may or may not be a good thing.
The endurance part is something that few people mention. Are you willing to devote the next 4-5 years of your life to research? Is there something that will get you up every day in the morning so that you can finish?
Check out the web pages of schools you'd like to apply to, and find projects and professors there that seem interesting to you. Also, many graduate programs are open to visitors and prospective graduate students. If you have the opportunity, visit those schools and see what the people and the research is like.
I have a licentiate, which is a Swedish degree between the Master and the Doctorate degrees. It is both used as a way to keep track of PhD students and as a bail-out mechanism when you need one. When I first called on the job ad for the job I eventually got, the recruiting boss' immediate reaction was that I was not suited. I was persistent so I did indeed get to the interview, and from there on there were no problems. So as long as you get to the interview your degree is probably not a problem (unless you really got brain damaged at the university, those things happens, you know).
Caveats: I am Swedish, and I have my degree in Physics, so I guess I didn't really answer the question, but it was fun to talk.
Companies offering development positions for their run-of-the-mill applications may not be greatly impressed in your PhD. However, some organization do take PhD's in their research labs. SAP AG (www.saplabs.com) comes to my mind.
blue_teeth
It depends largely on the field and the employers. I work for a medium sized company where 60% of the employees have a Ph.D. A person with a Bachelors or Masters generally just doesn't have the skill set and knowledge required to quickly become a productive member of the team. Also, experience has told us that those with a Ph.D. are generally more self-sufficient and work well with little supervision.
That said, those with a Ph.D. generally have a training in a technical (generally engineering or math) field. Our experience has shown it is generally easier to teach someone programming skills than it is to teach them the highly complex numerics and domain knowledge required in what we do.
The guy helped write a pretty decent search engine for NEC, and continues to refine his work there. During the last three years' worth of economic ups and downs, one thing has remained consistent: he has had to fight off job offers with a big thick stick. I don't think the guy will ever go wanting for work.
That's the real question. Are you getting a phd to get a better job? If so - you should find out what that job might be before getting the advanced degree. If you're getting the advanced degree and then will just be applying to regular run-of-the mill sysadmin jobs or some such - then that sounds really weird to me. Isn't the idea of a phd that you actually contribute to the body of knowledge that you've been studying? So that you become the world's foremost expert in some hitherto un-explored nook, and are able to defend your're theories and assertations, etc. So if that's the case - why would you become the world's expert in something to then go and be a sysadmin? If you're gonna become an expert in some interesting nook of Computer Science - genetic algorithims, solid state storage, whatever... then there are companies doing cutting edge research that will snap you up if you're contributing to those fields. But if you're just going to go and try for regular technical jobs - then I think that's fucking retarded.
Not having one has made it a little harder to find a job somewhere other than at McDonald's.
Like others said, if you want to teach at a university or do research at a university or research lab, get a PhD. If you want to develop products, I think you're at the optimal level now.
I doubt that having a PhD per se is bad, but if you want to develop products it's not as useful as the real-world experience you could obtain with the time you'd spend getting the PhD.
I wanted to do research, so I got a PhD. For me, it was the right choice, but it's a lot of time and energy. I know people who got PhDs and went to work at startups or other companies, and didn't regret getting the PhD. But I also know people who stopped at the MS level and are really glad they did.
A lot of people have already mentioned the PhD-is-good-for-research theory, so I won't rant on that.
I've seen a lot of people lately who are staying in school rather than throwing themselves at a tough labor market. Personally, I think staying in school to escape "the real world" is a really weak excuse. If you've only been in school and don't have practical experience then I highly suggest getting out and getting a job. I don't get along as well with my friends who are still in school (I graduated five years ago with a BS). A lot of them seem to be in perpetual procrastination about putting together a resume, interviewing for jobs, and in constant pursuit of the next easy part-time job.
Now, having said that, perhaps you have some personal goals you'd like to accomplish or a certain area of study you really want to pursue. Doing that in a non-academic environment can be rough and then it makes sense to stay in school.
There's lots of exciting things to do in this world besides working on a thesis. While I think pursuing a career (you do have a grad degree) is good, I'm sure you could come up with something more original. Go work on a cruise ship for a year. Take off and lay on the beach in Thailand for a while. Spend the winter skiing.. of course that's what I did and accidentally never left.
----- obSig
What's more important than the level of your degree, is what you want to do and if your background prepares you for it.
There is no shortage of jobs in IT that require skills that can be picked up on the fly, or in short term intensive training. A PhD isn't going to be an asset for a job like this.
I would say if you don't know what your are going to use the degree for, there isn't much point in getting it just for the sake of it.
Just put on your resume that you have a masters instead of a PH.D. I can understand them being pissed later if it was the other way around, but they dont have any right to get pissy if they find out later and it happens to be that they're getting *more* than what they're paying for.
[ObCreds: BSCS, with some graduate work; close to 30 years in the IT industry]
:-) ..bruce..
IMHO, a PhD in Computer Science is useful for: doing research and/or getting a tenured position at a university; becoming a high-end consultant; getting a CTO/chief scientist position at a large corporation or a hot startup; being an expert witness (litigation support).
Other than that, I'm not sure that it helps much, and it can definitely hurt you in many classic IT situations. Far too many organizations see IT jobs as 'commodity' positions (witness the current rush to off-shore development) and have little idea as to how to attract, identify, hire, and retain quality IT personnel. Such firms may well see your PhD as an 'overqualification'; a few may even worry about you being 'too smart' to bring in (i.e., a potential troublemaker).
As noted, I don't have a PhD myself, so I speaking only by my own observations; I'd be interested in hearing the experiences of those who do have PhDs and who have been in the trenches. I've toyed with the idea of going back and getting my own PhD several times over the past 25 years--and even had one university offer me a PhD slot with an on-going teaching position--but each time I did a cost/benefit analysis, I decided to pass. I may yet finish my MSCS, though, even at my 'advanced' age.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
I wasn't able to go full-time for my Master's, due to financial concerns (I had to work full time), so I couldn't enroll in the programs in any truly CS oriented schools. So I'm pretty sure it was that I simply didn't go to the correct school in order to truly "get something" out of the graduate courses I took, since they all amounted to extra (and rather uninteresting) work I had to do after doing my 9-5 job with 2+ hours of commuting.
I have learned over 90% of what I know from actually experiencing the learning and research processes in a self-taught fashion. Basically, obtaining the Master's degree (including writing and publishing a thesis) was largely an excercise in putting hard work towards obtaining a goal. I did learn a few interesting things, but with the pace of technology, much of it has been rendered obsolete.
I guess it is an advantage to have on a resume, but given my experience, I'm sometimes unsure if it was worthwhile.
I'm working towards a Ph.D., and I was always surprised when people seemed floored when I mentioned was going to graduate school to get a Ph.D. Some people think that a Ph.D. is only for teaching, and that is categorically untrue. Some people think that a Ph.D. is only good if you want to do research. That, too, is categorically untrue.
When I arrived at Ga. Tech a fresh Systems graduate student, they made the statement (this was 3 years ago mind you) that about 80% of their students went to industry! That leaves only 20% to academic positions. Even then, I'm sure a good deal of those weren't as much teaching as research with teaching "on the side"
Lest you think that research is your only other choice, you would want to be aware that if you are a researcher at a school, a large part of your time will actually be spent in a managerial capacity. This could involve a good deal of marketing and politics, too, as you jockey for getting your projects funded, or attracting the best grad students to your project. Beyond that, there is certainly a wide world out there in the corporate world. Andrew Grove, former Intel CEO, has a Ph.D.
What you can say that is categorically true about a Ph.D. is that it will separate you from the masses of those with Bachelors and Masters. I think there definitely a huge trend in education of needing more to "get ahead". Thirty or forty years ago, a college degree would put you way ahead of the pack. But now it looks to me that a number of jobs require a Masters to separate yourself from the masses. Will that soon become a Ph.D.? I dunno. But I do know that with a Ph.D. I' m educationally qualified, at least, for every position that requires a Masters, PLUS the ones that require a Ph.D. (like college level) teaching.
In the end, experience, drive, and ambition trumpsall, really. Gates has no degree in business (or anything) but runs a multi-billion dollar (evil?) empire. But I'm sure there are a few near destitute souls with Ph.D.'s, too. If your employer is worried about your education, it is your job, as it is with point on your resume to convince him it's an asset! If your future boss is worried about hiring someone smarter than him- or herself, then you have a Dilbert like problem at that company, don't you think?
Good luck!
/ is the root of
If you want to do research, a Ph.D is a must. If not, it is a waste.
I wouldn't go that far. A PhD builds a new skill set that a first degree does not cover:
Having worked for four years to get my PhD (in observational astronomy as it happens) and then left academia to go and work in software development, the tricks and tips I learnt during that time have proved extremely useful and I have no regrets about spending that time.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
You'll probably make more money in the long run if you take the tuition money and invest it in the stock market or some real estate.
From a hiring perspective, it seems like most people feel Ph.Ds in IT fields are lacking in real world, business-savvy experience because they've spent too long in academia relative to peers in the job market. And nobody wants to hire a seemingly-expensive PhD to do mid-level (or even senior level) engineering.
Park your tuition money in a reasonably good performing mutual fund and get back to work. PhDs in computer science are overrated unless you want to teach.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. Before starting work in industry I was working at a university for 2 years as an associated professor. Throughout those two years I was actively writing software. Still, when I started approaching companies, I found that a number of them was discouraged when they saw my resume: too many publications, not enough industry terms. It also did not help that I thought that my ability to do advanced research indicates that I can pick up other skills easily. This belief is apparently not shared by employers. They, often, want a person with very concrete skills. After a number of attempts I found a good company that employed me. And all of sudden things changed. Now having a Ph.D. and industry experience works to my advantage.
However much it sounds like a cliche, indeed, get a Ph.D. for yourself. Do it if you think that improving the complexity of an algorithm from O(n log log(n)) to O(n log*(n)) is a good thing, worth your time. If you don't, starting work after a masters degree gives you 3 or so years ahead start. And in the industry a person with 5 years experience is worth more than a person with 2 years experience, even if the second one has a Ph.D.
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend
In my experience, many companies in the US have certain HR mandated salary schedules. These salary schedules *require* that a PhD is payed more. In most cases the PhD is not needed for the position and you will not be hired due to the higher salary requirements. It doesn't even matter that you would take a lower salary. A PhD will go a long way towards a research position though.
I'm putting the finishing touches on my thesis now, and I have many friends who have done PhD's too. There is only one reason to do a PhD to my mind:
Because _you_ want to.
You must to want to do several years of scientific research.
These courses are long and hard, there are plenty of low points. Only by wanting it for yourself, _not_ just for employers, will you get through.
However, if you want to do the science, there are plenty of high points too and it's very rewarding - when something suddenly becomes clear, or when a big code works.
If you do choose it, I wish you good luck and hope you enjoy it!
back in the 1990s when Americans still did a lot of software developement; we'd laugh at the PhDs. They seemed more interested in re-writing the rand() function than getting product out the door. It seems like crack software development outfits simply did not hire PhDs. The PhDs tended to be very timid types that couldn't make it in the real world; often they were foreigners who just stayed in school until they were finally kicked out.
Then why are you asking here? You'll just get more "stories". Well, that and "Soviet Russia" jokes.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
How exactly do you define implementation? In my company, it is much easier to rise in the ranks with a higher education above a bachelors degree. From my experience and what I have seen of others, the higher level coders may come up with ideas, but they are still in the trenches everyday helping with implementation.
I cannot see getting a doctorate as precluding you from implementation (or a job for that matter), but instead adding the responsibilities of research, development and mentoring lower level employees through implementation.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
I have found that having a Bachelor's degree in CS was enough to get me mod points on Slashdot. I don't know if you'd get more points with a PhD, the FAQ doesn't seem to address this. Perhaps you could email CowboyNeal.
...
Oh, you want a *real* job?
And if you can't get a job in business, try to get into higher ed.
If you're applying for a position that you are overqualified for (and this happens a lot in this economy), just don't list all of your qualifications. Lies of omition on your resume are ok. If they ask you flat out in the interview, "Do you have a PhD?" then don't lie, but they won't ask. Once you're hired, don't treat it like a big secret. If they ask why it wasn't on your resume, just say that you've had trouble in the past.
I've found it true that overqualification makes you less likely to get a job. Companies want people who will be there for a while because hiring and training people is expensive. If you're over qualified, you're a flight risk.
vi is my shepard, I shall not font.
When I got my bachelor's degree in Aerospace engineering, it was at a time when defense spending was going down rapidly and, coupled with my somewhat mediocre performance in college, I had a very difficult time finding work after I graduated. To break into the field, I took whatever work I could and got training to get my Aircraft Mechanic's License. That license got me into an aerospace firm, but not as an engineer. From there, I took post-baccalaureate classes at the local university and basically rocked the GRE's. This convinced them to let me pursue my Master's in mechanical engineering. I did this by taking classes as I could around my work schedule.
Eventually, I got my Master's and once again set off in ernest to find engineering work. I had several resume's out and was on a few occasions flat out told that graduate degrees weren't in demand. I finally happened upon a job fair that I had to quickly get to from work (cleaning up and changing into a suit on the way). I got an interview with a manufacturing firm in NY (not aerospace). It wasn't my master's that impressed them, it was the dirt still under my fingernails from the fuel system I had recently finished rebuilding on a turboprop. They took that to mean I had familarity with machinery and mechanical systems. Based on that, I got my second interview, based on a strong follow-up phone call after that second interview (he was actually planning to not hire me when I called), I got the job. It was equipment engineering at a facility with no documentation and/or real process control but at least it was engineering. About a year later, an aerospace engineering firm that I had interviewed with contacted me and offered me a position.
Bottom line is, my Master's degree kept me current, but getting in the door was mostly dumb-assed luck and lots of perseverence.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
One trend that I'm seeing in the posts is the education vs. experience angle. What I didn't mention in my submission is that I already have 10 years' experience as a system software developer (device drivers, embedded systems, etc), and I'm very good at it. I like coding, provided I can design the code that I write, which is what I've always been able to do. I'm usually the top developer in whatever team I'm put on.
Having said that, one of the reasons why I want to get a Ph.D. is to help me switch to a career in hardware design, in which I have very little experience. Of course, I would rather be a professor, but that may not work out. And that's why I submitted this Ask Slashdot.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
If you feel you aren't a candidate for the job market, no matter reason why, start your own company. That's what I did. Over or under-qualified, it doesn't matter. The worst it can do is fail, and then you can start another or go back to academia, unlike careers with large companies.
I forget what 8 was for.
the Ph.D., unless you're going to do research, is a waste of time. Virtually all Ph.D.'s I know are not working in their field of their Ph.D.. Most of them are also not doing well financially because they're working in low-paying contracting (if technical) or working as a teacher for hire at local colleges with no security.
Also, don't forget that your career will start to shut down at about age 35 to 40. If you are not in management by then, you are will be stuck with grunt work positions until your hands die.
Stick with a master's degree, make as much money as you can, save as much money as you can, and start studying for a second career in something not technology related.
I recently got a Ph. D. If I had wanted to become rich instead of smart, I should have gone for a career at some .com four years ago. I didn't and I have no regrets. Getting rich is not a goal in life for me.
One thing you should realize is that if you become a Ph. D. student you are actually being trained for an academic career (plenty of jobs there if you are good enough). People in industry are generally not very interested in and rather ignorant of academia. That does not help when you are looking for a job there. It is rather frustrating to have to compete with M Sc.'s for the same job even though you are arguably more mature and educated.
Getting a job if you are smart and have the right credentials is not difficult. Getting a good job (something that actually matches your abilities) is much harder though. Typically you don't find job requirements mentioning Ph. D.'s using the regular channels (e.g. job sites). That doesn't mean there are no such jobs, it just means that you need alternative means to find them. You have to network, actively search, etc. to get to that kind of job. IMHO this is true for most good jobs.
BTW. I'm still looking for a job. Find my CV at www.xs4all.nl/~jgurp/homepage
Jilles
Since I'm in academia, this post is totally unbiased since, er..., academics are supposed to be unbiased.
I think it makes sense especially for American IT workers to start getting higher degrees like a Ph.D. in order to better differentiate themselves from Indian/Chinese/Filipino IT workers. While it is true that there may be lesser number of job opportunities in IT for Ph.Ds due to being very highly qualified, there ought to be less of a chance of getting fired (or worse - having to train a foreign worker to take over your job!) However, I haven't seen a study backing up this conjecture.
Also, if more Americans start doing Ph.Ds in CS, the competition among grad students will increase. Surely, this is good overall (and coincidentally for us in academia as well).
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
The problem the continuing education is that you are sacrificing time and thus experience. Experience in IT is exceptionally valuable. I know plenty of very successful IT professionals with not even a degree. You may be asking the wrong question. If all you are looking for is improving your career outlook experience will probably take you further (and possibly an MBA later on). However, you may find a Ph.D very rewarding even at the expense of possibly falling behind your contemporaries who are gaining experience employed commercially. Personally I recommend chasing your dreams, It's not responsible but at least it will keep you happy.
H.
Committing to a PhD program is great (essential, even) for finding a research or academic position, but is probably a waste of time if your objective is to get an applied IT job (programming, network admin, system architecture, etc.).
A PhD program means four or more years of low-paid graduate student life. While you could be out there gaining real project experience and earning a good salary, you will instead be slaving away on some niche research effort that only a tiny handful of people care about.
In practical terms, we could be talking about $12k per year as a student, versus $40k as entry level IT. After four years, the net difference is astounding. And if your program takes longer than that, it grows larger. And you still won't have acquired the credentials that employers really care about first: "years of experience" with a needed skill set. Unless, of course, you spend your grad student years replacing Linux SMP and RCU with clean-room implementations free of potential IP entanglements.
So my larger point is, think also about your bottom line when making this decision.
Depending on your area of study, a PhD might not gain you anything more than what a masters + job experience will get you. And if you're looking at salary, will the pay increase really be worth the extra 7 years of college tuition?
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
My perspective is that the choice is in what you want to do rest of your life. If you are very interested in research then Phd is the way to go. Yes, a fraction end up doing similar work to what they would do after a Masters but majority get into academia or research labs and continue doing research. Hence, it is not a disqualification. The kind of jobs you are looking at after a Phd is different from those that you look at after a masters.
I worked for a year before I joined my Phd program and my main reasoning was that I always wanted to get involved in research.
I would also like to disagree with one of the comments that said Phd is getting into doing things with more of a theory bent without real-world applications. Although that is true to an extent, I think fields like computer engineering, CS and EE have a lot more direct applicability of research than others. I could quote numerous examples where theses have directly effected current ways of working.
KAR.
I am in somewhat of the same boat, but try to keep up with current ide's, pls, etc, so that I have more to use when I get out. Keep in mind if you don't do it now, most likely you'll never go back and do it (it's easy to stay poor. Once you start making money, it's tough to go back). You might also want to think about the future. Even if you don't want to stay in academia now, you can retire from the tech world early and get a job at a teaching university if you have a phd. It'll give you some job variety in life.
I'll let you know as soon as the new batch of fries are done and I can take my break.
> Do you think getting a Ph.D. in CompSci or CompEng will improve or
> worsen my career outlook in the industry?
First of all, since when are Computer Science and Computer Engineering interchangeable?
Secondly, of which industry do you speak? You make it sound as though there's only one. Do you want to be the chief tech support monkey? Do you want to be the chief CPU architectural design monkey? Faculty? Algorithmic development and analysis for you? Do you want to manage a semiconductor research group? Do you want to perform cryptanalysis? Do you want to start your own company? Do you want to join a recently-started company, a Fortune 500, are you just indiscriminate?
If you have to ask whether it's for you, I suspect perhaps it isn't. If you have to Ask Slashdot, it makes me all that much more sure.
I hate being terse, especially at this time of morning, but I'm really becoming disillusioned by this "Is Path A likely to make me more employable than Path B?" mentality. The world would be better off if we each just focused more closely on our own interests.
In my limited experience, jobs, prestige, power, fame, and fortune follow those with a passion for what they do, who pay less attention to their resume than their own personal satisfaction. If you want to find a job (people exchanging their money for your time) that you love to do, find something that you love to do which happens to make money for others (ideally, you should make them more money than they pay you, on a time-averaged basis).
Otherwise, it may be easier to use whatever job you can tolerate to support your hobbies and extracurricular personal interests. In this case, if you derive satisfaction from foregoing four years of income to achieve a significant academic milestone, great! If you want candy for job interviews, lead a large group of stubborn people to great financial successes in spite of themselves, and document the process with buzzwords.
Ph.D.s don't make you rich, and they sure don't hold you back. That mushy grey stuff between your ears is what does that.
I'll throw my .02 in here. I've got a good chunk of work experience both on the technical and the business side. I have a pair of master's degrees... MBA and a Master's in Electrical Engineering. In my hiring decisions I've always tried to hire the guy with the most real world experience. I'm sorry but anything beyond a master's is really just love of the subject matter. You'll work like a dog and spend a lot of precious time in school to go from Master's to a Ph.D... and you'll be lucky to net a couple grand a year more then a master's starting out... and that's if the hiring manager wants to deal with you. Usually they're looking for the eager bachelor's who want to start their career and will work like dogs to learn. Heck when I hired engineers... I always did way better finding the ones who had a life. Yup I believe heavily that its better to hire the kid out of school with a 2.7gpa/3.0 gpa who worked part time through school... who was active in their community/fraternity house/sports/etc... If they were enthusastic about the job/interview... they tended to be much better workers who brought a lot to the table. When I was hiring the more experienced guys... it was all about what did they do (Ie... previous projects, what did they accomplish... could they explain what they did clearly and succinctly? What sort of things did they patent? How long had they been doing X? What was their shortest tenure at a company (Yeah its true... work at least 2+ years for each company... it looks really bad on your resume. I didn't care about their degree or what their gpa was... it didn't matter. If they had a Ph.D all that did for me was some extra bragging rights. I could tell marketing to spiel about all these brillant PhD's working on UberProject X, etc... but really it didn't buy much.... we didn't pay more for the degree.. it was just a little bonus/checkmark that's all.
The short and sweet:
1. Education is great... its a stepping stone to that 1st job (the entry fee). But beyond that its for your own betterment.
2. Once you get that 1st job kid... its all how hard you work/what you put into it from that point on that matters. If you're smart you'll worry more about who your boss is and his integrity... who your mentor is and the advice they give you then why didn't you get a phd. The best thing you can do is pick a good boss... it'll make all the difference in your job.
-Been there done that... now a silly PHB boss.
A friend of mine who has a PhD in chemistry is having a devil of a time finding work.
It seems that with a PhD is an expectations of a certain pay level, which employers aren't willing to pay. They seem willing to hire masters degree people...
Most of the posts you're seeing here are along the lines of "well, all the PhDs I know..." or "when I see a guy with a PhD...". And they're bull crap. I *have* a PhD. In computer science. Specializing in AI. And I also hack code rather well, thank you very much. So here's my two cents.
The whole premise of the question being put before us is broken. Will a PhD improve your career. I mean, really. NO ONE FINISHES A PHD WHO STARTED ONE SOLELY TO IMPROVE HIS CAREER. It might improve it. But that's not why you get one. If you're considering a PhD because of its job opportunities, then I have one thing to say to you: get a job!
You get a PhD because you want one down deep. Because you like being a scientist and a researcher. Because it's a goal you've had all your life. That sort of thing. If you don't care about a PhD, then holy cow, DO NOT GET ONE. What are you thinking?
It's going to be a painful half-decade too, consisting mostly of salaries around the $18K mark, or a whole-decade's worth of night classes and stress if you go the part-time route. People who try for PhDs because it will improve their employment position are the first people to drop out of the PhD program.
Funny thing happened to my friend he graduated college then tried to get a job with his Degree in Computer Science. He has also written and soft a hand full of programs. After 3 months of looking, his resume stating he graduated he decided to test something and submitted his resume once again but removed college. So he had High school diploma and coding experience. He got a job within 3 days, as a programmer, what he wanted. Goes to show that schooling apparently isn't everything. On the other hand I found a better job with my resume and I had my college listed... so go figure.
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
While I don't believe having an advanced degree is a conscious negative to people hiring, perhaps there is a subconscious bias.
I have been interviewing a lot of people lately, and I notice I will be especially hard on people with advanced degrees that don't know basic concepts.
Also, my wife got her MBA recently, then tried to find an entry level marketing position. She spent six months and couldn't. One person I knew in marketing said sort of jokingly that he wouldn't hire her because she had more education than him, and would take his job.
Finally, I wonder about peoples motivations to get advanced degrees. Sure, it is external validation, and makes you an elite. But does it actually mean you are better at getting a job done? I would probably prefer a candidate that has four more years real world experience if I was hiring developers than a candidate with a PhD and no real world experience.
I've seen people with advanced degrees not considered for entry-level positions. The premise was that these people wanted a career (and higher pay) than people with less education, who wanted a job and the experience it would provide.
I've seen people without degrees not considered for positions because it was the company's policy to require a degree.
More often, what I've seen is the experience evaluated first, then the educational background.
I do not have a degree. I have not been considered for some jobs because of this, particularly early in my career. At this point, 20+ years of experience seems to count for more than a degree would, and I very rarely find myself not being considered. Would I be considered equally with someone with the degree and the same experience? Probably not.
An advanced degree may be overkill for the entry-level positions, but shouldn't often be a hindrance if you aren't asking for more money because of it.
Later in your career, you'll probably get better value from the advanced degree, both personally and professionally. Amusingly, as your experience piles up, the degree will be less of a hiring decision, but you'll have a better chance to use what you've learned.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
In my experience... when I lived in the UK people really didn't care so much about your qualifications they where more interested in experience. US employers however are obsessed with little bits of paper, the more you have it seems, the easier it is to get a better paying job.
I worked with Dept Head PhD's. As a contractor, i made more than they did... mostly by being good at what was needed, and by having a masters in engineering and management science, i was given project lead work... ( and incidental to this - i kept my position solid by crafting up slick presentations for the VP's to give at meetings and such ) A doctorate will get you into the 'club' however there are fewer vp and department heads than there are of anything else, so IMHO you can be a PhD and also be out of work for lack of the proper vacancy in any given PhD role. IMHO a dual master's is worth more.
-=|hook
...be sure to check out http://chronicle.comIt is the web site of the The Chronicle of Higher Education. It often includes articles on topics just like this one. The Chronicle is not just about colleges and includes MAJOR coverage on the job market for those with advanced degrees, both in academia and the corporate sector. HTH.
In principio erat Verbum.
My Ph.D. is in Physics so I consider myself qualified to answer this. The subject line sums up my views on this exact question, which is one that I considered myself for quite some time.
In other words, if you want to do it then go for it. You know in your heart if it sounds like a fun thing to do. Just don't choose your path based on 'maximum income potential' or anything like that.
There were good times and bad times for me, I enjoyed my time there and met a load of great people, but now I'm 30 and have less than 4 years of employment experience and am finding it hard to get a new job after the telecomms bust finally closed the site where I was.
A former co-worker of mine had just finished his Ph.D. in math from Georgia Tech and proceeded to look for a non-research position in the computer field. His experience was that it would have been much easier to be a job without the Ph.D. as most people thought he was over-qualified, to theoretical, and would ask for too much money. He did get a job as a systems analyst, but I don't believe the Ph.D. has benefited his current carrer.
Also, consider the lost wages and lost time spent persuing the degree. It typically takes much longer than 4 years to get it and I can almost guarentee that from a pure financial perspective that it will not pay off. You have to want to do research or teach, AND love the subject matter. That is the only sensible scenario for getting a Ph.D.
The problem isn't a matter of you being overeducated, the problem is how you are likely to perceive the job you take. When a company hires you, they want you to like the job and feel like you are being fulfilled because you are more productive that way. If you take a job implementing technology and you have a PHD, their reasonable concern is that you will not feel it is worthy of you. That you will become bored and restless and quit or become unproductive.
I mean, lets face it, would you feel fulfilled working in a burger king if you had a PHD? No. At some point there's a level where you will feel that, and many companies may believe that your credentials will put you above them.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
When I look for a candidate, being a PhD is impressive, but it doesn't say a lot about how well you would work in a corporate environment.
First of all, nobody works in a corporate environment.
Second, I'm certain that the PhD, along with everyone else who has had at least one successful brain synapse in the last year will be fired within six months anyway.
Third, the only measure of how "well" one works in a corporate environment is how much of a "team player" they are, and PhDs can shovel just as much happy horseshit into the management suite as anyone else.
While interviewing one PhD, it was apperent to me that he wasn't used to a very fast paced schedule with indefinite requirements.
"Build something, real fast!" Yeah, that about says it all.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
look for a company that does some or all of the following things:
1. Publish whitepapers.
2. Does basic research.
3. Is a goverment agency.
A good example here in Cali. is Lawerence Livermore Labs, or Standford, Berkely, UCLA or on the priviate sector, IBM or Transmeta.
These are places you need PhD to push or exceed the current state of the art. Whitepapers bring grants or prestige to the company/agency, and you training in writing academic papers will come in handy.
In the "real world" (I use that term lightly, as some things here are just unreal, really), i.e. IT is a utility, not a money maker, a PhD will do little for your getting inside the door. It will be no more good than a regular degree or an suitable amount of work experence.
We had two PhD's apply for a job in the last year. One said "Oncall is unacceptable and should not be expected of your top employee.", so he was right out. The other told us we were doing everything wrong, we should be using IPv6, NUMA machines, latest TLA, blah, blah, blah. He too, was slotted in the round file.
So will your PhD help?
Depends on who you show it to, now does'nt it?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
In my past as a hiring manager, the issue that I have had with PhD educated candidates is that most of them have acted as though they should be exempt from the interview process. Since most of them were straight out of University, they had no leverage.
Some were too busy to actually interview (what else are you too busy for?) others thought that they should be exempted from coding test because of their PhD (are there other jobs that you won't do because you are they below you?)
So I would say that make certain that you don't fall into this trap of acting and speaking as though you believe that you deserve be treated differently than your coworkers.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
Every Ph. D that I have worked with (just a couple) had Csci degrees. I found them to be inferior to getting someone with a B.S. or a M.S. The reason is they just sat back and thought about these great designs and very ivory tower like thinking, but when it came down to it, their designs weren't applicable for what we were doing. They took too much of an ideal way of implementing things instead of a pragmatic approach seen by people with lesser degrees. So personally if you interviewed with me, I count that as points against you if you have a Ph. D. I hope that we just had some crappy workers and all Ph. D's aren't like that though and I would enjoy being proven wrong, but for now, I don't think they add value.
Dykstra, Turing, Bessier, Knuth -- outdated? Damn! I guess I've been doing this CAD development work completely wrong for the past five years....I should read SIGGRAPH more closely.
In general - someone who has a BS in CS (for example, myself) and leaves it at that and enters the work arena (well, this applied not since 2001 since there is no work arena currently) is, in my view (and apparently the view of many companies I've been with) better qualified as PROGRAMMERS than someone who has spent most of their time pursuing higher education.
Indeed, I've experienced people who didn't go to college but were computer savy, and who entered the work force and have gone to the top of the list in their companies - and in some cases gone on to head their own corporations.
In general, and in most conversations I've entered in on concerning this topic - the feeling is that a GOOD programmer (and I stress the word GOOD) who begins the work force early has much much more practical experience.
In the 25 years (I'm 45) that I've been professionally programming, I've written literally hundreds of compete applications - some with teams but most on my own or with a single partner (PC games, image processing systems, paint systems, medical software etc). In many cases, not only written the applications but supported them and marketed them myself (or with the team).
In some occassions, teams I've put together have included Masters and Phd's... and while very bright they often tend to lack the ability to see "the entire picture". Now, there are two types of programmers out there... first, there are the ones that code routines and are merely told input and output expectations and they deliver. The second set of programmers work with entire application concepts, and have the ability to understand what is required in a full application and how to go about designing it, as well as coding it. In my experience, most (not all of course) masters and phd's fit better into the first category as PROGRAMMERS.
Indeed... a Phd shouldn't be used as a programmer, more over they should be used as a visionary. Keep 'em away from the code layer because they have LITTLE practical experience designing REAL-WORLD applications. They often don't understand time-frames - since they havn't experienced real-world programming conditions and requirements (e.g., shitty management decisions ;). On the other hand, they have MUCH experience in pushing boundries and concepts. So as a VISIONARY - that is where they are better off in my opinion.
So it comes down to what you want to do... do you LOVE programming for the joy of programming? If so, get out of college and get to work! On the other hand, do you enjoy thinking about possible concepts and pushing the boundries of understanding? If so... than a masters or phd might be perfect for you.
One last thing... small companies rarely have use for a Phd or Masters. They cost too much and don't provide the small organization enough bang for the buck (unless they're going after venture capital and want a pretty-face). It's your larger corporations that have more of a need for the Phd level visionary - and can afford it. Think IBM FELLOW for example.
Aloha... over and out
Rather than a Ph.D., get an MS in CompSci and another in another area that you are interested in.
The intersection of these areas will have interesting opportunities, and far more of them than a single Ph.D. will open up.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
I always remember a cartoon I saw at school. A guy is in his cap and gown in the back of a taxi. The driver says, "Yeah, I was worried about getting a job when I got my Ph.D., too."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Well, it depends on where you are in your career, and where you plan to go. If you hope to be a CIO one day for a major company, than a Phd would be a big help. I have noticed that a lot of companies like to flaunt their executives education. I think most HR people fear you will expect too much. For example they may think you'll want to get promoted quickly just because of your education. It probably won't hurt you as long as you come off well, and explain why you want that job, and not to do research.
Contracts with the US goverment have a pay scale set into them.
Degree Required Position:
Bachelors Degree = $Salary
Master Degree = $Salary + 25%
Doctorate = $Salary + 50%
These percentages are not necessarily true, but it get's the idea across.
Now this may be an advantage or a disadvantage. You may be "Over Qualified" for a position because you will have to be paid to much and the contract cannot support that.
"Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)
Since I have a PhD and and I am working as a software engineer, I've been there and certainly done that. I was warned that getting a PhD would make me "over qualified" for most jobs. In my opinion all that happened is that I got "over qualified" for jobs that I don't want anyways and it hasn't been a problem at all.
That being said, you have to _really_ want the PhD or it won't happen. Getting a masters is very like getting a BS, but getting a PhD requires a very different level of determination. Don't start unless you want it. Certainly don't use financial arguments to justify a PhD.
The other thing is that if you intend to go back into industry, don't neglect the skills that are valued over there. Make sure to work in industry as well as a teaching or research assistant. And certainly keep programming on Open Source stuff! *laugh*
-- Owen
It is really important to take a survey of jobs that you think you will need a Ph. D for, and ask the recruiter what they really think. One scenario where you NEED a Ph.D is for research positions like the one I'm shooting for, where they will tell you that getting a Ph.D is like getting a bus ticket -- without it, you can't get to the job. There are hardly any cases where you should need to pay for your own Ph.D, though. You should definitely work somewhere where they are getting you the Ph.D. If they won't do that, then either find a place that will, or don't get one.
stuff |
If it realy comes down to it, just don't mention that you have a PH.D on your resume, just mention your lesser degrees. Earn your higher pay through your meritorious work instead, which IMO is the better way to go, some people with these big school degrees actualy don't know squat compared to say a hardcore hobbiest who has no education from my experience, but they still get paid more.
"yeah, I didn't even know what a nuclear planner plant was." - Homer
No.
To much education is never bad.
Just cause you have a PhD doesn't mean you have to do PhD level stuff if you don't want to. Yeah it may seem somewhat of a waste, but as long as you get satisfaction out of getting that PhD, who really cares about anything else?
You'll be worth more for having it then not having it. Plus you can get other degrees after and apply what you learnd for computer science or computer engineering to other areas people may not have thougt of yet.
If your happy with getting it, go do it. This is just my humble opinion ofcourse.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
When I was a manager over an IT department, we sometimes got Ph.D. holding candidates interviewing for the position of scriptwriter/setup technician.
We were worried that such an overqualified candidate would soon become dissatisfied with the job, or would require a higher pay than we could afford for the position. It was really not a good fit for the job.
I realize that in this economy, a lot of really educated people are in need of work. My suggestion to those is that they do not advertise their higher degrees with jobs that they are overqualified for. If you are satisfied with menial work, then it doesn't matter if you have an advanced degree - don't show it off.
If you are getting your Ph.D. as a career move, make sure your job description matches your education, otherwise it was a waste of time. You don't need a Ph.D. to be a scriptwriter.
With a Computer Science PhD, like Dumbo's feather, an internal voice is with me to encourage greater effort "anyone with a PhD in Computer Science should be able to do this or understand that", and vice-versa for rejecting technical bunk "have I now become suddenly computer illiterate or is this new product defective?". At the end of the story, Dumbo, the flying elephant, was able to fly without the feather; but would he have jumped the first time?
As others have said, if you want to teach or research getting your doctorate is the way to go. But if you just want to be a programmer the smart move is to get the minimum education possible. Anything more isn't worth the money.
"Back when things were good" a new grad with a BS-CS degree could get around $50K starting, somebody with the MS would get around $80K starting. But the guy with the BS could be earning more than $80K after two years of work, plus they would have had a very good income for the last two years instead of more student aid debt.
I graduatd with my CS Bachelor's two years ago, at the worst possible time. For over a year I was told to come back when I have five to eight years of experience. Now I am told that my skills are old and stale; new grads have nice fresh skills - even though I have worked in open source and on volunteer projects and know far more than the average new grad. So for me I don't see a choice other than the graduate degree. But I know that if I had a choice I would prefer more money overall to more money for a shorter time.
I've found in my 8 years in IT that a degree (of any type) open far more doors than not. If you don't have a degree then professional certification, though not as good as a degree helps.
I think many of the points made here are very good... there are many trade-offs to consider in deciding whether to get a PhD, but the most important question is what do you want, and do you need the diploma to get it (ie you can study advanced topics on your own)?
If you want to get a PhD, go ahead and get it. When you start searching for a job, make two resumes one with and one without your PhD information, and if you are concerned that the PhD may hurt your chances send the resume w/o it.
The important thing is to maintain and grow your skillset while you are in in school and throughout your career.
The other thing is attitude. Many people assume that everyone with a PhD is going to be difficult and arrogant...its not necessarily true, but that doesn't change the stereotype.
Note: I only have a Masters, but have considered a PhD.
A good point was made earlier about the necessity of PhDs being able to make compromises in order to complete projects on time and within budget. I've met a few that fell on both sides of the fence here, and the obvious point is, it depends on the person.
The truth is, it will be more difficult to find a job when you have a PhD (and you'll have less choice on location) just because you'll want a higher level job, and there are few higher level jobs. Someone once told me, be prepared to spend one month job searching for every $10k you want to earn... I've seen that hold true on a number of occasions across fields and across people--but then again there are always exceptions...
It's a touch decision... whether or not to go back for PhD. I still haven't made up my mind. But, I'm done with my masters in the Spring (going part-time while working full time). So, I may just "rest" a bit in the working world after graduation. It'll be nice to have weekends free again. :)
Where I have seen the PhD really help is when engineers go back to school after 10-15 years doing real work.
As a hiring manager I have found that people who burn from BS to PhD before entering the work place usually don't have enough foundation in actual application of engineering to really shine. As has been stated above, spending that much time in the formative years of your career in an academic environment will warp you.
But putting in a decade in the trenches first will change the outcome of your PhD. Engineers that I know who had done this have benefited HUGELY from this move, and are usually hired as leaders, CIO, chief scientist positions. Companies that see someone who did the grunt work and then got the PhD really scream to be given authority.
Just a view from a long time software guy.
A PhD is never a waste, but it's not the ultimate answer to career building either. What builds a career is your job performance. Boiling it down basics, a PhD is really just more experience, presumably with a specialty. Employers are going to assume you are looking for an opportunity to apply that specialized knowledge unless you tell them otherwise.
Also, do not expect that having a PhD will mean you aren't technically evaluated at an interview. Just like professional certifications, a PhD does not guaranty the candidate will be an outstanding, or even competent, employee.
If you desire a career in Academics or Research, the PhD is likely going to be considered a prerequisite for advancement, if not placement.
After reviewing a lot of resumes, and doing technical interviews for my manager, I've seen that having a PhD can push things in either direction.
In some cases, we'll see a PhD, but since it's not in an area my company is using, that person will probably not be working in their field of choice. Additionally, having those extra letters may indicate a higher salary requirement, which may or may not fit the opening. If you're looking to hire a junior developer, you throw the PhDs out of the pile in the first round.
On the other hand, we recently hired a person with a PhD, even though we had to go to the CTO and create a position for her. Why? Because her PhD matched exactly with a huge need the company had. It's a perfect match all around, she gets a challenging job in her field of specialization, and we filled a very uncommon niche of domain knowledge.
As long as your PhD is applicable to what you want to do, it's an asset. If it only marginally relates to what you want to do, it may be more baggage than its worth.
I've heard all sorts of stories about Ph.Ds being less likely to find a job than their less-educated counterparts, but not a lot of credible evidence.
So if you're looking for something other than anecdotal evidence, why are you asking Slashdot readers to share their experiences?
- years
spent not working and making real money in addition to the significant but not mind blowing increase in salary seems to me to not be anywhere near worth it from a monetary standpoint. Every PHD I met as an undergrad seemed to be fully intent upon spending the rest of their lives studying the subject of their thesis, or a closely related field. Being a PHD pretty much puts a label on you that says "hes a damn smart guy, and knows a crapload about a very narrow subject area" Alot of people tend to put their focus on the very narrow subject area though, me included. I mean yeah, obviously your problem solving skills and ability to meet goals is very high, but you also spent X years studying a subject involving words with an excessive number of syllables that has no relation to the problems and challenges typically encountered in the business world. I think you will only 'cash in' and be happy in the field if you study something of very practical use to a company- IE Software engineering processes, automated AI Bug finding techniques, etc. Then the IBM's and MS's (IE very large companies) of the world will probably look at you as having alot of value, but still as a research type and not as a guy in the trenches coding type. Either way, pick your thesis topic carefully, because you will most likely be roped into that area for the rest of your life.Inspired rant Sir!
Even then it is not clear that you will automatically get a better job. I have seen many many Ph.d's just end up programming like most others. If your very specialized degree is not directly useful to your employer, what is their motivation to pay you more? A programmer is a programmer - you will be paid by your ability to produce.
Only get a Ph.d is you really want one and are obsessed with a very specialized subfield. Keep your expectations low for rewards - the market really is flooded with Ph.Ds in compsci and EE.
I encourage undergraduate students to work as interns or on co-op. Then my reply to the advanced degree question is: look around, and if you see people doing what you want to do having advanced degrees, then get an advanced degree.
As an advisor, I second the comments about needing to love the research -- a PhD process throws many hurdles in your way. If you do not enjoy the work and the people you are working with, you will have difficulty completing at PhD.
Also, I second the comment that an advanced degree may be more benefitial later in ones career. Elder alumni have related that to me.
For context: I am a professor with a PhD in Computer Science.
Dear LordNimon:
... when you get gray and start growing that big long goatee, you can head back to academia to teach all the youngsters your lifelong experiences in hacking. You can ride an old rickety bicycle to class. You can even fart while your teaching! It'd rock man!
Life is full of surprises, don't let social pressures get you bogged down. The important thing is: are you happy? If you are, then you can get any job that you want. If a PH.D sounds like it would be fun, go for it.
Look in the long term
take care
bad:
- delay having to get a job
- good excuse to obtain further financing from my parents
- everyone will know how smart I am
- Ph.D. on my business card, and everyone calls me Dr., that will show them!
good:No lie. You are specialized into a niche research field... something that IT companies and even most research orgs don't need. I am beginning work at the JHU Advanced Physics Lab and I was helped by having my Master's and not having a PhD. According to this profile of the organization (government-educational nonprofit R&D) only 18% of the Engineers and Scientists have Doctorates (and most are in Physics) while 51% have Master's. When asked about getting a PhD my boss and HR rep said it was completely unnecessary. There's that 5% of chief researchers commanding the masses of Master's.
This sentiment was shared by my academic advisor in grad school (when I was still considering getting a PhD): a PhD is only useful for getting a job in academics. Everywhere else it's too much unnecessary training. Even to get it at a job can be bad news since there is an implicit expectation of your company to pay you more.
Nothing prohibits non-PhD's from doing research. But having one can have long-term career consequences. My father has a PhD in Org Chem and it has made his life hell since the last recession in 1990. Being old, overeducated, and experienced can make you first in line to get cut from a job. And they'll never believe you if you say you'd work for 18 bucks an hour. Getting a PhD could be the biggest mistake of your life if you aren't protected against the whims of the economy.
What is music when you despise all sound?
My older brother graduated from Case with a degree in Chemistry several years ago. Upon graduation, he went out looking for a job. Two of the companies [one was Lubrizol; the other I can't remember] actually turned him down for a job because he was "over qualified" for the positions he was applying for. I don't know if it was because he graduated with honors or because he went to a decent school or what. Since there were no higher positions available at the time, he remained jobless for quite a while. (heh, he's actually been a bartender for the past few years.)
We could only think of two reasons why they turned him down, eventhough he didn't mind starting off at a low-level job:
1. they thought he would be bored and leave the company after a few months, thus wasting their effort in training him for the position
OR (what we thought was more likely)
2. the guy who was the next level up was less qualified than my brother and was worried about eventually losing his job to the new college graduate
Karma: NaN
The time spent on a Master's degree is lost working time, but is generally recouped by improved pay.
The opportunity cost of a Ph.D. is generally never recouped. I quit my job, which was a very good one, and am currently pursuing a Ph.D. but out of a long-standing love for my subject and because it is a dear personal goal. I will never earn back what I've lost by not working a real job during these years. The degree does not pay.
Besides, a Ph.D. is not like other degrees. It induces so much hatred for your subject area that you have to start with really loving it to end up feeling positive about it at all when you leave :-)
Something to consider also is that you need to think hard about where you want to be 5 years after you get that PhD. Forget the employer, *you* might feel overqualified for your job, with no growth perspective (in salary or position). Usually an entry position for a PhD in a company is the top of the hierarchy already, so it will be depressing to know that you can't get any higher. Management positions aren't the answer, as PhDs often don't have adequate social skills and would rather concentrate on the technical aspects.
Academia on the other hand will offer such possibility for growth.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
In the past I've been heavily involved in my firm's recruiting and interviewing, and during this time I've spoken to a fair number of people from varying levels of education. So here's my $0.02 based on my experiences:
By the time I finally felt I was comfortable as an interviewer, I had developed an automatic negative reaction to seeing Ph.D. on a resume - even now, I will often strike a Ph.D. resume without fully reading it. But of course, it depends on the role I'm hiring for - some roles really do require the expertise that only a seasoned expert can provide. But for most general roles, I found that the benefit is not worth the potential trouble, so most Ph.D.'s never made it to an interview with me. The reason is that my early experiences with Ph.D.'s were almost always decidedly negative - primarily from a personality/fit perspective. I'm sure most of these guys knew their stuff - but they simply weren't prepared for the "real world".
Before I make myself sound far too anti-Ph.D., let me say that this should in no way reflect my personal opinion of people with Ph.D.s - in fact, some of my best friends have Ph.D.s - people I highly respect, both academically and in the workplace. So the message I am trying to relay here is more about the "gut-reaction" of an interviewer/resume reviewer, than of the actual value of a doctorate-level education.
Let me also say something somewhat more controversial. Some time after I developed my initial impressions about Ph.D.s, I developed a new opinion - it is not simply all Ph.D.s, but perhaps Ph.D.s with a U.S. education background. I have more recently had excellent experience interviewing a number of candidates who completed their early schooling in Europe, and then came to America to do their Ph.D. Statistically, my experience has shown me that these individuals seem to be better rounded, and also more adept in their advanced study, in comparison to U.S. Ph.D. graduates. I'm not yet sure what this says about the U.S. education system, but take it for what it's worth - At this point, upon seeing a Ph.D. in a resume, I will consider a number of other factors before throwing it in the trash - most notably, previous educational experience. My interpretation is that Europeans on the whole are more driven to do post-graduate work as a normal part of their education, while in the U.S. post-graduate work is more exceptional and generally considered "unnecessary" - thus statistically, you don't get the well-rounded candidates at that level as often in the U.S., because you only see "academics".
For demographical purposes, I'm from the U.S, and I have a Masters - but I've always wished I had finished my Ph.D. - go figure...
I interview at a large internet company and I can tell you I steer away from people with doctorates. The ones we have hired have been useless, they would rather dither and think than work. Thinking is good but sometimes shit just needs to get done. The Ph.ds I know often fail to understand the need to get some rubber on the road.
Also yes the pay expectation are higher for the same work, which is strange in that their degree often has no application to the work.
Have you considered a studying something not related to IT like business, finance or management. There are some good ones available at masters level that will definately improve your career prospects. You have most propably already proven you have the IT knowledge. Even a maths masters with some finance slant will put you in good stead with banks and traders. And if you are not working for yourself that is where the big bucks are IMHO.
Freedom of speech doesn't come with bandwidth.
Its been my experience that the B.S. in computer science is the sweet spot if you want to write real world code. You get enough education and theory to learn how to learn anything need to know when you need it, and you get into real world coding early enough that you have real experience and some job security (well, not anymore) and income by your mid to late 20s. Mid to late 20s happens to be the age of hot grad school chicks, and they would rather date a guy with cash than a lifer student by the way. Now if you go to grad school you'll graduate in your late 20s and not have a clue about how to write real world code. Your co-workers with B.S. degrees will be pissed at you because they'll constantly be fixing your undocumented code and resent you for the undeserved respect and salary the pointy haired boss gives you because you have a phd. But if you want to get into research and stay far away from me and my real world code a phd is the way to go. Well, that's been my experience working at a certain Big Blue company anyway.
So, my story is a bad one. That said I really enjoyed doing it at the time. I'm published in good journals, I took up invitations to speak at good conferences. But it still ended up being a dead end for me (I gave my notice recently, I have 6 weeks to go in my post-doc job). Lots of people have better experiences than I did. But look, never apply for a PhD as a career stepping stone. Put bluntly, it isn't one. All available evidence points to it as an overall income loser across your life (you are unlikely to ever make up the lost earnings). If studying X is your passion, go ahead. But that is the one and only reason to do it, and even then, go in with your eyes open about what it will mean and where it will end.
I happily accept the -1 (irrelevant)
If getting a high paying job post-graduation is your top priority, how did you spend your time in school?
.NET or Apache config stuff, but that's what will make you ultimately employable.
I think this is a fair question to make at any level of schooling.
Did you try to learn actual real world stuff or did you spend all of your time in the academic side of things?
Everybody that I know who took the extra time to get their hands dirty in stuff that people actually use in the industry as technologies come and go alongside class material earned way more than those that just concentrated solely on class material.
It's your college's job to teach you generalized information so that you can apply that to new technologies as things change. It's not their job to teach you
The best of both worlds occurs when you come to your teachers in certain classes and say, "hey, for my networking project, is it ok if i use [industry buzz heavy solution] so i can get some experience/practice in it?" most teachers will totally encourage you to do so.
Getting a phd is the same process. Are you going to be researching sorting algorithms or are you going to be researching xml or comparing implementations of soap and perhaps getting involved with various commitees? You have to go where the action is if getting a fat paycheck or having a lot of job options are your top priority.
Personally, as others have stated, I think PhD's should be for something you truly love and can almost be tangental to an actual career at first. Job placement is way the heck on the other side of a massive hill of work.
m.
With my strong programming experience I did OK, and found a job that paid $75,000 (this was in 1995). However, there was this guy who was in grad school with me. He left after an MS since he couldn't get in to the PhD program... he'd been working for the five additional years I was in school, making good money and getting raises, so in '95 he was also making the same amount of money. And he had lots of vested stock options that were actually worth money.
The only reason to get a PhD is because you think it would be cool and fun and you don't really want to do anything else. That was all true for me, and I had a blast doing it and would definitely do it again, and recommend it to others. But don't do it for money: if you think you'll be more succesful financially as a result, you're deluded. It will be a waste of time.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
What more do you expect to get from Slashdot?
I got my CS Phd in 1996 and haven't found a job that uses my research skills until just a few weeks ago. Read that again. I've waited seven years. BTW, I graduated from some of the top engineering schools in the country (Stanford and CU at Boulder).
Short story version of my post: employers don't typically need research skills, so they won't pay for them, and those that do are very hard to find.
Don't expect the jobs to come after you graduate unless you're already well-connected in the research community. Is your mom or dad a PhD? Then maybe you'll have a chance to stay out of the slow lane I found myself in.
Here's some free advice on whether to get a PhD after I spent 6 years getting mine.
Don't expect industry to find your research experience valuable unless they're hiring you as a researcher. You'll probably get paid the same as a MS candidate if you're a normal developer.
Even smart people don't make it through a Ph.D. program because either they don't have good chemistry with their advisor, or they can't sustain interest in their thesis topic. You've probably never had to study one thing for more than a year. Imagine studying it for 4-8 years.
If you don't hit it off with your advisor, you're probably sunk, so spend a lot of time networking and getting to know your potential advisor before starting.
Be fired up about a topic before you apply! It's not like BS or MS where you show up, read a lot, remember a lot, and get through. If you're not passionate about your subject, then after two years, getting through your thesis will feel like pulling your own teeth out.
In case you're interested, here's what happened when I left school. I didn't have connections or serious prospects for research jobs. As it turned out, my first job out of school was writing numerical C++ libraries for an internationally recognized software company. I got paid $50K/yr for creating two libraries that made the company some serious bank. After two years of working there, I was making $54K/yr. I only got offered a 20% raise when I threatened to leave, which I did anyway.
Then I taught at a university for two years but hated the fact that most students were only interested in the diploma, not the actual subject matter. So I had to deal with lots of cheating and poor performance. Remember, this was 1998 when someone with a 2.0 GPA could get hired as a network admin. I lasted two years there. My pay finished at $44K/yr as a full-time, tenure track professor.
I've slowly jumped around to government contracting and private consulting, which have paid better, but I probably would have gotten paid the same with an MS degree.
Now, I've finally found a job as a researcher in an industry setting. I waited seven years to find it. It will pay around $85K/yr with benefits.
1. Unless you are obsessively, genuinely interested in the topic, the four+ years of research will drive you insane. You can't just "not care" about the topic.
2. During those years you will be doing little programming, getting little practical experience, and making welfare wages. Meanwhile your undergrad friends are getting their 401ks pumped up while they learn something useful. If you actually do post-doc work you will find that your undergrad friends have homes and second cars while you will be looking forward to your first real paycheck. Regardless of wage you will likely never catch up to them.
3. Some firms do not like to hire Ph.ds. They are chronic mental masturbators. Sorry for the label but in general it fits. Most programming is not about big theory but little bugs.
4. Getting back to (2), getting a Ph.d really means putting your life on hold. Marriage, kids, buying a house, going on vacations...these are not in your immediate future if you go to grad school. Not just financially are they unattainable, but you will not have the time to focus.
5. Most importantly: The market is already saturated with doctorates.. They are everywhere. They are not rare.
.
> The stuff schools are teaching in quickly changing
> fields like IT is already dated anyhow.
I have to disagree MOST STRONGLY with this statement. While certain material (how to program in C/C++/Java/Pascal/Cobol/Algol/Ada/whatever) is or may one day be dated and obsolete, the FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS (good, efficent algorithm design, the basics of discrete mathematics and its applications to programming/algorithm design, advanced problem-solving skills) will NEVER be dated.
To consider a college/university education only as "I learned C" places it on the same level as job training schools, where one may learn how to do something, but not WHY to do it that way ("It is better to use a mathematical equation to find the sum of the first N positive integers rather than a loop." but with no explanation of the Gauss formula, how/why it works and why it is better (for those of you who can't answer the last question - think: 1 mathematical formula, lets be pessimistic and say 20 operations have to be performed to evaluate it for integers 1-100. Summing integers in a loop we have 100 additions, plus at least 101 comparisons for the loop check, 201 operations, or already ~10x longer for N=100. Now extrapolate to N=[something really obscenely huge])).
That having been said, I don't know what additional value a Ph.D would bring in the Real World - I believe that experience counts for more than education after a certain point (I myself have a fairly nice position at a consulting/software design company. I am still an undergraduate student, I got this job my senior year in High School - WHY? Because I came in knowing more about what that company valued (DNS, NIS, UNIX administration, good, solid programming skills) than most undergraduate or graduate students they interviewed. These are not things you will find in a university course - They are things you learn by experience.)
Bottom line IMHO - A Ph.D will be a HUGE asset IF you intend to teach at the university level. A Masters will likely be a requirement at that level to become full-time faculty, and a Bachelors to be an adjunct (policies vary at different schools).
In the workforce, A Bachelors is a HUGE boost over just HS education, a Masters lends you a little more credence, and a Ph.D - Probably something you should work on at night school while you have a steady job to fund it (this is in fact how I intend to get my masters degree - The job market is just heating up again and I don't want to spend more time in school when I could be making some decent coin and getting started on my life.)
/~mikeg
But if you re-think academe as a workplace (which is what it is), the PhD is your ticket to a different kind of job. Initially, "tenure track" professors don't earn killer salaries, but in my part of the country, neither do the coders sitting in cubes. In fact, at the college where I work, the faculty earn about the same as the "system analysts" in the computer center.
The big difference is that, if you get in the right groove & enjoy helping people learn & think that developing new things beats the heck out of just using tools that other folks develop, work in higher education doesn't feel like a "job."
25 years ago, I started teaching at a community college. 20 years ago, I got that PhD sheepskin. For the past dozen years, I've been in administration, basically being the interface between the programmers who extract data & the "executive administrators" who need that data digested, formatted & interpreted. There have been times I've worked very very hard, but it never felt like a "job." It feels more like a "mission."
Oh yeah, I'll be eligible for a state pension next year, coinciding with my 50th birthday! And that pension does NOT include stock options, thank goodness! How many /. readers have NO pension plan, because they're either working as consultants or because the .com that fired 'em 2 years ago based more than half their pension on (now worthless) stock?
In short, the PhD is what you want if creativity, invention & the "thrill" of watching someone you taught carry the ball farther than you dreamt possible sound important. (I know that sounds corny, but it's true.) The PhD is not what you want if you're content to spend the rest of your life kludging code for pointy-headed bosses.
Do you want a "job" or a "mission"? Do you want to use tools or invent them?
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
I don't work in research but in an R&D group within a company that writes software for entertainment applications. The PhD is useful because I make it so. There is tons of research into 2D and 3D graphics and related topics. Having a strong backgound in reading research papers givs me many advantages.
But I guess I could have a job where I simply turn off my brain and implement specs that are handed to me by management. If that were the case then my PhD would be of no use and wouldn't be reflected in my position or salary.
So if you want to succeed as a PhD you need to make sure you are keeping up-to-date with relevant research and doing work that needs that research. Having a PhD should make that easier. Just getting a PhD doesn't automatically qualify you to rest on your laurels and earn a pay bonus for nothing. You have to use it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This completely depends on where you want to get a job. I've worked in both academia and the "real world", so I've seen both in action.
If you're on staff in academia, you're golden with a PhD. Work experience absolutely doesn't matter. A PhD (and interestingly enough, in ANY degree) can get you pretty damn far. Doesn't matter what you've done in the past, or how experienced you are, it's those three little letters that make all the difference. If you don't have them, you can pretty much write off any upward mobility, and you'll be treated like cattle.
I've seen people with PhDs completely outside the computer field get put into management positions over computer folks.... Believe me, the results are frightening when that PhD tries to tell people how to do their jobs.
In the "real world", it's the opposite. If you have great work experience, and can speak intelligently about what sorts of projects you've worked on, you've got the job. Very few people pay any attention to degrees once you're hired... all that matters is that you can do a good job. In fact, if you try and sling around the fact you've got a PhD, it'll probably just make people think that YOU think you're better than they are.
A lot of people coming through with degrees DO seem to have this opinion, and they really show it during interviews. Those that do that sort of thing don't get called back.
I'm working on a PhD in CS now.
Right now I'm what is called an ABD (all but dissertation) this means that I've finished everything one my dissertation.
I'm thinking of leaving grad school because I can't find a professor who will let me work on a topic that I'm interested in and it would take me atleast another 2 years to finish.
We've had a lot people talk about what things are like for PhDs. My question does anyone have any idea how ABDs are treated?
Does putting ABD on a resume make sense? How do hiring managers react to someone who is an ABD?
As someone currently two years into a PhD on heuristic frequency assignment for wireless networks here in cs.cf.ac.uk, I think I'm qualified to hold an opinion here :o)
I started the PhD because I wanted to, not because I thought it would be a great career move. As others have said, it's hard enough to motiviate yourself through a PhD (e.g., I'm reading Slashdot right now and not analysing results...) when you really want it; if you're doing it as a political move, there's no way you'd finish.
Having said that, I can't see it hurting my career. If I don't end up in academia anyway I'm probably going to consult and write freelance and a big fat "Dr." in front my name isn't going to hurt me any. As someone in this thread said. it's not a shortcut to credibility -- you still have to earn that -- but I can't see it ever being a hindrance. The only downside is I've done three years of crappy pay when I could have been earning something decent, but every silver lining has a cloud.
You win again, gravity!
HAHA I slept with my mom and got a GED in my maw, haha, good oke, bullshit, LOL!!!
After my PhD and research, when I first went into industry, I started, salarywise, as a recent college grad. It was, however, my research experience that got me the job. In otherwords, the company had their cake and ate it.
;-) ) because they went bankrupt little more than a year afterwards.
I was told the pay would increase pretty fast - that was rendered academic (
I would think that the more education the better, same with experience. The key is how much money you ask for. I've been turned down because I think I'm worth more than the company does. If you are going for a teaching position, however, in my city education and experience count against you in some terms. The teacher's union says if you have a higher degree or teaching experience, then you need to be paid more. So the schools higher teachers right out of college and then fire them after 2 years before they have to give them a contract.
---
Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
The US has a reputation for having an anti-intellectual culture but it's nothing compared to the UK where education simply isn't valued in its own right. It's not surprising then that so many qualified people leave the UK for the US. Me included.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'm also considering getting a PhD. I'm currently working on my Master's in ECE, but it doesn't look like the job market will be any better by next spring, so I might just continue on. Since I've got several years of industry experience I find that I've got a leg-up over my classmates who went into the Master's program right after completing their undergrad. (Tip: If you've been in industry for a while and are now working on a grad degree, send your resume to your advisor - I found I got a lot more attention and respect from faculty after doing this: "Oh, this guy can program").
Sure it probably _is_ harder to get a job with a PhD, however, that's because there are fewer jobs at that level (Chief Technology Officer, Chief Scientist, etc.). I think the upside is that those jobs which PhD's normally have will be less likely to be outsourced than the so-called "lower-level" jobs. So a company might decide to move most of their development to India, but keep some PhD's in -house.
A couple of other things to consider:
Don't plan on having the same kind of job as a PhD as you have now (yeah, it seems obvious). You should end up higher on the development chain (or in research). Since there are fewer of those jobs around, they're harder to find. But there are also a lot fewer PhD's out there (of course, by the time this Tech Depression is over, maybe a lot of us will have gotten PhD's as we wait it out).
Also, as you get a PhD, you automatically become more specialized which may be why some people have a hard time finding work. The trick is to try to predict what very specialized area will be in demand by the time you finish - that's not easy to do. It's sort of a bet: if you bet wrong you could lose big, but if you bet correctly you could win big.
A PhD also opens doors for jobs in academia. At least if things are still really bad out there you'll be able to teach some classes which in general you can't do without a PhD.
And finally, I think if you've got several years of industry experience prior to getting a PhD that it will be easier to find a job than if you had no industry experience.
At the beginning of the tech boom, my PhD in physics probably helped me get my first programming job because they thought I could learn the things I'd need to and wouldn't need a lot of handholding, both true. My PhD work was in high energy particle physics which required a lot of analysis and simulation coding.
By the end of my first job, laid off due to cheap Russian programmers also with PhDs, I would say that a PhD, in IT at least, would probably hurt one's chances. Right now I think a PhD is only a positive in academia, which is where I am now.
Now I work as an informatics manager for a university based clinical research center. Here a PhD in physics was a plus because the degree is in a scientific research discipline. With that, I can understand the needs of the researchers better, even though my degree is not in life sciences, and more importantly sometimes, I get a bit more respect from the investigators I work with. I'm not sure a PhD in CompSci would carry the same weight here. Still, I should note that it took 13 months of searching to get this job and I don't really think the PhD helped much in most situations, nor did being a minority. But I can't prove that! :-)
In the current environment of overseas outsourcing, I wouldn't bother with a PhD in any discipline unless you really want it for personal reasons and plan to work in academia. Otherwise, I'd say it's a big negative in corporate America. In fact, I wouldn't encourage anyone to get into IT right now, unless you're starting your own shop.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
...but then I remembered all that about companies outsourcing to India, Pakistan and the like.
:-(
<extreme-n-cynical>
The basic principle is of management is: pay you less while they squeeze the most out of you, so that they can keep more... Why would you want to give them your PhD as a side-present?
</extreme-n-cynical>
This is usually the case when the manager has little/no experience with the work in the field he's managing. Sadly, it's also the case with the vast majority of managers in my country
In the end I decided it's not really worth it. I can still pursue my research interests privately, on my free time, if I want. Most academic staff I know seem they'll be happy to co-operate anyway, if they see you want to get somewhere.
And, having worked in the industry for a while, it's much more relaxed than academic work. You get free weekends and holidays! (if you're in Europe, anyway)
Trian
For context: I'm Greek, and I'm now finishing my MSc in CS in England (where I also got my first degree, in CS with Honours).
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
Ph.D's They clearly want/like research and my company (as are most I imagine) isn't about research. On the other hand, if I were looking for a CTO I would consider it...
I hate to say this, but I've formed the opinion that even four-year degrees are overrated. Looking back at high school, everyone was buzzing about how you either go to college or into the military right away after high school, and that people who don't do that are somehow "losers". So, all the kids religously took the SATs, poured over all the unsolicited junk mail from colleges, paid the application fees, and, then, went to college as "Undecided". Shouldn't that strike us as odd?
One thing that the recent economy has taught me is that a four-year degree in a specialty--or worse, a graduate degree in a specialty--can be like a ball and chain regarding career changes. What would be better is for high school graduates to not commit to an expensive four-year degree program (unless, of course, they are unusually motivated) without a clue regarding their major; rather, they should enter the workforce, go to a very cost effective associate's program, or do the Mormon thing and take two years in South America or something. Kids need some time to discover themselves, and I'm not convinced the rush-em-through Universities are appropriate for this learning process, especially given that Universities are very very expensive.
I can't stress the cost of a four-year program enough. Unless a student can get by without loans (via a trust or scholarship), they should strongly--very strongly--consider the alternatives. It is way too common for students to graduate in some default generic major due to not knowing any better, yet ending up paying for it for the next ten years of their lives. Student debt levels now-a-days are simply insane.
Sure people claim that a college degree will pay for itself, but I'm not so sure. The best values are state-supported colleges, but it is still common to come out with $20,000 worth of debt. How many $60,000/year jobs are there? Certainly not enough for all graduates. I wonder if that $20,000 would have been better applied towards a down payment on real estate--perhaps the most sound investment most people will ever make in their lifetimes.
What would you rather have, $20,000 towards a home that you can defend with a gun, or $20,000 in debt living in an apartment with a family of 10 above and the rock star below? Even if you don't end up with a lot of money in the long run, raising a family in a real home with a back yard has a value that is hard to measure.
And, no one says you can't go to college later, after seeing the way the world works and knowing what direction is the right one for you.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
When comparing potential employees I would hire a person with a Ph.D. before a person with a M.S., but
I won't pay them a larger salary because of it.
If you are motivated to acquire knowledge, take the classes in the PhD program.
Just refuse the PhD degree.
The PhD paper is for your ego and/or (maybe) money.
Be honest with yourself. Ego and money are valid motivations
Knowledge without knowing is a waste.
From my experience I can tell you most of the programmers know only how to fix. Ask yourself do you have a soln for the problem ? or a quick fix ?.They don't know how to dig deep into the problem. Research is an approach, can't get in one day. How many hard core programmers can read a ACM papers ?
PhD's on the other hand don't know how to fix or they don't appreciate it.
My suggestion is we need a MS programme that introduces us research also. Look at the MSe Engg programme in Indian Institute of Science or the MS Research in Indian Institute of Technology
http://www.iitm.ac.in
Learn to solve problems, not to fix.
and make windows work for 24hrs continuously.
Mathew
I interview a lot of CS applicants and I consider a PhD a slight positive. At least it shows that the candidate has the intelligence, interest and dedication to get a PhD. However, the main impression a candidate makes is in the interview. I look for someone who has insight and in depth knowledge about something in CS. Also, I don't think we would pay more for a PhD.
First of all, bear in mind that getting a PhD in Computer Science is not the same as following a career in engineering. Edsger W. Dijkstra once said, "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." This little (almost pedantic) phrase reflects the importance of recognising the difference between a career in education (research) and professional studies. A Ph.D. in Computer Science is typically immerse in mathematics, not "just" in software engineering (please, do not read in a derogatory sense). Researchers aim to different jobs from those usually obtained by engineers. This does not mean you're over-qualified, this means you were trained to do something else (research). Getting an advanced degree (Master in Software angineering, Doctor of Professional Studies or similar) will certainly leverage your career. Becoming a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Computer Science will not necessarily train you for an IT job. You may, however, apply for the R&D department - Ph.D.s are not "condemned" to work at Universities, National Laboratories or Research Centres.
The idea of education is to enable those who wish to enter those fields. But there are hidden rules about this.
For instance, in order to go to a 'real' university, one of the better ones, where a profitable career most certainly awaits those who graduate, the weeding out process starts in 7th grade, where the middle school principal and/or the teacher divide their charges into two groups, consisting of those who will take higher math such as algebra and calculus, and those who will take 'dumbbell math.'
Those who go on to the higher math classes have a 'chance' at going to the best universities. Those who don't will almost never get in to those places, and instead will go to community colleges and/or trade schools, whose graduates will have an earning cap, and who will rarely get into any profitable career such as medicine, dentistry, economics, physics, and many fields of science.
Does anyone tell the parents of their 7th grader what just happened here? No. The educational system has its own peculiar barriers, doesn't it?
What is worse, you would think that after passing those hard exams and being accepted into some upper crust university, you would be guaranteed a comfortable salary during your working years. If you were in the legal, political or medical field, this might be true (although there are poor lawyers, politicians and doctors who just don't cut it.)
If you hope to go into pure research, some scientific field or academia (be a professor) your MA and your PHD will do little to give you a much better salary than that mechanic or technical specialist who went to a community college or trade school.
So, what does a PHD do for the IT professional? Hardly a thing unless he also has some certification or job related track record, or has an MA or PHD in engineering.
Or, unless he gets into some company where they think that having a PHD on staff is somehow prestigious.
Regards,
Roger
writing.borngraphics.com
I have the PhD in Systems Engineering from RPI and I have to say that there was only one case where I even got any impression that the PhD wasn't a "plus" when job-hunting, and upon further inspection that company wasn't a place I would want to be anyway.
Everyplace else (call it 95+% of the world) it was viewed at least somewhat positively, because it meant that you had enough dogged determination to -finish- what you started. It also has an implication that you have _some_ brains.
Now it's true that in terms of NPV (Net Present Value) that a PhD is not financially worthwhile (because the PhD means that you don't make any money for the 4-8 years it takes to get through grad school, while the Masters takes only a year or so and then you start making big money. So, the PhD ends up making more per year, but only after a period of enforced poverty). The exception is if the PhD means you get or keep a job when the Masters is out of work, the situation quickly flops over and the PhD is financially worthwhile.
The total difference over lifetime earnings is less than two year's salary; many less-than-PhD's have been out at least that long in the current economic malaise. So, you need to factor in what you think the job market will be at the end of your grad school career when you make your financial calculations.
As a backup plan, realize that a PhD can always get a job teaching college as "adjunct", it's not a lot of money but it's still better than running out your unemployment coverage and being stuck at zero.
Bottom line advice: if you're in it for the money, stop with the Masters (or possibly a double-masters- technical and an MBA). If you genuinely like to do really intense things, especially things that have _never_ been done before, go for the PhD. That basically includes _all_ research, and more and more includes startups.
If my Ph.D. was in Liberal Arts.
Just kidding.... just kidding ; )
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
If you want to work at Microsoft's or Sony's research labs, then do get a Ph.D., you'll need it. But if not, I would suggest searching through job offers and making sure you have proven experience in what they want.
Thus far I have almost only seen "x years of proven work experience with y", and very seldomly a "Must have MS" (^_^), and only for special jobs Ph.D.s (which can also give you "needs 10+ years of experience").
There is some truth to this:
B.S. does NOT mean Bachelor of Science, it means BULL SHIT!
M.S. does NOT mean Master of Science, it means MORE SHIT!
Ph.D. does NOT mean Doctor of Philosophy, it means PILED HIGHER AND DEEPER!
First you have to carefully evaluate your career goals. Is this what you really want to do? Next, is their a job market for Ph.D.s? I've been reading about the mass exodus of high tech jobs over to India and Asia, not good. Second, it matters significantly where you get a Ph.D. in science, in addition to any experience you have acquired. Do you have a really good track record of success? Any failures? How did you handle the failures? What types of companies do the graduates get to work at and for how long? Is the turnover number high for a particular job position or company?
A masters degree may be all that you really need. If you have the desire to get a Ph.D., an alternative to getting a Ph.D. is launching your own business as an independent programmer, consultant, etc... This too can be very rewarding both personally and financially. There's nothing quite like being the boss. Plus, you get to use travel and luncheons, dinners, small vacations as business expenses. In addition, after you've had several successes with a business venture, casually mentioning it to your employer may indicate you're more competent than the average Borg Drone and could make you a candidate for promotion.
Another alternative is to go back to school and get an M.B.A. The M.B.A. was designed for non-business majors, professionals in science and many other fields to work in administrative positions. Again, where you the M.B.A. also matters.
I was told by my undergraduate academic advisor NOT to get a Ph.D. from a non-ranked chemistry program. At the very minimum, one would want to get a Ph.D. from Ohio State University or the University of Michigan in AnnArbor, because the Ph.D. is a terminal degree, meaning there is no other degree above that, and with a Ph.D. you will be expected to perform with the same level of expertise, competancy and detail, and responsibility of your peers graduating from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Brown, (Ivy Leagues and many second-tiered schools).
So, very carefully evaluate what you think is best for you. Don't get a Ph.D. just so you can be called "doctor". Being called "doctor" from a non-ranked program can be more embarrassing and humiliating than the greatest on-the-job screw up you've ever done. When you go applying for positions that require Ph.D. experience, you may be at the interview to make the other candidates who graduated from better and more selective programs look better. I know, I've earned a masters degree from a non-ranked program (which is "OK" for most careers in chemistry), however, my next goal is to get an M.B.A. because that will take me further and get me out of the laboratory.
ALL YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS ARE BELONG TO YOUR GENETICS AND ENVIRONMENT.
All phds in CompSci are LIARS that is why no one wants to hire them.
This type of issue has arisen MANY times over MANY decades including in Dr dobbs magazine int the 1980s... basically... a PHD thinks they know how things work AND THEY DO NOT.
They misunderstand how modern compilers really work, how random number generators really work, how memory is really allocated, how networks really work, how hard drive seeks really work, etc etc etc... and when hired for >90k jobs they find that they are highly underskilled and idiotic.
Even in C++ app programming they create constructors in emegency destructors, hog resources, etc.
I have known no less thatn 8 totally INCOMPETENT phds taht eventually were fired or pushed out.
I have know countless successful people with NO COLLEGE DEGREE in comp sci.
i have a degree, but it taught me little and I never mention it.
Even Apple famous "Blue Meanies'" low level coding team of ace engineers from 1987 to 1995 were mostly college dropouts. It helped apple make billions.
Now apple hires college boys and their osx suffers and shows the bloat and class-happy inefficiencies. (mainly in scsi IO and user interface)
I actually heard a lecturer ORDER the students to LIE on job applications to counter phd-bias (anti-phd-hiring practices). He said, if they know you have a phd they WILL NOT HIRE YOU at some places so lie lie lie on thier experience questionaires becaue you can just "learn it all" on the job.
i used to ask applicants waht type of computer they owned and what they worte in their SPARE TIME not for college.... phds sometimes owned NO MACHINE at ALL! and they rarely coded anything!
Bwaaa haa haaaaa! no wonder no one hires the know-it-all yet know-nothing Phds of CompSci !
Anyone with any sense should probably look at it as an entry on the resume equivalent to a fairly advanced research job. If it's relevant research to the position, great! If not, well, depends on the rest of the resume. You at least know this person can get large amounts of technical writing done, can work at projects that are (probably) cutting edge, and has some degree of ability to get things done. Much the same as you'd learn if they held a job to do the project that was their thesis.
The catch is when money is introduced. Some people with PhDs demand more money for it; some hiring managers are afraid to make offers to a PhD that they'd make to a Masters or less degree, and decide to make no offer at all. I think both of these positions are stupid - a PhD is just a different kind of experience, and doesn't make you intrinsically better, any more than any other degree does. If your experience, including college, and your knowledge, matches you to a job, you should be hired and paid what a job with those requirements is worth, no matter if those requirements came from the halls of Harvard or Hewlett Packard.
-- Kate
My brother got his PhD from the University of Minnesota. He is now a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. He teaches 3 classes a year, and the remainder of his time is performing research and writing papers. He does get paid very handsomely for it, I must say. He stated that when he was going to school, that he was basically dedicating his life to one of working in academia.
Outside of Academia, a PhD in Computer Science is not a very valuable degree.
However, :)).
I once had an employee that had dual masters degrees in Geology and Information Systems. He got his degree in Geology, then realized that he couldn't feed a family as a geologist (unless he wanted to feed them rocks) So he got his MIS degree. He couldn't find a job ANYWHERE (so I hired him
It wasn't long before I got him in touch with someone from Texaco Oil Corp. where we got him an interview and now he is working for Texaco, making 6 figures, helping them develop new methods for using computers in searching and drilling for oil.
So, my advice would be that if you get a Ph.D be prepared to work in a research role. A second degree in a complimentary field might work better for you. If you choose a second degree, use that degree to get you into the IT industry in a particular field you're interested in.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Right now, I think if you want a career in IT you should move to India.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
I am in a BS/MS dual degree program at RIT i Computer Engineering, giving me a full year of on-job experience by the time I graduate. After working long enough to pay off student loans, I will choose between either an MBA or a PhD, depending on what I want to do at that point.
Anything wrong with this plan? A PhD wouldn't have to be in CE, but EE and CS are also options. Possibly even MicroE.
I finished a project for my last employer @ the beginning of May. Some tweaking of the resume; a lot of advice; and 150+ resumes later I've had 5 job interviews. 2 of those interviews have been for helpdesk positions: 2 certs and working with desktops since HS, I should be qualified to work @ a help desk. Personally, I think I've been passed up for those positions because my field experience negates any "joy" I'd derive from doing "User Friendly" work. If I have to consider delivering pizzas as the only way to make $10/hr (Central Florida is NOT a tech-mecca), I can certainly work a "lesser" IT job.
Having said that, there's 2 things I'm aware of when trying to get a job...
1. Location, location, location. My last interview was yesterday: already been turned down, but it would've been an 80-mile commute (Palm Bay to Orlando-Alafaya; the high-tech firms are outside Orlando or near the Melbourne airport) until I moved out of my folks' place. West Palm Beach, I'd need to find a roommate; Tampa, there are friends & relatives there.
2. I think its cheaper for companies to reject prospects despite personal pleas: my generation is the first to be heavily drug-tested, and I've already had a few jobs where peeing in a cup & background screenings are mandated, and they didn't even pay $9/hr! If an employer has to spend $200-$1000 to make sure you're the equivalent of a Christian Saint, they're going to be more scrupulous of whom they hire.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
... and is neither better nor worse than experience.
Many here seem to think that a Ph.D. is simply a continuation of regular education, albeit a bit more specialized. They think you read more books, harder books, and can spout off all kinds of book-facts. It's as if you are rewarded for going 4 (more or less) years past your B.S., which is awarded for going 4 (more or less) years past a 12th grade diploma. This is not true, but leads to the question/idea: Is experience better or worse than a Ph.D.
A Ph.D. demonstrates the ability to create NEW knowledge, and by definition means you could not have read it in a book or article. Of course, in order to do so, one reads a lot, especially in the first couple of years. But after that you have to do research to create a novel work, i.e. your dissertation.
To do the research for around a year or two is a kind of experience (e.g. for CS it may include lots of programming, but maybe alone, not in a team), that some employers may consider as a substitute for "real world" experience. But really the goals are different (working to produce a product vs. to produce new info). Some employers may also like that it shows perserverence, an ability to push through huge frustration and barriers.
But a Ph.D. should not be a career advancing move, it should be a step toward a career in research (either at a uni. or in industry-they do research too!)
My $0.02
I think that my PhD helped me land a job ... even though my PhD is in, of all things, historical musicology. In fact, I have a grand total of 2 hours of formal computer education (a physics lab in 1975, where we were introduced to the wonders of BASIC). Everything else I picked up on my own via reading, late nights of coding, studying other peoples' code, and from on-the-job experience.
I am now an IT manager (Technology Development Manager) at a mid-size non-profit. I love the job, make pretty good salary, and have lots of technology projects to manage, toys to play with, etc.
A large part of the problems at this organization were related to communications issues. I think that what got me the job was my experience at my previous employer (which involved a lot of interdepartmental negotiating), but the PhD definitely helped give me a certain "cachet", as it were.
I recommend getting the equivalent of a PhD...an MCSE! This will really set you out from the crowd! My brother's wife's uncle's cousin's neighbor decided to get his MCSE instead of going to Truck Driving School and 3 weeks later he was earning over $70,000 a year as a Network Engineer. That, plus all the BS', MS' and PhD's look up to the MCSE's as their role-models!
Most average or medicore managers don't like "really smart" people under them. They worry that you may make them look bad (be vindictive), or be a snob and put other team members down.
Ph.D. have a reputation of being not good team players. This comes from working alone on your thesis for a number of years, often independantly and not in a team of close knit research group. All real world companies need team players, because no one person can (or should) do everything.
Hiring staff (HR or the technical manager) avoid PhD for low/entry level positions because of the bordom and leaving factors. They worry that you will leave at the first better job offer. The best way to fight this is, if you really are excited about the job, show your excitment, and try to only take interviews with jobs you plan to stay at.
Once upon a time I had an interview at ARM the microprocessor design company, they were looking for a couple of IT positions (security and development) and my CV interested them. When I got into the interview, the fact that almost got me hired was that I was a licensed amateur radio (ham) operator. Since hams tend to have a boat-load of practical hands on experience with building and fixing things, they were very keen on this. I wasn't going to touch a MPU design, or even work on embedded systems, but it was this practical experience that they looked for.
If you want to work for AMD, Intel, ARM, IBM Research, Microsoft Research, or AT&T Research, then get your Ph.D. If you want to muck with designing systems to be build, get your Masters and get experience.
Education is important, but experience is golden.
...take the same technical exam, regardless of education.
It takes about two hours to complete, is comprised of some fairly heavy generic programming (C++ and Java), socket programming, and GUI (Swing, and Windows your choice of API or MFC).
There are some basic essays like "explain the difference(s) between UDP and TCP" and "what is a bean" and "explain DCOM marshalling" and such. No one correct answers to those - they just want to see what's in your head.
Do well on this exam, and you are hired - regardless of your letters.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
But otherwise they perform just as good as without.
Hope this helps.
Sven
In my previous company, PhDs were being hired for what used to be a master level position, mainly because there was a surplus of PhDs. As long as you dont have an ego problem, the more educated people pick up on things quicker.
Ditto for community college and elementary school. PhDs are replace MS teachers in both places.
P.S. There were some older people doing these engineering tech jobs who didnt even have a college degree! They were people hired in lower positions long ago, but learned the business in their work. This basically means that a PhD hired in the late 1990s might be doing similar work to a masters from the 1980s, a BS from the 1970s, and high school from earlier!
I can't remember right now who said it, but I love this phrase. It is great when referring to lots of things, from coding to martial arts:
Ten years of learning is not the same as one year of learning repeated ten times.
Think about that, and remember it. Just because someone has been a coder for 10 years doesn't mean they have gotten any better. Just like someone shouldn't hire anyone on education alone, neither should you on coding experience. Just because they were employed and coding for 10 years doesn't mean squat by itself. Lots of places keep people around because it is easier than firing them. I have seen it first hand.
You are better off looking at the combination of things equally instead of prioritizing them. Education DOES matter. If someone has been coding for 10 years but they can't spell or write correct sentences, what are you going to do when they have to give a solution presentation to a group of people? On the other hand, if they have PhD but they can't interact or get along with other people at all, you don't want them on a team of coders working closely together. There are a lot of factors to consider when hiring someone, don't focus on one in particular, unless you are fitting a very specialized position.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Look, alot of people go to grad school just because they can't get a job (the Catch 22 argument.) Of course it is flawed logic that an advanced degree equals better employment opportunities, but what's a person to do who really wants to work in IT? Decent internships are as hard to come by as real jobs. If a person doesn't want to code for a living what other open "source" projects are available to gain experience (say I want to network admin or database admin for a living)? The Catch 22 applies somewhat to all new college grads, but the IT field is especially psychotic. To answer the original post, don't do it! If you don't have the experience to get a job in your field right now, you won't have it in four or five years either. Nobody here can tell you exactly how to get a job. You'll have to suffer and make do like the rest of us. What a country!?
I don't think my math PhD has helped or hurt much in my 25 years of software development. But during my 'down time' in the current downturn, it at least helped me get a temp. job teaching math at a local college.
As someone who does some hiring of IT professionals, a few things come to mind:
1. Generally, a Masters is the most useful, because it sets you apart from the field while not pigeon-holing you in one specialized are or as a "researcher".
2. Depending on your desired area of study, it may help or hurt. Esoteric fields of study will likely peg you as a "researcher" and thus not suitable for the practical.
3. In a tight economy (like this one, at least in CA) one can be perceived as overqualified or desperate. (I've seen people with Ph.D.s apply for technician work.) When companies are short on cash for salaries, many tend to shy away from those with Ph.D.s since they expect a higher salary.
4. I've found many people with Ph.D.s make lousy programmers, frequently trying to make everything research or "perfect" when "good enough" is what's required.
5. Unless you get it from a highly rated University and/or with a noted advisor, it may not even count for much and your time would be better spent broadening your skill-set.
6. Particularly in CS, I've found (and many people in Ph.D. programs I've talked to agree), that it's more an exercise in persistence than intelligence.
7. Consider an MBA, it can make your more marketable, especially if you want to move into leadership. (You may not now, but what about in 5-10 years when you are perceived as "old", i.e. over 35.)
8. One thing that is valued is people with both hardware and software expertise. Consider an additional Masters in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering.
9. Depending on your industry, learning a foreign language can be a big plus.
I don't know, but it works for me.
If you are viewing a PhD as a way to better your career, then the PhD is not for you.
If you want to do a PhD (for the thrill of it) but are concerned how this would affect your career, then chances are that a PhD will enhance your value to potential companies.
If you fall in the latter category, you should definitely do it. We need more purists working in theoretical computer science.
I've worked closely with two PhDs on separate development projects, and neither could code to save his life. One guy, after many months stuck in his office, produced a screenful of half-working Java that didn't correspond to our coding standards. The other guy, hired to do "advanced" C++ VOIP stuff, didn't produce a single line of useable code in EIGHT months. He was awesome at slinging bullshit and being really friendly to everyone, though. Both were fired, and I ended up doing their work for them (with my measly BSc.)
Moral: never hire anyone who talks about the Game of Life in their interview. They will produce nothing and will fuck up your project.
(Thanks to the AC who first came up with that wonderful line.)
If you're just in it for the money, the lottery may be a better option. A detailed analysis is here.
Seriously, get a Ph.D only if you love it. I love being a graduate student, I'd do it for the rest of my life if I could (different fields of course). If you don't think you'd go to school just for the hell of it, I wouldn't pursue a Ph.D.
A big misconception is that an advanced degree is nothing more than a few years of extra classes. A longer period of undergrad. This may apply to some Master's programs, but there are many that require independent research and a thesis. And a Ph.D. isn't like undergrad at all. You only take classes for the first year or two (equivalent to a Masters degree). Then you do highly focused work with your advisor on cutting edge projects, eventually developing your own research program. In some respects, it's the same kind of experience that you'd get working for a company, but you have more flexibility to follow ideas that interest you. You probably also come away with more diverse skills than you would working an entry-to-mid level position for a tech company (notably presentation and communication skills but also analysis and critical thinking). And if you pick your school right, you get to work with some of the biggest names in the field on really awesome projects. You also don't pay for a Ph.D. if you do it right. You work for your advisor, earning a salary and s/he pays your tuition. Sure, it's less than you would make working for a company, but there are a lot of intangible benefits. I finished my Ph.D. in CS in December. It took me 6 months to find a job. It probably would have been less time if I hadn't moved across the country (because of my husband's job) and away from all of my advisor's local contacts. But, economy aside, the delay was partially tied to the academic cycle, because places really didn't start looking at my resume until near the end of the traditional school year. But once the right kind of interviews started, I was snapped up. There were times that I thought about dropping out, because I suspected that I didn't want to be a professor, although I wanted to do research. And, especially a few years ago, the weekly job offers were pretty tempting. People tried to argue that I was missing out on lots of stock options, etc. Well, most of those people have worthless stock options and I have a tangible degree. And, if I had dropped out then, I'd probably have ended up a programmer worried that my job is now going to be sent overseas. Unfortunately, it seems that many people don't really grasp the additional skills you develop with a Ph.D. and some places only looked at me as a programmer or put me in the same category as any B.A. Of course, they also couldn't really articulate what it was that they were looking for ("you don't have enough commercial experience" What does that mean? What skill do you think I'm lacking?), and I'm not upset that we didn't suit. Now I'm employed for a research lab. My daily work is a mix of research, project development, and technical work (coding, network design, etc). I have a lot of flexibility and I work with a lot of neat equipment. It certainly won't become monotonous or boring. In general, I think that the U.S. is pretty confused about education. We focus too much on vocational training and less on developing skill sets that can adapt to new challenges, and as a result we don't understand or value advanced degrees. But that gets too off-topic. But back to the original post -- I think I.T. is a bit of a mis-nomer. If you want to chase certifications all your life, stay where you are. If you want to do research to develop new technologies and solve emerging problems, get an advanced degree.
I always enjoyed my grad student life more than the "real world", even though my take-home pay quadrupled. I was surrounded by very smart and interesting people. There was much culture and interesting things to do. I didn't feel that "poor" then- housing, medical, travel, and culture were highly subsidized for students.
Its not the life if you are interested in raising a family while young, or in acquiring material things like houses and cars. You also dont build any credit toward retirement and have to "catch up" if you enter the work force late.
To be honest, the InterNet has blunted the disadvantages of being away from he university. Groups like slashdot help connect to intelligent people in a way you could only doing at a university or R&D lab in pre-Net days.
A very interesting question, in particular for me since I am starting graduate school, in pursuit of a Ph.D., in two days.
...
In my case, I am currently a Java developer for a fortune 500 company, have 7 years of experience, and have done comparitively well (for someone in my age and industry). My B.S. is in Computer Science, from the University of Kentucky. This fall I will be going back to school at Kansas University for my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. I will be working full time and going to school part time during this process (and hoping I don't burn out).
My reasons for going for my Ph.D. is simple. First I am called to be in academics, I want to do research. Long term I want to either be a professor or working in a R&D position. Second, and as scary as this sounds, being a programmer has proved far to easy for me. I'm looking for a new challenge.
Considering the above, it is highly unlikly that I will be working for my current employer once I've graduted with my Ph.D. (I'm not sure if they are aware of this yet, but I am).
Anyone considering graduate work, my advise is this. If you are looking to advance your current career (in any non-research position) get your masters. You can take the same courses offered in the doctorate program, which means you can learn the same basic skill set. But, if and only if you want to go into research then get your Ph.D. A doctorate is much more than just a skill set you have aquired through taking classes (again that is a MS). Earning a doctorate means you have the thinking capacity to come up with new ideas, to perform research, to expand the world's knowledge.
Another dividing line between a master's and a doctorate is the social responcibility. In my opinion, a person with a Ph.D. has to be willing to work towards the greater good of humanity, to expand scientific knowledge. If you are unwilling to accept this, please stay with a masters.
I hope this helps to anyone who is grippling with this problem.
Lastly I leave you with a joke
When you graduate from high school you think you know everything.
When you gradate from college you realize you know nothing at all.
When you get your masters you realize no one else knows anything either.
When you earn your Ph.D. you discover the truth, no one is doing a d*** thing about it.
This guy is a known troll. Google his name on google groups or see his posting history!
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
By the fact your that your asking the wrong question, i.e. is it good for my earnings rathetr than is it my pasion then I'd sujest you don't do a PhD. Money is not the issue!
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
I am sure that a degree is a piece of paper and little more. I see IT in general being flushed down the toilet in the US. with licensing, restrictions, lawsuits, Intellectual property issues, and outsourcing to distract you from real work it doesn't matter what degree you have so long as someone in india will do it for 10$ an hour cheaper. I have chosen to get out and away from computer work and instead spend time outside where the last of your worries is that the DMCA is going to be slapped on you for using a screwdriver for unintended purposes. Or a million $ shovel has crashed because one of your vendors forced an upgrade. In a time like this Technology doesn't seem like a wise career choice in general. I know that many of you will call me a heretic, idiot, whatever but that is what I have seen in the last 6 years in the IT field, nothing more than an all time low.
Whenever someone gets a Ph.D, the first things to drop out of their vocabulary are the phrases, "I don't know" and "I was wrong."
You could not pay me to hire a Ph.D.
A Master's degree can be enough of a liability, and can be very difficult for the recipient to get beyond the influence of the degree his career to the point where he/she eventually becomes a useful employee.
But hiring a Ph.D would be almost as bad as knowingly hiring a moron. In some ways it would be worse. A moron cannot learn well, whereas a Ph.D could continue to learn, but instead "chooses" not to, by embracing the delusion that he/she has already learned enough.
Out of ~750 developers on our main product (including the CAE, CAM components), I would hazard a guess that 10% are PhDs. I have no PhD myself, but my specialty (graphics/rendering) would be greatly enhanced by it. And yes, my plain old masters was helpful for everything from basic calc to geometric representation, and even run-of-the-mill database theory and basic algorithm design.
The PhD's aren't just product planners and managers, many are also plain old developers.
And in the design engineer space, *many* design analysts who are everyday CAD/CAE users have a PhD. If a CAD operator/design engineer wants to progress in a large project team, a PhD can help to pave the road.
But whatever happened to education for the sake of education? Could I go out and get a job making good money without even so much as a B.S.? I did... as a sophomore in college for that matter. Would I? No bloody way. The fact of the matter is that you can have both an undergraduate and graduate level education financed by any number of schools if you're willing to take the time to look around. And, once money is out of the way, who wouldn't want to be better educated?
As far as education goes, I think the rule seems to be that if you have a bachelor's degree in ANYTHING (mine is in Philosophy) the cap to advancement is lifted.
My experience has been that most "degreed" computer people (as opposed to folks who just learned on their own) that I have met didn't really have much in the way of skills. One theory to explain that could be that they assumed that getting the degree would magically be enough to guarantee that they knew everything they needed to do any job.
A degree doesn't prepare you for the real world, just proves that you were able to see a project (your education) through to completion.
Is getting a PHD in Comp Sci going to make you a lot of money? Only if someone buys into that. I have ZERO computer education and I make better money than most of my CompSci college buddies and it's because computers are my hobby activity that I would be doing in my free time even if I wasn't getting paid for it. THAT is what makes you the money - having the dedication that lets you develop mad skillz.
Get the degree if you are really interested in the education aspect, but if you're doing it to increase your salary, you are barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
Just my opinion. I decided some time ago that if I had to pick one class of people that I would never hire it would be the PhD folks.
Before you flame, I'll go further. In my experience interviewing folks, I've come to the opinion that I'd much rather hire a person without any college degree over someone with a PhD.
People with a Bachelors or Masters are fine and make up the larger range of random levels of qualification.
But, PhDs are entirely academic and lack all real-world experience. I've saved code test "solutions" offered up by PhDs as good humor more than any other.
Hire a PhD as your architect and you're guaranteed that you'll chase an academic goose that might be an interesting problem, but it will never be finished and well never generate revenue. Worse still, instead of borrowing judiciously from various trends, you'll likely be forced too far into the time wasting aspects of Extreme Programming. Or everything will be rewritten in Erlang. Or whatever...such that you waste time and put your workers into niche areas and they can no longer market their skills.
I also wouldn't hire someone that went to UC Berkeley.
Really... nevermind whatever minimal effects it might have on your eventual salary. Maybe you'll make a little more, maybe not. Maybe it'll pay back your student loans and deferred income, maybe not.
Writing a Ph.D. in any topic is a big time investment. But at the same time, if it's something you love to learn about, the process can be a lot of fun. If you do it for your imagined eventual earnings, it will probably be hell.
FWIW, I wrote a Ph.D. in PoMo philosophy. I loved every minute of my program (which took way the heck too long to finish). OK, I admit it, I didn't love EVERY minute; but y'know, life happens (good and bad). Still, I can't imagine regretting my graduate work. I'm a better person than I would have been otherwise, and I've enjoyed th 50% of my life I've lived so far.
I'll probably die with less money in my bank account than I could have had I taken a different path in life. So what? I'm a rather well known writer about -computer programming- of all things, and I make a comfortable living. What more can I want out of life?
Buy Text Processing in Python
I think that you are thinking about this backwards - instead of asking what employers want, you should be asking yourself what you want to do. Are you interested in just pounding out product? Or do want to do heavy duty research? The answer to your question is obvious in both cases. As a person who hires programmers, I am highly resistant to hiring Ph.Ds for positions that involve product development - they generally will expect a higher salary and their research and analysis skills will not be put to good use. Even if they are willing to accept a lower salary, I feel like they will not be happy with it. On top of it, there is 4-5 years where you are not getting industry experience.
I can only speak for the hardware side. I dont know if this is true for software engineers.
I used to work for a large technology company. I wont say who they were but they were in "Texas" and made "Instruments". Engineers were stratified by "Job Grade." BSEE's hire in at job grade 24, MSEE's at 26, & PhD's Hire in at 28. From my own experience and talking to others it takes 6 to 8 years to climb from 24 to 28. If you're energetic you can get a PhD in engineering in 4 years. So apparently this company does value education over work experience.
I also noticed that PhD's were held in higher esteem. They climbed the ladder faster and got better jobs. Most were doing design. Few were pushed into management.
This, I should note, was before the technology sector hit the skids.
It probably depends also on the supply of PhD's in your field. Supply and demand rules in the real world. Few hardware engineers bother to go beyond a Bachelors.
---
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
while i'm not a hiring manager, i basically act like one since i do interviews, cull resumes, and recommend hires when the position is close to me.
i'd rather see the time spent on a Ph.D. as job experience instead. Given a candidate with, say, four years in a Ph.D. program or a candidate with four years of job experience, i ain't picking the college boy. there's only so much you can learn in a nice, safe, lab environment ("school") before you have to learn that you're not always going to get to write neat object-oriented code and you may never have complete project goals at the beginning of the project, and all the other things that happen outside a classroom.
don't get me wrong; some schooling gives you the background you need to make the most of your experience and learn faster, but the schooling is not and will never be as practically applicable as experience.
if you want a doctorate for yourself, fine, but if you're doing it for your resume you'd be much better off getting the degree in your spare time while working in the field. note that this will probably make you a better Ph.D. candidate as well, so the only down side is that the degree'd take you longer.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
if ($PhD eq "desired"){
moveToEngland();
}
Sounds good to me! And girls with english accents too!
There is no such thing as being "over-qualified". However, a pHD will not immensely improve your salary. It may open the door for some higher-paying positions which require the vision and innovation that many BS' and MS' aren't capable of; it also gives you much more mobility.
You should not go about trying to get a pHD because you want a better paying job. A masters is much better for that, and you should get it while working. Work experience is critical for two reasons: (1) Companies like it; (2) You get paid. Remember, that while your working your ass off trying to get a pHD, what are you paid a year? A $20,000 dollar stipend, maybe. Some places don't even do that.
You have to remember that if you completely devote yourself to pursuing a pHD, that's 3-8 years out of your life that you've spent doing nothing but research, and getting paid a 3rd-world salary. I have a BS in molecular genetics, and -- honestly -- I take home more money than graduate students.
For the practical person, a pHD is probably something you should do while working, if you can. It may take longer, but at least your life won't be put on a 8-year hiatus while you pursue the religious quest.
A pHD is indeed very valuable. It shows that you have the ability to think completely independently and come up with solutions on your own. That's a good quality no matter which way you look at it. Having a pHD allows you to get into some of the higher echelon of positions; having diversification gives you greater job mobility; and having job-experience makes you a top-candidate for the specific positions your applying for. Also, remember, if you really think a company won't hire you because you have a pHD, don't tell them. It's unethical of you say you've done things that you haven't; it's not unethical if you leave out various accomplishments on your job-application.
Diversification will probably become increasingly important in today's melding world. For example, computer-science, nano-technology, biotechnology, and biological research are starting to merge into one field, where knowledge of all four areas is useful. In today's world, an understanding of economics and probably an MBA are also extremely useful for these technically-oriented people, to be able to obtain higher positions.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
It doesn't preclude you from anything, but it does mean that your classmate who joined the industry after his BS degree now has a 3-5 year head start on you in terms of real world experience. Real world experience refers to things like SCM best practices, coding to company standards, dealing with management, dealing with customers, and of course deep domain-specific technical knowledge.
Don't expect to be hired to mentor this guy.
I know PhD's who have started their own companies and been fantastically successful. I also know PhD's who will never have a pot to piss in.
There is a stereotype that is well founded in my opinion of the egghead with no interpersonal skills who stays in school because they like the structure. Book smarts will take you a long way in the academic environment and you can be painfully introverted with poor people skills and do just fine. These types of people have a lot of trouble in the real world.
The right mix of skills can take you anywhere. Remember that the PhD is just a part of the essential mix of skill.
You will need to network with people in industry so that you have a market for your new skills when you get out of school. Keeping contact with the outside world will also give your learning some context and help keep you grounded.
I would also make sure that you keep up with your social skills. Don't just hang around other geeks. When you return to the real world you are going to have to work with poeple from other fields. That can be pretty difficult if you only social with people who are just like you.
Let's say you take 4 years beyond the masters to finish the PhD. Your average income with a masters would probably be about $60k. Are you willing to give up $240k and job experience to get a PhD?
There are less jobs at the PhD level, but less people with PhDs, so you may actually have an easier time finding a job after the PhD. The real question is whether you want an academic job or a programmer job. (These days there is no industrial research being done outside of Microsoft Research.)
I am sorry to break it to you, but I think that getting a Ph.D. in Computer Science is a dead end, unless you plan on relocating to India, China or other countries that will do most of IT work of the world in a couple of years. It seems that general population of this country along with elected politicians are not interested in new talent and research; instead, people are interested in cheaper goods and higher profits.
According to Money magazine, Computer Science grads experienced almost a 5% drop in start salaries; mix it with current unemployment rate and you get your answer. Just remember: engineers are money spenders, and business people are money makers. Do you want to make money or would you rather join the unemployment line?
A PhD shows that the candidate can finish something difficult, despite institutional BS. This is often a talent that transfers to jobs in big companies. Many PhD degrees also require some originality and creativity, which can come in handy in some jobs. There are other ways to prove this to an interviewer.
The PhD is not a guarantee of important attributes that may be needed in many jobs, such as the ability to cooperate with and respect others. The value of particular academic subjects and courses to a job is also something that an interviewer has to discover on a case by case basis. I hired a person with a PhD in Physics who was awesome at debugging, and he credited this to his training in design of experiments. Specific courses in Computer Science theory are not checklist items for most jobs: I have worked with folks who could not move beyond regurgitating what they had learned in class to actually thinking about the current problem, and that trait might be more common among people who have taken a lot of classes.. or not.
I wouldn't rank getting a PhD as the best way to command a high salary in computing careers. The best way to do that is to be outstandingly good at a rare and highly prized specialty, and to be able to communicate well. I know a guy who was a chip designer, one of the best in the world at some of the hottest companies. He made top dollar when he was working, and then spent some time unemployed, and then learned new skills, including managing.
Do you want to teach at a university, or work in a research environment (e.g., Bell labs)? If so, get your Ph.D. If not, get a job.
I will preface this by saying that I am not an IT guy, I am working on my PhD in cell biology.
but, what i see from the people around me is that the people that get out and get good jobs knew that they wanted an industry job while they were in school and worked to make themselves marketable before graduating.
If you do get your PhD, do things like get a fellowship that requires an internship in industry, develop small freeware or shareware applications in your free time, pick a research topic that is important to the industry now, or could be when you graduate.
If you focus only on the academic requirements and just getting published then you are just working toward an academic research position.
whether or not the PhD will actually get you truck loads more money or access to more prestigious positions is an unknown to me and probably depends a lot on what the market will be like when you graduate. But if i was going to be handed a patheticly small paycheck and be verbaly berated everyday, i'd prefer they called me dr. while they did it.
Rice University Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology- "Engineering the freaks of tomorrow"
People tend to hire smaller versions of themselves, and I doubt there are that many PhDs. hiring.
When I was a senior programmer at a web service; my boss let me hand-pick my development team. I made $50k/yr, so when I received applications from PhD's, (hell, even Masters) I told them that they probably wouldn't be interested. Some persisted; I recall one older guy from 2 states over who nearly demanded an interview. So I told him that I was 21, making 1/3 of his previous salary, and that he'd be paid less than me. He graciously moved on.
There are fewer jobs in rocket science than trash collection. Take your pick.
go bears! (probabilistic proof of alma mater.)
now, now, rules must have exceptions, and
there are levels to the game.
it was not enough to be a tenure-track berkeley
math professor, supposedly the perfect job
for a postdoc studying boundary functions. but
oh no, our man theodore just had to get in touch
with a truer calling, a better "job fit" than
what continuing education could provide.
Just wanted to put my $.02.. also I have 3 years of post-college experience.
On the flip side, I have never had trouble finding a job. And at my last job, I was hired along with a pack of very good software engineers. I was the only Ph.D. in the pack. Guess which one of us received the most lucrative offer and highest rank.
There are certainly some important industry experiences you can't get in graduate school. Some idiot hiring managers take this idea to the next level, concluding that academic experience is somehow bad. The truth is that academic and industry experience complement each other.
I find that most folks in IT with a PhD are founders of companies...and serve in a senior role in development, QA or as CIO. Keyword being founder... Seems like the path for PhD folks is to become their own employer...a different path in life than those simply doing the coding, testing the product, etc. =8-)
BS + 5 years experience > Ph.D
BS + 10 years experience Ph.D + 5 years experience
Ph.D + no work ethic = worthless. (I say this as I post during my lunch break instead of keep chugging through... Oh, the irony.)
My best suggestion is to get the BS, get a job out there (perhaps easier said than done) and if you still want it after 2 years of working, go back. It will enhance your chances of getting into grad school as well.
I have a Master's in Comp Sci, and contemplated going for a PhD. My undergrad is in Electrical Engineering and I also considered working for a PhD.
The thing is, the degree is either a) so you can get a job you like, or b) fulfill some personal desire. It's a long road for a PhD and I would only suggest getting one if at some point you would look back on your life with vast regret that you didn't do it.
If you already have a job you like, or can get jobs you like without the PhD, then you don't need another advanced degree. And our industry is filled with lots of jobs that are interesting/rewarding and don't require a doctorate.
But, maybe you have your eye on something special that requires a PhD to get. If so, go for it.
I think part of the larger set of problems of US tech companies is that too few technially minded people find themselves in leadership roles. This question is actually symptomactic of the attitude. Someone with a PhD is a *leader* in their field. While working for some company doing what they tell you is definitly an option anyone with the abilities to get a PhD in a technical field should have the insights necessary to develop a marketable solution to a particular problem set ni their field. Yeah, I know this is a generalization but anyone going for PhD should not only consider academia and industry but entrepenaurship as well!! Small businesses fuel the attractive growth of the tech sector. While the big guys are offshoring everybody but the cleaning crew small tech startups will continue to innovate and employ. Most of my work experience has been with small companies and I have always wondered why so many otherwise independent minded tech types are averse to startups and instead opt for the big corporate udder?
The reason you get a Ph.D. is so that you become qualified to teach at the University level. If that causes you problems outside of academia, there's something really wrong with the way you are presenting yourself. If you managed a Ph.D., and are still having trouble getting a teaching gig, well, I suppose you're beyond help.
My goal in life is to teach mathematics at the college level. The barriers to entry in that career are very high, even though the horizons of compensation are very low!
If Ph.D. on your C.V. is causing doors to close (and you are *sure* it's not because you're asking for huge starting salaries?) then don't mention it so quickly. Certainly don't introduce yourself as Dr. Soandso, and maybe mention your Masters' first...
It would be better to have the potential employer become interested in you because of your skills and your ability to solve whatever problem led to their hiring you... Get hired, and THEN throw the Ph.D. on your office wall...
During my 7 year sentence^h^h^h^h stint in Silicon Valley, I worked for three startup companies. Real get-it-done, cowboy engineering places. Lotsa fun and lotsa eventually worthless stock.
In those places at least, it was a clear disadvantage to be a PhD interview candidate. It was based on this simple (and perhaps inaccurate) set of ideas:
- CS coursework is dangerously distant from the "real world" art of programming
- PhDs have wasted time studying abstract topics that will not make them better developers
- These same people will want more money for the job a sharp candidate with only a BS can do
(Another rule was: always choose the Berkeley candidate over the Stanford one.)
Given how tight money is these days, I'd be surprised if this set of criteria were no longer relevant. My advice? Get a PhD if there is a particular area of CS research that you are seriously motivated about, but realize that it will not help you one bit (and could even hurt) if you want to earn money as a software developer. No one steps out of academia into a "Senior Engineer" or "Architect"-type position, nor should they.
Sure, that's now, but wait to see what happens when everyone reaches their mid 30's. The classmate who left college immediately or studied for a Masters degree will be limited to project management positions. Of course, there are the options of setting up your own company or becoming a contractor. The people who stayed on (or came back) to study for a Ph.D. will more than likely be able to get the technical director/architect/core technology development positions. Many universities prefer graduates with several years of real-world experience before accepting them for Master degree courses. Similarly for Ph.D's. That's been my strategy - get as much real world experience as possible, then study for the Ph.D when there was a downturn in the market.
When I left university around four years ago (with a BA in maths and a postgrad diploma in CS) I considered doing a PhD, but decided against it, for several good reasons:
Ironically, after four years in the programming industry, I can think of several areas I'd be interested in researching to that level. I have rediscovered my geekhood recently, having wondered if I'd been corrupted into a day-job guy with no passion for his subject any more. Hell, I'm the kind of guy who's ambitious enough that he would want to run the R&D department, and start pushing the improvements down the line to people like me today.
And yet now, I'll probably never do a PhD. The student lifestyle was great for four years, but I wouldn't want to live it again now; it wouldn't be the same. I could conceivably do a PhD part-time, but unless it was based on something I could work on during my main job and write up later, it would leave no time for my other interests, so that's out.
I'm starting to wonder whether I've missed out on something good here, but now I'll probably never know.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The jobs are there, or will be in a year or two. Yes, Intel, Microsoft Research, NEC, Honda, Boeing, etc, etc, etc all hire PhD's out of comp sci and comp eng programs.
HOWEVER, there are two *big* caveats, speaking from my own experience:
1. DON'T expect to find a job in your home town, even if it's Manhattan. You will find that your opportunities are highly geographically distributed and so you shouldn't count on keeping your roots in one place.
2. DO depend on networking to find work. Publish, go to conferences and schmooze. In the end you will probably find yourself working for someone who has close ties to your supervisor or committee. Of course, you might find other avenues for work, but in general, creating visibility for yourself is important.
If you play your cards well, you'll land in a stimulating, high paying job. There's just the small matter of passing your comps and that pesky dissertation.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
It's not so much being turned down rather than you turning jobs down. You become much more picky and much more easily bored with mundane jobs.
My PhD got me into operating systems, distributed systems and distributed applications, and indirectly into hardware, radio/satellite communications and travel (giving papers all round the world). I now want a job that has everything; it's hard to try and knuckle down to just one of them and there are few out and out research posts about.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Ahh, but what of those of us who don't WANT to be managers?
That's where I feel myself currently being herded, what with recently breaking the age 41 mark...
But all I want to do is make sure stuff works, fix it if it's broke, leave it alone if it isn't, and design it so it won't be a problem.
I'd say if I had a PHD, I would not have the option to take a lower paying, non managerial job.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
I have a masters degree in CS. I have found it valuable. YMMV but my masters program was pretty much just an extra year or two of an undergraduate style education, allowing you to really learn things that you briefly touch on in undergraduate. Things like software methodologies, databases, algorithms, a bit of IT management that kind of thing. Theory and practice both with real world application. Personally, I think there is too much to learn in CS in a 4 year program, you come out with serious gaps.
PhD on the other hand is NOT just more of the same. It's all about specializing deeply in one particular field, to the exclusion of all else. Typically, that one particular thing is not going to be all that marketable, so unless you really love it, don't do it.
If you want something that will really increase your value, try a PhD in statistics, that will open the whole wonderful world of data mining up to you. There are jobs in that.
SomeGuy
In the UK there is a fudge between doing a PhD and getting a proper job. It's called an Engineering Doctorate and basically means you do two years of training (management + technical) and research in University and then two years at a sponsoring company.
The blurb claims that graduates of the course are better prepared to get top jobs in industry and better paid. The money is definitely better than a PhD during the course, since you get at least 4500GBP more per year. You also get two years of hands on research at the company, putting you in a better position at the company than PhD students if you want to stay there.
However, having done the course for a couple of years, it seems to attract an annoying number of bullshitters being trained in management speak. There are also relatively few people who have done this course as there are also only a few places at any of the centres in the UK.
A Ph D is a great achievement for its own part, and I think it is silly to look down on it at all. However, you MUST take in that persons experience and work habits as the largest factor. Using a cookie cutter rule for substituting experience, especially domain specific experience for that of a degree is a sure sign of clueless PHB's. I have seen the substitution as high as 3 years for 1 "year" of schooling and most often that year of schooling is really just an average time it shoud take for that degree. This means 4 for undergrad, 2 (maybe 2.5 for some) for masters and about 1.5 - 3 for Ph D.
What you end up with then is someone very specialized in theory. That person will be about as useful as the information (thesis or other publication) you could gain off the internet or from the library. However someone with that degree and who has both a well rounded experience background plus demonstrated independence of innovation and self teaching would IMHO be the best "out of the box" candidate.
However, if you [employer] are not screening for more than superficial coatings (e.g. buzz compliance and credentials) by testing and/or verifying actual work yet would turn someone else down with experience but no credentials then please call me up about some great deep sea fishing spots in Arizona.
If you want money or "a job" get another Masters; preferably in business.
A PhD is good for an academic career or in getting money from someone to help you co-found a company to commercialize intellectual property that you created while getting your PhD.
Who you know is more important than what you know in getting jobs. Teaching part time - even at a junior college, or lecturing on hot topics as an out of town expert can gain you useful contacts.
I've been in the computer biz since 1965 -- mostly as a programmer. From my experience with PhD's in the workplace, I have to say they typically will fall into one of two buckets: the knowledgeable and humble bucket or the total a**holes bucket.
:)
A long time ago, I taught software for Univac. I had two Univac PhD's in the same class. One for each bucket, it turned out. When I handed out my first test (it was an assembler/Exec 8 class), one handed the test paper back and said, "I've taken my last test." "Fine," I replied, "you may audit the class if you wish."
The other took the test without comment and worked a lot harder after he found out he couldn't coast and beat the scores of some of the other students.
BTW, the first PhD's boss was not happy about his attitude in class (yes, I personally informed him about the situation). He didn't last long with the company either.
Any job candidates that I interview must sell me on two things: Can they do the job that they'll be doing when they walk in and will they fit in in the culture of the group. With fitting in being the most important.
FWIW, I'm 63 years old, I'm still a grunt programmer (my preference -- I dislike doing annual review paperwork), I'm still employed (building interactive intranet apps using Perl), and I have always volunteered to mentor any new grads that come into my department. (Who eventually always ask where I graduated from and are shocked to find out I have 3 credit hours to my name.)
I won't hold your education against you; don't hold my lack of formal education against me. I have always stayed current in the field and I can design apps from the ground up, code them and test them so that they work. And if you bother to look at the code, you'll find that I know my algorithms pretty well too.
I have a B.A. in Computer Science, but absolutely no job experience in programming. My only experience that is computer related is technical phone support. I was unable to apply for an internship in college because my gpa was below a 3.0. I took several classes that I didn't put any effort into and didn't drop them in time. I finally got my act together and graduated, but I have spent the past year looking for a job. I have had 2 interviews since, but no job offers. The first interview I got was for a tech support position, but the girl interviewing me didn't realize I had a degree. During the interview I got the impression that a degree meant very little to them. So I asked her, how important was a degree compared to experience and certifications. She said that experience is more important, followed by certifications, and degrees came in third. My second interview was the result of lieing. It was another tech support position so I changed my resume to so that it didn't show that I had graduated. I got all the way to the second interview, but encountered another problem. They kept asking me if I planned going back to school and if so how would it affect my job. I told them that the job came first, but I was not sure if I was going to go back to school. I didn't get the job and have had no interviews or offers since. So I decided that I'm going to go back to school and get a Master of Science in Information Systems and improve my gpa to get an internship. I have to take some Business Foundation courses since I was a CS major and not business, but it's giving me an opportunity to pad my gpa. So far straight A's, but it will be 2 semesters of A's to get my GPA back to 3.0 and qualify for an internship. In the meantime, I'm also working on getting some certifications like MCSE and Java Certified Programmer. Hopefully I can get an internship and the job market will be a lot better when I graduate in a few years. If you get a PHD, it will open up more job opportunities for you. But it will also close some opportunities because employers are looking for someone to work a specific job. Your education will more than likely be a hinderence in those particular cases. My advice would be to get the PHD, but don't advertise it for jobs that don't list it as a requirement.
As for asking for help and admitting you have a problem, this was repeatedly treated as an excuse to unload frustration (usually from inept management and customer silliness) on the scapegoat who admitted error. It was very easy to see this had an effect upon the others. It was soon deemed better to just cover up, lie and shift blame.
The conclusion is that there are those organizations who act much like the pretty, but stupid girl in high school... the one that consistnently goes for the wrong guys and just as consistently chastizes herself later... yet like a lemming goes right back in. Stupid is not making a mistake, stupid is making it over and over and OVER again.
Look at articles like this and this and decide carefully before you invest your time and money into what is rapidly becoming a dead-end career.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Most of us work in an industry that is obsessed with resumes.
It isn't the credentials, it's the person. I've worked with idiots with degrees and I've met geniuses without them. However, most people with advanced degrees in engineering or science tend to be pretty smart. I've never met a stupid physicist. I never met a stupid PhD engineer.
I've met too many people who go to college to get a piece of paper. I love to teach myself, and even I am now engaged in the pursuit of paper. Yet again american business engages in an unhealthy business activity. The problem of someone being underemployed in a syptom of the requirement of worthless certification. Wow, what a shock!
Who was better Tesla or Edison? How about self educated people like Farnsworth? Who's OS is/was better and in what way? Was it Gates, Torvalds, Kildall?
My advice is this: If you're pursuing a PhD and you happen to be studying a subject matter that is actually used SOMEWHERE in industry, try going to an industry confrence and shop around. Try networking. If your studying Statistics and you've got computer skills, find a data mining conference. Find people in industry who have a similar background and are active in writing publications and email them. You'll run into a lot of closed doors, but a few will open up. Even if your PhD is in an arcane subject like mathematical logic or astrophysics. You still have job skills. Most logicians go into the computer industry (usually in advanced development positions). Most astrophysicts hock there applied modeling skills. Don't expect the jobs to come to you. Look for them. Incidently I hope you all don't follow my advice. It just makes it easier for me.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Contribute to your own closed source project, start your own business, and get rich! And even if you don't get rich, you'll sure have a lot of fun.
This of course is not just an IT thing. One of the more infuriating and dangerous practices related to DoD is setting unqualified people high in the chain of decision making for things like intelligence analysis and information dessimination. Some enlisted person worked their way up but that cute little thing with an International Studies degree is apparently more qualified in these matters than a staff sgt with 6 years real work behind them.
This whole post just is a longer way of saying, "Never underestimate the power of stupidity." Things that people come up with using logic, reason and experience often are VERY different than what is policy in bureacracies (gov't or corporate) and other bloated organizations.
In a very small company I worked for, the company Research Expert had a Chemistry PhD and applied for a higher paid position in management. The position went to another employee with experience in management but NO degree at all. The Research Expert took up heavy drinking, coming in late, and a don't care appearance.
Eventually a BIG company bought us to eliminate a competitive product in a lucretive niche market and fired everybody.
Disclaimer: I have a PhD in Computer Science, from a well-respected UK university.
It got me my first job. However, it played no part in my subsequent career. I got my first job simply through following a channel that already existed for other PhD students in the same lab.
Don't do a PhD if your primary motivation is career opportunity. It takes a minimum of 3 years here (I took exactly 3 years simply because that's when the money ran out!) and in the US it will probably take twice that long. You will not further your career in IT by getting a PhD alone.
That said, if you want to do a PhD look at the reasons you have for doing it. Find a topic that really interests you. You need to be tenacious, dedicated, and frankly devote a lot of your life to it for the next few years. Personally I did it for two reasons: vanity (shallow I know, but I still get a kick out being a Dr) and because I felt that up until the end of my BSc I hadn't proved much more to myself than that I had a good memory. Other people have their own motivations I'm sure, and I suspect most people's are different.
It is very unlikely that you will learn to be a better developer by doing a PhD. In my experience nothing except developing large quantitites of software for other people will do that, combined with a hunger for knowledge (which will also set you in good stead for a PhD course).
... on what sort of job you are applying for. You hear all the time about people being overqualified for a job and not being hired because of it. And the fact of the matter is that in many situations it can be true. The PhD is likely going to want higher pay, that I might not be prepared to supply for the position. I may feel that I'll be stifling the PhD with the lower level of work. I may want someone whom I will have an easier time molding then the PhD. If I don't feel that I have enough work of the appropriate types to keep the PhD happy and satisfied, I may hire someone with less skills on the fear that the PhD would be more likely to leave for something "better".
Now a lot of these things can be alleviated somewhat in an interview, but not entirely. Plus, given the exact situation, there are other items that could be added to the above list.
My advice would be to get a PhD if you really don't expect or desire to interview for positions that would be considered much lower then PhD level. Hiring managers look at a lot of things, and education level is definitely one of them. Especially if you're applying for a job where a PhD might be considered overkill.
Education is the key, but the problem is when education takes a backseat to Education and credentialism. Even if the school stays abreast of all the latest (and often because of this if they are ONLY bleeding edge) developments in software and systems the student is still locked in a cage and sees only a picture show of the real world. Open Source has reduced this greatly, allowing the student to not only compare the theory to what is there but test it through real application. More importantly they learn the important part of implementation that can really only be taught through exposure and experience. Avoiding common errors, developing a consistent coding standard, trying out different tools to see what is lacking and avoiding those mistakes, etc. These are what makes someone important as a programmer and especially an engineer. Don't expect to be taken seriously by calling yourself an engineer if you do not understand the importance of adopting and adapting a clear process and helping bring all the disparate elements (includes personnel) together as a cohesive machine. Otherwise you are at best just a coder. Coders are needed, especially good ones but as the scripture goes, "To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under Heaven."
(Pardon me starting an new thread, I didn't see anyone who came close to these comments)
:)
It's been said before, so I'll say it again - "If you do not learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it"
That is the whole purpose of higher education, establishing a baseline for what others have learned through out the years, with the hope that you will be able to apply it. I know very successful people that do -not- have a BS (Bull Shit) or a PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) and are -very- successful.
Do you -really- need to know how to write a compiler in order to program? (CS reference) No. Does it help you debug? Yes. Do you need to know the chemical compound of a resister? No. Does that complete area of knowledge help you figure out what each colored line means? Not likely
As a side note, I've been in the INFOSEC Industry for 10 years, slowly starting my own practice (PI) with investigations while going to school (Law/Health/Business) and will go on to Norwich for their Masters in CyberEthics after struggling for the Bar. Am I doing this because I want a Doctoret or a PhD? No, I'm doing it because there is a lot that needs to be learned. Do I want to necessarilly be a PI? No, but it helps me learn things that I wouldn't learn in school.
Hands-on-Experience + Education, great mix.
I cannot confirm nor deny the allegation or allegations you may or may not have just made
I think it's useful to really ask: "Why do I want this PhD?" Be honest about this question. If the answer is "because I can't get a job", "because I don't know what I want to do", or "because I don't know how to learn on my own", you really have greater problems to worry about.
One acceptable answer is that "because the software I want to write requires specialized hardware that I cannot buy on my own" (such as VR, grid computing, nanotech, or whatnot).
Another acceptable answer is "because I know a specific job/position that requires this little piece of paper, even though I know it's a valueless waste of time."
It's even fine to say "because for some strange reason it brings prestige, and I want that".
In any of these, the PhD is a means to a specific end. But if you don't know how a PhD will specifically help your career, or how it gets you toward a specific goal, I cannot see why you would want to do it.
It consumes time and money, and has no guarantee of bringing anything on the other side. All it demonstrates is that you were willing to spend time and money to get a piece of paper, and if somone is impressed something as inane as that, should you really care what they think?
On top of that, I truly do believe a PhD is a liability in the engineering world (though perhaps requisite for CTO, though why this is the case is beyond me). I've had the unfortunate experience of working with several PhDs, and the results have been consistently grim. This is merely my contribution to the mass of ancedotal information against hiring PhDs for doing "real work".
Maybe you will beat the odds and actually pull some real-world value out of the PhD. But chances are, if you don't know clearly why you will be better off than all the other inept PhDs out there, you won't.
I completely agree with the opinion that a person should go for the doctorate because they WANT to, not for any supposed future monetary gain.
Maybe I'm atypical, but I have NO degree, yet I've been making a six-figure income in the software development arena for nearly a decade now, with no signs of a ceiling to my earnings.
My career continues to be in pure engineering, so I get the benefits of an executive salary without the soul-numbing move to management that seems to be inevitable for so many.
Bear in mind that I'm only in my mid-30s, and have NOT been working as a consultant, but as a full-time salaried employee, with all of the stability and benefits that are implied. I have worked a minimum of three years at every company (with the exception of a summer job doing graphics tools in '84), so I must not COMPLETELY suck at my job.
BTW, folks, for those of you who haven't worked in the field yet, there's this strange magical process that happens naturally over time. Maybe you've heard of it. It's called "experience". This magical process has allowed me to develop a deep understanding of software development processes. What a concept! Using this "experience" thing, I have even managed to develop patented software technologies for major technology corporations.
There was only ONE company in my entire history of interviews that cared about my lack of degree. In fact they were quite offended by my asking salary, despite my supporting prior salary history. The main interviewer took great pains to tell me about all of the PhD's on-staff that were working for half of my asking price. It didn't matter, though, because by that point, I could tell that I had NO interest in working with a group of PhD snobs, no matter WHAT the salary.
As an addendum, and before the flames start, I will say that I have had the pleasure of working with many talented and courteous PhD's, so don't take my experience with one company as a general slam against those with doctorates.
It isn't a memory leak. It's an object life-span issue.
I know exactly what you mean. I'm 35 and enjoy designing, implementing and designing software. About a year ago, I was searching for employment as a senior software engineer. Unfortunately, with the large number of graduates on the market, every company I interviewed with was only interesting in recruiting project managers. Seeing how so many companies would downsize by firing middle managers this option didn't interest me. To make matters worse, they got annoyed that I had made the effort to keep my skills up to date(C++,MFC,STL,etc...). Several of these companies were one programmer startups who were looking for business managers. A few companies were looking for research scientists, but they either required someone with either a straight-shooting career path in that field, or a Ph.D. In the end I found a vacancy for a Ph.D. Many university lecturers have taken the same career path, and moved into academia after drifting into management. Similarly with many of the postgrad students.
From what I have seen, the only long-term career path is in hardware design (VLSI chips)
Perhaps you can study for a Masters degree part-time? It'll give you the chance to learn new skills, and keep some doors open.
i always find it humorous when i hear someone praise cu boulder (my alma mater, yay!) as a terrific engineering school. i mean, sure, it is good, but it sure doesn't feel like it's all that great, ya know? especially when you see these stories: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=51 9&e=1&u=/ap/party_schools
It's the personell department, the people who hire you who care about degree.
The colleges you're working with care about your knowledge and less about your degree (if it help, it helps but not more than that).
I guess in the end someone who's good at his/her job will always find his/her way to an interesting, well paying job.
Don't let Education get in the way of your learning.
Thaths
Is it specifically relevant to the work you intend to follow on with? I have a friend who did a masters, relating to concurrency in Java. He is now well recognised in the field and is self-employed doing internationally-funded research.
I have another friend who did a PhD in video data compression (some years ago) and was frequently offered work in related areas.
I have a bachelor's degree in computer systems engineering. I count much of the (diverse) content of that course as vitally important in my career, though I am naturally a "specialist-generalist" - my position requires I know a medium amount about a lot.
I didn't finish my degree until in my second full-time job. Being "nearly" finished helped me get one job. In both jobs, my abilities and attitude did a lot more for my progression and ability to stay employed during cutbacks.
If you have good skills and background, I'd say "direct experience" then counts more than the letters after your name, unless the letters were earned in a relevant area.
I'd say the effect is more pronounced in IT than other areas.
-- All your bass are below two Hz
Phillip has some objections but others object =) good read none the less http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/
I have a PhD in computer science. Like many, I went down the path not because I wanted the money or the fame. It was just there, in front of me, and I decided I wanted to try to see "what to be a researcher" was like. I never thought of the future jobs, the years of poor TA salaries, or the like. But man, did I enjoy it! The 7 years it took me were sometimes difficult (plenty of stress to finish the darn thesis) but at the same time were very good: plenty of travel to conferences, being able to do _whatever_ I wanted with my time, being able to learn and pursue anything that look interesting in front of me (to a certain extend), and the great feeling when you see your name in your first research articles, and later in citations.
I recommend you read a book called: A Ph.D. Is Not Enough: A Guide to Survival in Science
by Peter J. Feibelman. It is a little bit biased towards the academic jobs, but it has a chapter on the "real world" jobs too. I wished I had read it many years before.
About me? I finished school and got a job at the Big Blue. I proved to myself I was able to create software in the Major Leagues, but then I realized I was being under employeed (my research skills were underutilized). In Canada there are few places better than them to go to, so my only alternative was academia. I am now tenure track at UVic.
The perfect job exists for few. In my case, I am happy and I am making the best out of it. My PhD has allowed me to pursue things in my life that might have been impossible otherwise (how many people would "kill" in Canada for a well paid job in Victoria, for example?). I would do it again, for sure, if I had to go back in time.
On the other hand, I have seen many crack under the pressure. You can be made to believe that you are an ass, with no potential to have a "contribution" to science. Many people struggle to find a thesis topic for years and many fail altogether. I must be very hard to feel the failure of not completing. Many others don't know what to do with the PhD when they finish and end with jobs that they could have gotten with a Ms.
Make sure you heart wants the PhD. Otherwise you might just waste some years until you decide it wasn't for you.
Get a master's degree, and top it off with an MBA.
If you want to be a professor, then get a PhD.
I think you mean "more likely", which I would agree with, not "more than likely". Even in a good economy, merely having a PhD isn't even nearly a guarantee to a job, much less a high level leadership position.
Anyway, I'm merely pointing out the folly in expecting that a "raw" PhD degree with zero industry experience will get you an important mentoring or leadership position. There are simply not that many of these positions, and people who hold those jobs aren't in a hurry to go anywhere else.
I should point out that smaller companies also tend to care less about advanced degrees. They deal with narrow niche technologies that are not often interesting to the academe, and the real experts of that domain either already work for them, or work for one of a few direct competitors.
Get a PhD and go to work for a big merchant bank. Recruitment is very much controlled by HR in these places and they just love paper qualifications (I suppose because it means they can raise the average quality of candidates without actually having to understand anything about the skills thus represented).
Alternatively you could use a PhD to get a position as a trainee BA with one of the big consultancy firms. I can't vouch for how they are right now, but Accenture - formerly Andersen Consulting - certainly used to only consider candidates with very good academic qualifications.
You need to realize that a PhD isn't going to mean you can autmatically leapfrog into a senior role and 100K starting salary. What it *will* do is enable you to compete for entry into "fast track" career paths with the very best firms. Once in, opportunities abound. If, say, you joined a top merchant bank, and if you are ambitious and talented and applied to move over to the business side in the Front Office, you could be earning 250K + 500K bonus before you reach 30. If you stayed on the IT side you'd make slightly less money but you would still be assured of access to the most challenging projects using the most up to date technologies.
... better get some remedial grammar classes first!!!
Master's is possessive singular; your degree is a Masters. no apostrophe.
The Grammar Police
I was told by a research professor at Carnegie Mellon that the PhD make you a member of the club of people who get things done. These are people who can then be depended upon to accomplish complex, long term projects, including mustering up the necessary resources, keeping your support system in line, etc.
In other words, you try to get a PhD, and the department does pretty much everything it can to prevent you from doing so. If you manage to finish, you have shown you can get things done despite obstacles, and thus join the club.
IIRC, only about 50% of those who start a PhD program actually finish and about 90% of the non-finishers completed the course work but never finished their thesis. So his view has a certain validity in affect, if not in policy. It seems to me it's a good view to have for oneself, taking into account also the others' statements here about your interest etc.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
IME, a Ph.D in IT is great for your career, but at the start of your career, you will be at a relative disadvantage to your friend who spent the last four years cutting code professionally. 10 years later, however, you will be earning twice as much as your friend who will be struggling to find his way into the more senior ranks.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
PhD = someone who loves their field and gets to work on projects of their choosing.
MS / BS = someone who loves the other parts of life, and is willing to work on other peoples' projects.
PhDs might make a bit more per year, but they're also living for 6+ years on a TA/RA/fellowship in an apartment or off their wife.
You might disparage PhDs, saying they have their heads in the clouds. Yet, this is precisely their value -- the ability to see beyond the overwhelming implementation details, and not to lose the forest for the trees.
I would say with a BS and a MS you've probably already got as much technical knowledge you need unless you want to become a prof (not a bad gig if you ask me ... have you ever tried to find a prof actually IN their office;). I would say a PhD in IT would be a bad choice. Maybe check out a MBA if you want to make a bunch of money!
BS - Everyone know what it is
MS - is More
PhD - is Piled high and Deep!
Too bad life isn't so very simple as that.
I want to have sex with Natalie Portman. I want to go buy a huge beach house on St. Croix and a loft at Snowbird, and to summer and winter in each, respectively.
I want to eat a 18" pizza with all of my favorite toppings without feeling sick.
Unfortunately, very often all of the things that you want to to are not available to you. At such times, you must either select from what's available or you must sit around watching TV. Ph.D. often comes in as one of the "lesser than most evils" options. You get to remain a student, have the prestige of calling yourself a student [while you're doing it] or of calling yourself a doctor [once you're done], are surrounded by and perhaps even get to teach barely legal undergrads and their youthful faces, and even if you do flunk out, there's a kind of coolness factor at the bar in calling yourself a Ph.D. flunkie who now likes to drink.
The other choices are too often a) job for pointy-haired boss in the midst of rat-race or b) suicide.
I've been a recruiter in Silicon Valley for 8+ years and I have noticed a few things here:
1. Most hiring manager are scared of PhDs because of the stereotype of them being arrogant eggheads who really love theories but do not do practical things.
2. For most jobs unrelated to research, a BS or MS is fine.
3. Certain fields like fiber optics prefer PhDs.
My suggestion: consider what you want to do after your education. Do you want to work in sales? Then don't get a PhD. Do you prefer the lab? Then get a PhD. Do you want to start your own company based on your research? Get a PhD.
I sure as hell don't, the only way of eliminating bugs that I have seen work, is to develop your own though process so that you choose methods/algrithms/implementations that avoid classes of bugs. This takes intense introspection, insight, and most importantly, this takes time.
There was a comment, I believe it came from the head of the department at NC State, that the distinction in science you build to study, and in engineering you study to build.
:
Here a some examples
To study high pressure chemistry one must first build a suitable device - ie a diamond anvil cell. The end is the study of high pressure chemistry and not the construction of the diamond anvil cell hence this is science.
To build a barometer case that will protect the barometer when it is dropped six feet. Here you must clearly study the construction of the case before you build it. The end is the barometer case - hence this is engineering.
In considering this, most of the time that I have spent in programming and in computer science courses has been studing different techniques to build the program - this sounds like engineering.
There seem to be many ways a professor can get tenure.
I have known 1 professor, who got it solely by being brillant. At the time, he had no research results, had spent a hugh amount of money and time building a 1 of a kind instrument. He was also the professor, who would ask critical questions and be able to suggest creative soulutions to a wide range of problems.
Most have gone your route, that is publishing as much quality papers, and networking.
Still others have worked on the networking and getting grants - publishing just enough for the grants. The one professor I have know to do this, was able in the first year to get somewhere around 1 million in matching grants over the next 5 years. Here the university/department is getting so much money (this amount increased over the next 5 years) that to deny tenure would mean a loss of millions of dollars.
Are these observations what you have observed?
W3ll in the US military they have this attitude towards gays. As long as you don't flaunt it, it's OK.
So get your Ph.D., and when they ask, either look at the ceiling or sue them for neural discrimination.
The IOP did a salery survey of qualifications a couple of years back
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/10/9
Damn depressing considering with my Masters, Im bottom of the heap
I think the number one thing that employers look at (at least here in the UK) is experience/skillset. Having or not having a PhD seems to be pretty irrelevant most of the time, to be honest.
I think my PhD helped me get a couple of jobs (particularly at the begining when I had no commercial experience - I got a researchy type job). On the flip side I also knew one guy who moved into management who thought his PhD held him back.
I think on the whole I would have been in pretty much the same place now if I had worked for the 4 years instead of studying.
I'm very glad I did mine, but I did get funding and I didn't work that hard most of the time!
How else are we supposed to compete with the billions of Indian and Chinese programmers who have bachlors degrees just like us?
The only Americans who will have a job in IT will be people with a masters degree or above, its going to end up being like law, or medicine.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If you come in with a bachlors degree you are just another person with a bachlors degree, why hire you when the indian, mexican, chinese or african american all will do your job for cheaper, why ever hire you?
You have to market yourself and currently the market is designed so that you must seperate yourself from the pack to get a job.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Thats the problem, masters degree or not, there ARE no entry level positions.
I dont know what economy you are talking about but in the USA theres no jobs for people with bachlors degrees so your buddy with the masters is in the same position as the rest of us.
I dont think a person with a masters degree is over qualified, consider the fact that you'll need to be over qualified in order to get a job at all, theres no way to earn experience so you'll have to compete for jobs at the startups.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
At McDonalds, the only place which hires people with no experience and no degrees.
You are a frigging idiot if you think you can get a job in IT without a degree, I have the knowledge and the skills and the only way I can get work is through the temp agencies.
So please tell me how the hell someone can get a job with no degree at all? Sure if you want to live in the ghetto working at mc donalds go ahead, I dont care, but I wont lie to people like you do and give them advice which sets them up to fail.
This is just it, you want less competition so you deliberately give bad advice to people, "oh dont worry, you wont need a diploma, yeah right, and have fun working at mc donalds or retail, the only jobs people can get without an education, maybe you can do construction too while you have your youth, until you get hurt.
Otherwise, it is perfectly feasible to get paid $40,000/year with a two-year degree and a bit of experience. That's a salary many indebted college graduates only dream about.
Yes thats possible but how do you get experience when theres no entry level jobs for people who have no degree? All the entry level jobs ask for a BA or BS.
Also, I've seen clear and unabiguous evidence that the market provides little or no rewards for anything more than a two year degree for most people. In fact, there is a trend away from four-year degrees in many disciplines, where a bachelor's degree is actually a mark against canidates.
Thats just a damn lie, I've seen evidence proving the opposite, which says a person with a bachlors makes twice as much as someone without. Sure in 2000 you could get a job without a degree, I had a job without a degree, this is 2003, the world has changed.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What if all the indians, chinese, etc get PHDs while you just stay with your bachlors, why should any company hire American workers then?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sure right now no one needs PHDs, 40-50 years ago no one needed bachlors degrees or masters, now everyone needs one.
Jobs are hard to come by, how do you survive a recession, or a weak economy? Sure experience is good, but you have to work for over 10 years to get your experience and job security.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Man from BBC (John Cleese) is driving Man from the mill (who didn't expect the Spanish inquisition, Graham Chapman) to open a door in the next sketch.
Man from the mill: Do you do a lot of this sort of thing?
Man from BBC: Quite a lot, yes, quite a lot. Mainly in comedy. I'd like to be in program planning actually, but unfortunately I've got a degree.
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
While working the roadshow circuit to raise funds in the early days of the late, great Infoseek, CEO Steve Kirsch presented a slide enumerating the reasons he was qualified to be the CEO of a high tech start-up: (1) I have a masters degree in computer science from MIT; (2) I do NOT have a doctorate in computer science from MIT....
I seem to recall that the federal civil service requires a grade uptick for each advanced degree. Again, regardless of relevence to the job.
Face it, PhD = fatter paycheck, period. Maybe that's not what a PhD is supposed to mean, and it's certainly not popular with academic failures such as myself. But it's the truth. Unless, of course, it's a degree in Comparative Popular Culture from Mail Order University. And even then....
I think the problem is with the nature of modern computer industry hiring process. Thanks to monster, head hunters, and the dot com bust the industry has turned into a meat market. Gee, let's ask 100 questions about some API. That's really going to help me judge a person's programming ability. The average PhD in CS isn't going to rush to the mall to read the SAMS UNLEASHED/O'REILLY/WAITE GROUP PRESS book. Hopefully, they read Dr. Dobbs and some other professional journals. I wonder what the average interviewer thinks of Knuth, Dijkstra, or Minsky. Yeah there's a lot of worthless knowledge in The Art of Computer Programming. I mean, who needs to write an algorithm anymore. I'm sure they don't have any practical skills.
I wish there was more emphasis on sample code and past projects or work experience. However, my experience is that most of the screening/interview process is a glorified grep on my resume and a couple pendantic questions about some really tedious aspect. Look I've played the IT game for a while. I suppose it gets better for more serious engineers. However, I've heard it really doesn't.
Incidently, my favorite related tidbit was when our development team was faced with a NP hard problem and one of the programmers brushed off such worthless "theoretical" issues by saying, "Oh I know QuickSort". Which is real funny since we where dealing with an optimization problem.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
B.S. -- Well, you know what that means.
M.S. -- More of the Same.
Ph.D. -- Piled higher, deeper.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Unless you plan on also taking courses in conversational Indian, and have extended plans to New Dehli, your plan sucks.
The availability of a job is not only determined by the salary, but also by how many are eligible for it (among other things of course). There will be far, far more people who are reasonable candidates for the $40k job than the $100k job.
Mere logic can't solve this one... one needs some real data to figure out which kind of job is more available.
I've been in the computer industry since '79. Have worked for large companies (such as IBM, Siemens, etc) and smaller startups. In spite of never actually finishing college, I have never had trouble finding decent well-paying work, even in a so-called recession.
One thing I did learn, though, was that I enjoy working for smaller operations much more than any other companies - red tape, silly dead line decisions, etc.
Working on contracts for small companies from home via the 'net effectively frees me from location dependencies, and lets me feel more in tune with the essence of the company, the lifeblood of it, if you so will. It seems there is also more free time available overall, further reducing general stress levels.
And to return to the actual question: yes, I have actually been turned down here and there due to being 'over qualified' for a given job which I thought might be interesting. However, my strategy has always been to just go on to the next contract. I'm not shy about doing a short term lower paying contract between more lucrative ones.
But overall: Small company contracts - my recommendation. Experience credentials and sanity count more than paper credentials in the end.
The subject being a reference to what makes dung beetles happy (guess what BS stands for?).
I think that in some cases you have some individuals who genuinely do accelerate some facet of computer science, however the average developer is pretty far removed from the day to day reality of most Phds.
Also, knowing one person who got a Phd and another who decided not to pursue it (after being in the program with a master's) both commented that Phd programs are so much about ego and very little else.
Apologies to all those exceptions out there but recollecting my observations of a certain "Dr." who ran the graphics lab at my alma mater, that does not sound very off the mark.