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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 2003-08-18 19:46:10 Ph.D.: Good or bad for career? (askslashdot,ed) (accepted)
I never said anything about IT in my post, because I don't consider a computer engineering or computer science to be part of IT.On a side note, apparently persistence helps when submitting stories:
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
"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."
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.
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 would bet that you don't have a PhD because if you did you would know that a "run-on sentence" such as yours makes it extremely difficult to determine what you are really talking about although I'm sure there are some people out there who are successful at making "run-on sentences" understandable, this is something that should be avoided if you want people to understand your thesis.
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
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.
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.
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!!!
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
i dont consider CompSci or CompEng to be IT, either...
Its like the difference between an Electrician and an Electrical Engineer.
... hi bingo
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
And I am unlikely to hire someone with an ABD for any job for which I'd consider a Ph.D. I've known quite a few ABDs from my time in school, and the universal trait was a lack of ability to focus on their problem for more than a few months. Ph.Ds are about persistence.
I wasn't gonna contribute, but since you're the one who asked the question and the original didn't limit it to IT, here goes:
...
(My PhD is in Mechanical Engineering)
Having done a PhD myself, the first question I would ask you is "Do you want a career in research?"
If your answer is definitely no, then don't even think about a PhD - you will be far better off getting the 3-5 years experience in the work force.
If you do want to go into research, particularly academic/university, but also increasingly government, then you really have to do a PhD (and be prepared to enviously eye off the paycheck of all your mates who work in private industry). As for private (corporate) research, my perception and what others have told me, is that the US (and Japan) seem to be far more willing to accept the PhD as a higher qualification. Europe/UK is not so bad, but there can be some tendency for the attitude of "why did you waste your time doing a PhD when you could have gone and gotten 3-5 years experience instead". It varies by industry, and I have noticed it a little more in those industries (like mech/civil/ee engineering) where a "certified practising" qualification or professional membership tends to be experience based. I should add that this is certainly not the majority of employers and is less likely at large multinationals than smaller consultancies. Australia on the other hand (where I got my PhD) is terrible for that attitude, which is why most PhDs eventually end up overseas doing research in another country, ironically enough. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now
The fact that you are asking the question probably means you are somewhere in between the two extremes. In hindsight - and I know this will sound very elitist although it's not meant to - I don't think anyone who has not done a PhD can really understand just what is involved and what comes out of it. Depending on your motivation and how much spoon feeding you get/ask for you can gain an awul lot of valuable skillsets that will benefit you in industry - reading, presenting, communication (no, that doesn't include slashdot!), time management, planning, experimental design, writing, not to mention software packages (I benefited enormously from this) etc. You will also be highly specialised, which could actually work against you in terms of jobs because the jobs simply don't exist. You will lose 3-5 years of experience (most employers will not count your PhD as experience) and probably a large dose of sanity at the same time. When (if) you finish, you will have something you will be immensely proud of while being totally unable to explain to anyone exactly why this is. I honestly don't believe that the academic/intellectual side of a PhD is all that difficult (if you're applying for one, you're probably capable of the actual work itself) - the hard part is sticking at it for 3-5 years and all the roller coaster psychological/motivational ride that goes along with it.
My honest opinion is that unless you are seeking to work in research, you will benefit more (as in "the employer is more interested in") from the 3-5 years experience on your CV/resume than from having a PhD. The exception is if you are applying for work very related to area of your PhD.
Hope that helps!
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
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
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 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.
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.
.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This guy is a known troll. Google his name on google groups or see his posting history!
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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/