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."
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.
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.
Is a job the only reason why you want a Phd?
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
the key here is research. if you want more of a research position, a phd will go a looong way. if you are more into implementation, a masters might already be too much.
2 1337 4 u!
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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."
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.
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
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.
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.
I've never understood the "over qualified" position. Who cares if you're over qualified?
In the past, I didn't understand the "overqualified" concept either. It wasn't until I took a job for which I was overqualified that I understood the problem. I had gotten laid off when my employer went bankrupt, and was lucky enough to get offered a job rather quickly at a larger company - but with a lower title.
I was perfectly happy to have been offered the job, and I'm still there. So in that sense, "overqualified" is a bogus issue.
However, I'm here because the job market is dreadful. If it weren't so awful, I'd be out the door here in a second ... and my employer knows that. The "overqualified" rationale is that people like that will leave for a more appropriate job as soon as they get the chance, and nobody wants to hire employees that are just waiting to bolt.
Similarly, being overqualified means that (even moreso than usual) you tend not to enjoy your job because you're not meeting your potential. You're doing work for people that you are equally qualified with (or more qualified), and it tends to breed disgruntled employees. I'm not terribly disgruntled because I feel lucky to have been given a decent job in a relatively niche technology industry ... but I'm also counting the days until I can get another position where I can learn and grow.
So "overqualified" is to some extent crap - if you're happy to have a job, overqualified or not, then it isn't relevant. But if you hate the job you're overqualified for and are bitter/waiting to bolt, then companies do have a reason for avoiding you. It's the fact that companies can't tell which type you'll be which leads them to often avoid all "overqualified" folks.
Just my $.02.
"95% of all Slashdot
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
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.
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.