Slashdot Mirror
Google's Ph.D. Advantage
Frisky070802 writes "The New York Times reports on Google's success and desire in hiring Ph.D.'s (free registration required). It says that Google's willingness to let every employee spend 20% of his or her time on an independent project is a compelling motivator and that they estimate that Google has as many Ph.D.'s working for it as Microsoft, which is 30 times larger. How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"
OK... I know the Tech industry is on it's way back up (i'm hoping), however, when I was job hunting most of the companies I was looking at didn't want anyone with a Ph.D because they couldn't afford to pay those people with them. I'm guessing Google can afford to pay them now.. or atleast will be able to soon enough :)
Hmmm.
Quite a few. Any kind of scientific research, for example.
It's not only a matter of internal PhDs at the company which help along their R&D efforts. Thousands of developers outside of Google are using the Google APIs to create new Google applications. Some notable hits are BananaSlug and GoogleAlert (the latter of which is indeed the product of a PhD, according to this article). The fact that Google is able to tempt so many to build on their platform is another sign of their popularity with the academic nerdy elite.
Having hired helpdesk technicians for years, I can say that I've never turned down a Ph.D but have turned down more than a few types with postgraduate degrees. If you've got a Masters in any IS field and are applying for a $30k helpdesk position what are the chances of you sticking with me when that good job does come along? If you decide to move on I wouldn't blame you at all - but new employees mean my company incurs siginificant training costs, and it's generally a few months before the techs are operating at a level that actually benefits the company. Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.
I know I'm part of the problem, but for helpdesk (and even Tier 2 deskside support positions) having a postgraduate degree actually hurts you - because there's no way I can keep these guys. Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I was applying for temp work and the first agency said I was over qualified and probably wouldn't enjoy the work they could give me. They said they'd look if they really wanted me to but then never got back to me with any jobs.
After that I went to some more temp agencies, but I dumbed down my resume. Instead of "software engineer" I was a "computer programmer". I put a 2.2 GPA (my school doesn't officially give out GPAs anyways...). Most of the skills in my skills list were removed and I replace them with my hobbies. All references to money, like how much money I saved a company, were removed.
Suddenly I had 2 offers for jobs at one agency and 1 offer at another agency. They were the same types of jobs that the first agency was giving out. It's surprising the number of companies willing to pay $14/hour for dumb ex-computer people.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Start here.
Well if it wasn't for the US (and Soviet) governments there wouldn't be the spacecraft whose missions so often make it to the front page of this site. Not satelite TV. Nor thousands of medicines. And without universities, who duck the corporate need for the quick profit grab, there'd be no BSD, no Turing, and no Newton.
I would defy the poster to name a single world changing product in science, technology and medicine that has not come about as a result of massive, detailed and prolonged research.
Fine, some arise from the back-garden boffins like the monk and his runner beans, dyson and his hoovers, and the bloke who invented the cats-eye and is now one of the richest self-made men in the world, and others arise through the corporate route (a la Jobs and Gates), but common to these cases, as well as the thousands of advances that come through the government and university sectors, is the absolute necessity for the product or idea to go through rigourous testing and research before it is capable of use in the outside world.
There is some role for inspiration but the fact remains: without a detailed grounding in your field your flash of inspiration is likely to have been thought of before; if it has not been applied it is probably because it requires you to do a hefty chunk of research to prove the theory.
There are no, or few, free rides left. If anyone finds one, send it my way!
The page you reference is a great example of how statistics can prove anything. Your page lists school life expentancy. The differences are explained by the fact that many countries require 13 years of compulsory education vice 12 in the US. Look at the numbers here. Now look at average years of schooling which includes non-compulsory eduction. By gosh, the US is number one.
I hear you, but I can promote helpdesk technicians to fill Tier 2 slots - IME the guy with the postgradual degree will more than likely leave the company. If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
It is a well known fact that you do a PhD not for the money, but for the gain of knowledge, for research experience, and maybe the advancement of science (Because you like research)
Even if you usually get a higher pay as a PhD it's usually not enough to counterbalance the 4 or 5 year lost of pay while doing your PhD.
I'm not saying that there are no PhDs who make a lot of money. But if you study to make money, you should stop before the PhD.
Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.
Since the moderators obviously didn't understand the joke: A doctorate from Oxford is a D.Phil (short for "Doctor of Philosophy"), in contrast to most other universities, which use the term PhD (Philosophiae Doctor, which is exactly the same thing in Latin).
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Well, technically, the shares that they are offering are non-voting shares. So they could not be ousted by vote of the shareholders. This was stated in their "IPO Manifesto."
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Gross Generalization Alert!
My experience tells me otherwise, and it all depends on the program the person went through anyway. Usually, it's those with just a BSc who behave this way.
PhD students are supposed to learn techniques to solve problems never encountered before. Adaptability to problems is essential (again - depends on the program they went through). Some departments do this better than others, and no one tops physicists in this regard (math PhD's come close, though).
Beetle B.
Yes - I expect to keep anyone I hire for at least a year.
$30k a year is actually a pretty good wage for a junior IT position that doesn't require a degree. I have a couple of Tier 2 folks making almost twice that - and I believe only two of them have are degreed. If you're doing desktop support and making more than $50k a year you're doing pretty okay in my book.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Here come the ignorant assholes who will knock on getting a Ph.D. because they can't get one. Sure, I'll accept that a Ph.D. isn't terribly practical for many jobs. Our department is hiring programmers right now, and I would probably veto a Ph.D. applying for our junior software engineer position. But I am sick of hearing everyone with lesser education cover for their insecurity and lack of accomplishment by knocking higher educational goals.
I work as a "Senior Software Engineer", doing serious C++ programming including use of Win32 API, Winsock, OpenSSL, MySQL, etc in a multi-threaded multi-server multi-system programming environment which powers telecommunication systems which require very robust programs capable of maintaining the best uptimes possible. There are many developers who do work that makes my job look simple, but considering I only have an AA in CompSci, I think I am doing fairly well. I work on the same level as individuals who have BSCS in CompSci and some who have 20 years experience in development. However, I don't have a lack of appreication for their superior education and experience. I am working towards my own BSCS, Master's, and maybe even Ph.D. someday. Not to try to bring in a major paycheck (I already do very well), and not to try to be better than those who only have a BSCS, but because Computer Science is my field. It is my study, my hobby, and I have dedicated my life to it. Since I consider myself a (budding) Computer Scientist, it is simply my responsibility and my desire to continue to advance in the field and learn everything I can about all of the many aspects of Computer Science.
People with vocational certificates (MCSE, CCNA, etc), are often fine employees to do the work they've been trained to do. I find Bachelor's degrees in Computer Science from trade schools like Coleman College to be offensive mockeries of a real BSCS, which I have worked for years to gain, while they took a few classes in outdated languages like COBOL and FoxPro. (We have one such person working in our customer service department.) But people who actually attend a university, any real university, and learn the science of computers, are a league above those who would criticize what they cannot attain.
Just because you couldn't make it in college doesn't mean college has no value. Just because you didn't stick it out long enough to learn something, doesn't mean colleges don't teach CompSci principles which no self-taught person will understand and appreciate. The only reasons to not advance your education further are your own reasons, so to attempt to apply them to everyone and make blanket statements about higher educational levels than your own seems more like a desperate attempt to cover your insecurity that there might be people out there who know more than you do, even if your non-tech manager and your family members think you're the God of Computers.
The real 'thing' of it is that a Ph.D. ends up being a requirement you need when you can no longer get it easily. A MS and a PhD can get the same starting job, but after ten years working in the field the PhD (given they did decent jobs) can advance to a higher position easier and will have more paths open to him then an MS.
Some things I've read basically put a PhD as 5 years of work experience, a MS as 2 years, and a BS as 0.
Then again, you ask most science Ph.D.'s and they'll (as well as many liberal arts PhD owners/students) tell you flat out that a liberal arts PhD is completely pointless unless you want to be a liberal arts prof. Which, in short, is hard as hell to get a job at which pays you decently...(considering how much schooling you've done).
Many folks don't pursue PhDs not because they lack they intelligence, but because it offers nothing to them.
The reason for that? I should say reasons; those are myriad, ranging from lack of time because of other worthwhile pursuits, to disgust of the current state of academics today, to a lack of any worthwhile application (even purely academic).
Since you HAVEN'T been through a serious postgraduate program (and yes, I have a PhD), I will chalk your comments up to a misguided sense of respect for certain types of academic qualifications... but at the same time, I find your views more than a bit disturbing. While those letters that come after your name can indicate a greater capacity for meeting certain challanges, by no stretch of the imagination should one pigeonhole various strata of intelligence, adaptability, and ability by said letters to the apparent level you have. To put it into perspective; my thesis advisor made it clear to me that while what I was pursuing was worthwhile, it did not qualify me. In fact, someone who had NOT received my credentials yet still had amassed the same amount of knowledge and come to the same type of creative thinking levels would be a much more lucrative individual to pick up... and apparently, situations like that are not terribly uncommon. What was he trying to say?
If you've got a NY Times link that requires registration, you can skip it by copying and pasting the original NY Times URL directly into regular Google Search.
If the article is relatively new, it will probably tell you "Sorry, no information is available for the URL" but will then offer you a link to the address you just typed in. The HTTP-Referer will then be google.com and you can read it without registration.
A few extra keystrokes, but gets around the registration process every time.