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?"
I like to see how google has adapted bits of the opensource development model to fit their needs. Just let people do it because they want to do it, don't force them. See, even the deleopment model is is free (as in freedom). =P
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
Good for Google, but let's hope they don't get carried away.
I remember when a local telecom company tried to up-size their education level. They insisted that *everyone* in the building have a university degree. No exceptions. This meant that janitors, cafeteria staff, etc. had to have university degrees to mop floors or serve burgers. As I recall, they changed this policy after about 6 months.
I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...
This is what is known as "being over-qualified", and it's a killer. You wouldn't think that, after all that hard work in getting through school and finally getting a doctorate in a hard science or engineering, you'd have trouble finding work, but you do. Ever see a PhD working a helpdesk? Not a tech PhD, that's for sure.
Also, the amount of free time provided to PhDs at Google to do their own thing seems like it would be pretty standard - after all, they've hired the best and the brightest, how else do they expect to retain them? Isn't this standard at other companies, too?
Software piracy is victimless theft.
Very true. 3M for example doesn't even "prefer" Ph.Ds. It's a requirement for a job as a chemist. Additionally, you're allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time. Supposedly Post-It notes were a 15% project.
My dingo ate your honor student.
I've been extremely surprised at finding out what people here have advanced degrees and which ones dropped out of college to take jobs back in their day.
Face it, salaries in the NHS and universities are shite so when you try to find a job in the real world you better not tell them you have a Ph.D. That would put you in the overqualified category which is another way to say that you are either too old or you are threatening some people already in place in the company... not a good way to start.
Me, after looking for work (from a postdoc) over and over again, I swallowed the little pride I had left and took that techie job I always dreamt of... not. Still better than being on the dull, I guess... pays the bills anyway.
Why, yes! I am bitter.
i have a PHD in engineering and so far i can't help feel it was a waste of time in regards to gaining a good job, so much so i have seriouly been thinking about becoming a plumber ! yep i can earn more money and have a better quality of life as a plumber than i can as a PHD wealding engineer, even the emploment agencys say "i see you have a PHD but do you have any experience outside of academia ?"
I used to think the same thing until I stared working on one. Investigate what it really means to get one, and what it takes, and you might think different(ly).
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Bingo. Those were my thoughts when reading about that too. Most people nowadays don't just avoid PhDs or a CS education, they just want anyone competent.
They actually think they're cleverly saving costs by hiring the cheapest incompetent monkeys possible. After all, they just bought that magical "+3 cloak of productivity (+5 against bugs)" (i.e., some snake oil baroque framework or server software), so now they don't need anyone competent on those computers any more.
Plus, hey, everyone knows that programming computers is easy. Even the neighbour's geeky kid is doing it. Surely a drooling ex-burger-flipper off the street can do it just fine too.
(Funny how the same people who can't even program their VCR's clock, or keep spyware off their computer, nevertheless think that my job is something easy, eh?)
True story: I know of a team which actually hired people via reverse online auction. Whichever monkey wants the least money, gets the job. No skill needed. (Again, it's not a joke. Sadly.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I work at a research lab of roughly 2000 people or so. The majority of employees are engineers (all kinds), math, phyics, chemistry, etc, majors. We have a lot of opportunities for education including on-site masters programs in Computer Science, Electrical Engineer, and Ocean Acoustics.
There are also long term offsite programs where you can go get a Ph.D. and this is also popular. However, of all the people that I know here with Ph.D's the majority seem to migrate into project management, essentially doing nothing but running a small team, writing proposals and giving presentations. Eventually they move into fulltime management where they even give up driving the technical direction of the programs they may at one time have created.
>Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.
Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?
Actually, vs. "Throwing more money and people at the problem" that the rest of the world has been doing.
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
Seems Google is proving that PhDs are worth the money. A stark contrast to the current conventional "wisdom"
From monster.com:
"Ph.D. a plus" average pay: $150,000 out of 399 jobs
"MCSE a plus" average pay: $32,000 out of 503 jobs
The article never even states how many Google employees have PH.D's anyway - only that it is probably more than 100 (out of 1900).
That is slightly over 5%. Sure, in many industries that would be very high but at a tech company - I am not so sure - and for a mature research organization that might be low (the drug industry or checmical companies).
However, the real advantage is that the *encourage* employees to perform independent research and that they hire people with that mindset. The PhD is a predictor of that mentality but the culture is what makes it work.
In my industry (mental health) a Ph.D is something that is not actively sought by hiring professionals, and may actually be a hindrance. Masters degreed therapists are cheaper for you and insurance. In addition, there is a bias (in my opinion well supported) that Ph.D's are "lab rats" and do not focus as much on their skills as a therapist. That is why the Psy.D degree was created, in order to differentiate between researchers and practicing professionals.
To be honest, when Google flew me to California for an interview, I was luke warm about the idea of working for Google because I love my life style living in the mountains of Northern Arizona.
:-)
However, after spending a day being interviewed by 6 extremely bright and creative people, I very much wanted the job (I did not get it, oh well). It is true that bright people want to work with other bright people. Anyway, it may sound strange, but I view the interview process as a very positive experience (also, after 30 years of working, it was the only job that I tried for that I did not get, so I was able to set most ego stuff aside). In addition to the interviews themselves, I got to have lunch with Peter Norvig and before I left the Google campus a nice person let me ride a Segway
It really is true that a few very good people are way better than many above average people.
One of the most fun times in my career was when I had a boss who has a PhD from MIT and hired many other PhDs and MSs from MIT - some of the best colleagues that I ever had.
Personally, I think that I am going to invest in Google stock, but I am likely to wait for a few months after the IPO (or make a low bid for the IPO).
-Mark
What has this got to do with the topic? I am about sick of /. these days. More political crap being slung than on Slate.
On a side note, The University of Northern British Columbia, UNBC, has recently halved their tuition for Master degrees and removed tuition completely for their PhD programs. Granted, it'll still be a couple of years before they offer a PhD in CompSci, but one can't complain about being free.. I guess they're doing this because they want to become a more research oriented university - and it sucks to live in northern BC... trust me, I know.. (On the bright side, there are some great profs and a really low student/prof ratio. And the cost of living - I'm paying $300/month cnd, everything included.)
Microsoft went public back in '86 for another reason, too. Employee stock options weren't worth much until the shares they represented could be traded. The company itself didn't benefit very much from the IPO -- it was ten years old, and highly profitable already -- but the employees did.
I can only aggree with you there. I don't have a PhD either. And call me arrogant if you will, but I think I coded better at, say, 16 years old (i.e., before even starting college) than some of my co-workers do at 30+ years old. And the co-worker I respect the most in this team didn't even finish CS college.
But that was not my point.
My point wasn't necessarily that they should ask for an education or a PhD, but that they should at least try to get someone _competent_. If you will, merely along the lines of "if it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing _well_".
Hiring the cheapest monkeys with _zero_ skill or experience, doesn't really cut costs. They end up paying them for _years_ to code and debug something that a skilled programmer (with or without a diploma) would have done in _hours_.
For those who think I'm exaggerating, true story: I've before given the example of our local Wally, who spent over two years debugging a tiny module. In fact, he _still_ is at it. Something that, by my estimates, anyone else would have done in hours. Well, another co-worker eventually got fed of arguing with Wally over the bugs, and actually went and coded an exact 1-for-1 replacement for Wally's module. Minus the bugs. It took him exactly 6 hours to do that from scratch. QED.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Heck no. I wouldn't recommend getting one unless you want to teach at university. Period.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
For me, Ph.D adds no points to a CV, and in most cases, gets expedited to file 13.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
I wouldn't be suprised if some people at Google did those things to you. But the onus is really on you to know what kind of job you're interviewing for before you go into the interview. It is possible to get a vague idea of pay and level before the interview. If they are really offering you 1/10th of the pay, then it sounds like you were interviewing for an entry level job when you expected an executive job and you really should have known the difference.
By the time one becomes a PhD, they should know what is a significant, doable problem in their field. Masters students or beginning PhD students oftern choose the wrong-size problem. It may be something triviable and already doen by someone else. Or something that may take decades and gigabucks. A right-size problem can be done in about two years. Sometimes an advisor lets the student learn the hard way by letting the student work on a wrong-size problem. The coursework and skillset difference between a masters and PhD is often not that great.
Depends on the field. I'm currently working on one in EE. Whatever work I do for my advisor is fair game for my thesis. Almost everyone I know here has a similar agreement with their advisors. There are a few whose thesis work is not related to their assistantship, and they're the exceptions one has to look hard to find.
The arrangement is beautiful - I get paid to do my PhD.
In fields that are closer to science, one usually becomes a teaching assistant, and thus life is nastier - their paid work is independent of their thesis work.
Besides, I don't see the complaint. The point of getting an assistantship is to support your PhD financially. If you're willing to pay for it yourself, then you're free to spend all the time on your thesis.
2) PhD slave labor wages are less than those of any given malaysian factory child if you count the total number of hours worked and divide that into your scholarship/stipend/grant/etc.
I've known factory workers in third world countries (not Malaysia, though), and frankly, your statement is offensive. With my lowly stipend, I get far more benefits and opportunities, not to mention food, than they do.
And the math is deceptive, anyway. At least in my university, if an advisor wishes to fund a graduate student, not only does he have to pay his wages, but his tuition fee. Given that I'm an out-of-state student, that amounts to about $35,000 to $40,000 a year. Considering I officially work only 20 hours a week - he's spending quite a bit of money.
3) If you are not a US citizen/permanent resident and are on a scholarship to get a PhD in the US, you are fucked. Bring the vasoline and bend over.
The majority of engineering students are non-permanent residents. While the situation is worse for them, only a few get treated as you mention.
4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.
Agreed.
5) If your PhD is not in a subject actively investigated by the corporate world be willing to accept an academic position after getting your degree, or find another subject. It's heartbreaking to see people get their degree and realize they are either stuck in academia or worse, take a job in industry doing work outside their expertise making the same they would have as a masters (i.e. degree worthless).
Well, I guess PhD's need to think more about their motives. I'm in it for academics, and I'll be glad to be one of those "stuck".
(However, if you're in engineering, the point is still mildly valid as most of your research funds will come from industry).
6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go.
No thanks. It is a good idea if you know you want to work for them later on, but I don't want to be bound to a contract when I have alternative methods. I'm also not in a hurry to finish early. Grad student life is a nice one if you're paid enough not to starve. I certainly don't work as hard as industry folks, and have plenty of free time.
Beetle B.
It's incredible how many posts are generalizations from personal experience.
...).
Stating the obvious, it's not a perfect system. Moving from a bachelors to a PhD simply increases the chance that a candidate has been selected on intelligence. Thereafter, the quality of education depends on a number of factors (e.g., school, department, funding, advisor, personal life,
The true crime in education is at the undergrad level where too many high school applicatants are accepted. By so doing, the quality of education is compromised for those who do not belong - compressing B students with A students. This last effect makes it difficult to select students on intelligence when they apply to grad school or for professional degrees such as MDs.
Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic. /. comments into a broad picture. Not just "a Ph.D. is worthless/you can't do anything without a Ph.D." but a whole array of different points.
As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes
Not much to add, probably, but my $0.02 anyway, focusing on my own perspective which happens to be exactly as worthy (neither more nor less) as anyone else's.
I'm a Ph.D. candidate in a non-tech field. You can't realistically be hired for academic jobs in my field without a Ph.D. and it's rather hard to be hired even with a Post-Doc. Of course, a lot of people I know work with "only" a B.S./B.A. or M.S./M.A. but none of them has the type of job I'm aspiring to, which happens to be academic.
There's a lingering feeling that college degrees are like honorific titles that "institutions of higher learning" thrust upon bright people. Of course, this feeling seems stronger with people who associate education with employment than with people who are driven by their passion for knowledge. For a variety of reasons, I happen to belong to the latter category: I'm an academic because I'm passionate about select academic subjects. Though I'm really looking forward to other phases in my academic career, I thoroughly enjoy the life I chose. Thing is, I'm not the only one like that. Sure, some grads constantly complain about not being free to do what they please but academia's incredibly satisfying for those who do it for the "right reasons." Yes, I'm helplessly naive in thinking I'll get a tenure-track position relatively soon, but since high school I've been prepared (by advisors, peers, etc.) to fight my way through.
In other words, contrary to popular belief, you don't begin your career after you get your degree. Your degree is an acknowledgement of a certain of things you have done at an educational institution and your career began with your choices.
Interestingly, I've been looking for menial/mindless work before I take up a teaching fellowship. It seems that my résumé showed me to be overqualified to flip burgers or force people to buy security systems but I eventually found work in a nearby café. It might surprise some, but I'm quite happy about this. The reason is, it's not necessarily about the money. It's about doing what you like and liking what you do.
Most of the time, doing so goes with inspiration, perspiration, fun, friendship, and most likely some beer.
Alexandre http://enkerli.wordpress.com/
What makes the "real world" different from the (presumably "fake world") one works in to get a PhD?
The overall goal of the umbrella organisation may be different but you have to work with all the same types of people - some driven, some lazy, some helpful, some obstructionist - with all the same types of restrictions - do it now, for no money, without bothering your boss with the details.
Of course, my PhD is in a physical science, and I did the research at an international laboratory, which gives context to my former (and, as I admitted, very generalised) post. My former flatmate whose PhD was in medieval history certainly didn't live in any kind of world that I could recognise as "real":)
My comment was in the context of CS (which is google's main area of interest), so it might not apply as well to a research scientist.
I think in the CS world there are a number of differences one of which is the idea of maintance or extendability. You may write a thesis or a create a project, but once you graduate neither you nor anyone else has to deal with it again.
Although there may be people that have to approve of your work, you don't really have customers in the traditional sense.
The first question they threw at me is a statistics/probability theory one. It's like how many bits you need to randomly assign a number to each person. My math was rather rusty then and failed that. The other ones are developing some algorithms under a very tight space/time constraint or both. I did better on those but still couldn't get an on-site interview.
jpenguin AT the google email service
At least in my university, if an advisor wishes to fund a graduate student, not only does he have to pay his wages, but his tuition fee. Given that I'm an out-of-state student, that amounts to about $35,000 to $40,000 a year. Considering I officially work only 20 hours a week - he's spending quite a bit of money. You haven't even counted it all: He's also paying any benefits, overhead, computer charges and who knows what else, depending upon the university (not to mention your machines and other equipment). Students are the most expensive thing a faculty member has to pay for, at least in areas like CS, and in all honesty provide the least tangible return on the investment (sort of like raising children). There is also a myth that students do all the "real" work. The truth is the faculty do all the hard work--including most of the real thinking--though it's the sort of thing that one doesn't appreciate until one has graduated and then has to supervise graduate students. Wait until the first time you hear one of your students talk about "his" idea and how he came up with it, and you have decide whether to smack him with a stick because it was your idea or whether to just let it go and invoke the one-day-you'll-have-a-student-just-like-you curse. Peace.
In Google's case, no -- in fact, their IPO weakens shareholder control instead of strengthening it.
Google is going forward with a two-tiered stock-ownership plan. A small coterie of people (mostly Sergei, Larry, and Eric) will hold "class A" stock, and everybody else will hold "class B" stock. Each share of Class A stock has ten votes in shareholder's meeting; each share of class B stock has one. As a result, the Class A shares exercise 90% of the control over each shareholder decision, even though they make up only a very small fraction of the total share burden.
Translated into English, this setup means that the triumvirate controls the company absolutely, without any real shareholder oversight except their own. That's not necessarily bad, but it certainly isn't answerability.
A masters degree is primarily about teaching you how to do independent thinking, which is going to be important once you start moving beyond the basics and into new innovation.
sorry, but that ability is usually something you are born with, or installed in you by your parents.
Thinking WAY out of the box through most of your childhood will get you farther ahead in the "independent thinking" arena than any school or professor could ever teach you.
I know, I see non college grad tech people here come up with innovative solutions far more than the Edu-ma-cated engineers with masters and phd's.
I'll take the clever high school grad over the late 20 something snob demanding a salary so he can buy his new BMW asap any day.
the kid will be more innovative, more productive and much more appreciative of you giving him/her more responsibilities.
When I was hired by my employers, a smallish software company (~20 people), I was the first non PhD employee they hired. (Not including secretaries, out of pure work discrimniation reasons...).
But I was the first with a computer related degree !?
I think they eventully realised PhD didnt equal good employees. Although it does indicate you are not too thick, by ripping of other peoples work to establish your thesis.
My other Sig is very funny.