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?"
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.
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 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.
>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.
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
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.)
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.
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/