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?"

Comments

Is a PHD so great?

[harryjrsd]

BS = (obvious)
PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[fgb]

you forgot
MS = more of the same

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[elhaf]

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).

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is: is it really relevant for most jobs? I doubt it.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked at two universities, and I'm still happy with my undergrad.

The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world. In the event you actually research or do something worthwhile your expertise is basically a very tiny narrow slice of the pie in your discipline in which you possess astonishing depth, and you are likely no more knowledgeable about the rest of your field than a masters candidate.

I've worked with a number of Phd candidates in computer science, chemical engineering, history, and life sciences, and then EXPECT (yes, I said expect) one of two things to happen when they graduate:

1. A company offers them quite a bit of money to do the research that *they* love
2. *poof* Tenure track faculty position

in reality now, its usually

1. Teach as an adjunct
2. Try to convince private industry that you're okay taking that 60k a year position as a chemical engineer.. I'm not overqualified, HONEST!

I think the most perverse observation I've made is that it seems like MBA's and doctoral business students have no trouble getting work around here. How depressing.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[jabberjaw]

Start here.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[It'sYerMam]

A PhD is not necessarily so you learn about the subject. My dad did a PhD in Chemistry, and wrote a thesis on "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate" (Making cement, to you and me.)
He now works as a computer programmer.
This may seem a little weird, but if you think about it, a PhD [hopefully] shows that you're willing to apply yourself to something and do hard work. People with PhDs should be the most intelligent of the bunch, as they managed to get the thing.

So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less. It shows that he has skills beyond merely chemistry.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Anonymous Coward]

A PhD isn't about learning facts. It's about learning HOW to do research. It doesn't matter that one's topic is the The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate". The important thing is that when told to find out something new about "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate", you can do so. The same person can also be told to find out something new about search engine algorithms, and hopefully do a good job of it.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[nodwick]

The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world.

That's such a sweeping generalization that it's awfully easy to take a few potshots at it. Since this is Slashdot, I assume that computers and the internet play a big role in your life. Well, the packet switching technology and ARPAnet that made it all possible owes a lot to a bunch of PhDs at UCLA led by Leonard Kleinrock. Like being able to chat with your friends on your cell phone? Ever heard of Andy Viterbi, who went off to found Qualcomm by hiring many of the top researchers (yes, lots of them were PhDs) and developing the CDMA technology now used in North America? And of course, there's Claude Shannon, the so-called "father of modern communications". Just a few of the more "practical" PhD guys you may have heard of.

In the event you actually research or do something worthwhile your expertise is basically a very tiny narrow slice of the pie in your discipline in which you possess astonishing depth, and you are likely no more knowledgeable about the rest of your field than a masters candidate.

Again, I'd have to disagree here. A bachelors is great for giving you a good grounding in the background material you'll need in your field. 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. At this point, you'll have started developing the skill set, but won't have the experience. A PhD is where you really get to know your field well (much better than a masters student, by the time you're done), and understand what's been done and what's left to do. It's also about learning to develop relationships with other top people in the field, both in industry and academia, and learning about more than just the technical aspects of your area.

I've worked with a number of Phd candidates in computer science, chemical engineering, history, and life sciences, and then EXPECT (yes, I said expect) one of two things to happen when they graduate:

1. A company offers them quite a bit of money to do the research that *they* love
2. *poof* Tenure track faculty position

What's wrong with aiming high? I'd hate to think anyone would start any endeavor expecting not to do well.

in reality now, its usually

1. Teach as an adjunct
2. Try to convince private industry that you're okay taking that 60k a year position as a chemical engineer.. I'm not overqualified, HONEST!

You're generalizing again. Just like in every other line of work, whether you get a "good" job or not when you enter the real world depends largely on the individual. I've certainly known people who ended up in exactly the situations you describe. On the other hand, there are also many others who are doing very well. Our lab's also got a graduate this year who's starting tenure-track at USC, and another who's tenure-track at Stanford. One of my officemates just turned down a 100K EE job (a 2-body problem), and another had several offers in the 90-100k range as well.

If you're good at what you do, there'll be good jobs for you no matter what path in life you choose. If you're a lazy slackabout, then you're screwed no matter what. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer about whether a PhD is a good choice -- it's about whether it's a good choice for YOU. This is the real reason why people tell you to do something you love -- chances are, you'll be enthusiastic about it and do it well, and success will follow naturally.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[elhaf]

Heck no. I wouldn't recommend getting one unless you want to teach at university. Period.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[cperciva]

So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less.

Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Austerity Empowers]

I have a MS in EE. I was offered a scholarship to do a PhD. However during my MS thesis work I worked closely with PhD candidates and suffered perhaps a fraction of what they did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I do, but I eat corporate shit for $$$ alone, so I declined. My observations are as follows:

1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)

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.

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.

4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.

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).

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. I can't recommend it enough, if I personally thought there was money in a PhD this is what I'd do myself. If your professor administrates whatever finances your degree, and you are above broccoli intelligence, he WILL try to hold you as long as he can (5-7 years in most schools). If your company is paying the bill they are quite good at getting you in and out ASAP. Avg stay of corporate funded PhD students in my experience was 3 years. Do this!

7) Stupid people can get PhD's far easier than smart people. Simply put, professors want stupid people out of their hair, if they can't wash em out, they graduate em. Just like elementary school.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[cperciva]

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).

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[TrentTheWiseA]

Deeper and deeper still??

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Prendeghast]

If you believe that the sole reason for getting a degree is to gain knowledge, then no. If you believe that a university education is about learning to learn, then yes.

A BS (BSc, BA in the UK) demonstrates (in theory) an ability to follow a prescribed course of study at the pace set by the lecturers but with the self-discipline required to go to the library rather than goof off. You should make a good worker bee who doesn't need to be continuously supervised.

A MS (MSc, MPhys, MChem ...) demonstrates an ability to function independantly within broad parameters to achieve a general objective set by your supervisor. You should be capable of working at a remote site without seeing your direct boss for six months (and you should be capable of picking up the phone when you need help - rather than just sitting and stewing until someone demands to know what you have been doing for months).

A PhD demonstrates that you can determine your own goals, demand information and contributions from a wide range of individuals (even people who are senior to you in an organisation), set your own schedule, work towards a project goal that is years in the future and say with a tough project longer than some people stay at one company in Si Valley (at least during the "new job every six months" boom :) Furthermore, you have demonstrated that you don't need someone to have done it before - you have proved you can create something original!

Of course, these are all grotesque generalisations, and I know several PhDs I wouldn't trust to drink a glass of water without close supervision and paramedics standing by. Equally, there are other paths that demonstrate the same skill set. Furthermore, it can be hard to maintain one's non-conformist, independant spirit when one is producing a PhD thesis that must, by definition, conform to your examiner's views.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Beetle B.]

1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)

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.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[ClosedSource]

Regardless of what degree (if any) you earn, your ability to perform in the real world can't be demonstrated until you've worked in it.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Prendeghast]

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":)

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Kiryat Malachi]

I've found that there are two types of CS:

Type 1 is the type you're thinking of. None of them generally need anything beyond a BS, and their coursework was mainly focused in 'software engineering' disciplines.

Type 2 is the type that develops new algorithms and does research. They need the postgrad work, and their coursework focuses on algorithms, math, and suchlike.

I really think that we need to split these degrees apart; the first should become 'software engineering' or something similar, to help convey the difference between the application-oriented (engineering) and the theory-oriented (science).

(disclaimer: I am a EE who does algorithms; I work with type 2 when I'm doing algorithm design and type 1 when we need implementation, and appreciate both)

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[xsupergr0verx]

Dr. Phil went to Oxford? I wanna be Miss America!

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[HFh]

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.

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Deeper and deeper still??

Not what I wanat to hear from my dentist...

Re:Is a PHD so great?

[Kiryat Malachi]

I understand the BS isn't mathless, but there's a difference between the standard 2 years of calc, and serious number theory, complexity research, and all the other things that go into serious CS. Similarly, any EE is going to get a semester of semiconductor physics or a semester of controls theory, but there's a huge difference between that and the ones who spend 4 or 5 years studying *just* device fabrication or *just* optimal control methods.

Of course the distinctions are less hard and fast than I made them out, but in general, as you move from non-degreed and BS to MS and PhD you'll see more and more 2s and less and less 1s.

Keeping your employees happy...

[SoTuA]

...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive.

Besides, I'm guessing that a lot of those PHD's independent projects have something to do or might eventually be integrated into google (PHDs researching information retrieval, web page ranking algorithms, you name it).

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[bjackson]

I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[quadra23]

...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive. I agree totally. Having an army of PHD's doesn't guarantee anything unless they enjoy what they are doing and able to use all their skills effectively. It also helps if they able to branch off into things that they enjoy as hobbies for a time as well. The more flexibility an employee has in doing their job (within reason) the more successful they will be in completing the job. Just watch all the other companies following Google after this becomes a big success.

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[Tingler]

I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...

Why don't you Google it? :)

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If this isn't karma whoring, I don't know what is. They aren't using the "opensource development model", they are giving their employees what they want. You're pandering to the slashdot crowd and spinning it the right way to get your comment up to +5.

I swear, these "Dude, that cool thing is totally like open source! Isn't open source great?" comments are really getting old, and they're generally just a bunch of bullshit made up to please the mods.

Re:Keeping your employees happy...

[HFh]

By that reasoning, wouldn't Google be better off letting all their PhDs work 100% of their time on hobbies ?

Actually, they sort of are. For most PhDs, especially in things like CS, work is one of their hobbies. One of the reasons to do that PhD thing.

Peace.

Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

Quite a few. Any kind of scientific research, for example.

Re:Umm...

[troc]

Here at the European Patent Office a vast proportion of the patent examiners have PhDs. It's by no means mandatory but it is almost expected.

(Dr.) Troc

Re:Umm...

[Some Woman]

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.

Re:Umm...

[EinarH]

Errrhhh..

From Monster.com;
"Ph.D. a plus" returned: Jobs 1 to 50 of 399

"MCSE a plus" returned: Jobs 1 to 50 of 503

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Umm...

[Chuck Milam]

"3M for example....you're allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time.

At 3M, you used to be allowed to work on whatever you want for 15% of your time. Thanks to the new CEO/regime from GE, the 15% "Innovation Time" is quietly going the way of the dodo. The focus on stock price over all else (such as real, tangible, actual profits) will be the death of many a formerly powerful and truly innovative company, I expect.

Re:Umm...

[Cyn]

Here at the United States of America Patent Office a vast proportion of the patent examiners have GEDs. It's by no means mandatory but it is almost expected.

Working smarter not harder

[afidel]

Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem. If Google tried to use the naive clustering model their expenses would have massivly higher and their scalability and fault tolerance would have been much lower. It seems that Google realizes that the best way to hire and retain the people that will continue to come up with the smarter aproaches is to offer them things that not many other employers are, time to do what intellectually stimulates them for instance.

Re:Working smarter not harder

[GoofyBoy]

>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?

Its fine that Google is doing this now, but they are still small and closely held. The key is if they become a mature and larger company and still retain these factors.

Re:Working smarter not harder

[SandSpider]

>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

Re:Working smarter not harder

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

Re:Working smarter not harder

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

700 PHDs?

[Quixote]

On this page, they claim to have only 50 Pigeon Harvesting Dogs (PHDs). Now they're up to 700? Wow....

Slightly O/T, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Slightly O/T, but...

[grassy_knoll]

This meant that janitors, cafeteria staff, etc. had to have university degrees to mop floors or serve burgers.

So the telecom was hiring english majors?

Badum-ching

or as a guy with a PHD once told me...

[Hooya]

PHD = Permanent Head Damage

Waitaminute

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Google is focusing on the wrong aspect, they have got their foot in the door allready, they need to take a page from other big corporations.

Once you get Ub3r Big and popular you need more JD's

Is the PHD the best thing?

[StacyWebb]

Although having an advanced degree is great, some of the best tech sector innovators come without advanced degrees. -- Also most employees spend more than 20% of their work time on personal goals anyway.

Re:Is the PHD the best thing?

[mgs1000]

Also most employees spend more than 20% of their work time on personal goals anyway.

Like reading Slashdot?

Re:Is the PHD the best thing?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I spend a good 60-65% of my time at work doing my own projects (and, yesy, about 10-15% of that looking at Slashdot and sites like it). But, I work for the government, and there isn't much to do most of the time...

PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Noose For A Neck]

I guess it's a good thing to see someone hiring a lot of PhDs these days. Most people with PhDs in technical fields (especially the sciences) these days have a lot of trouble finding any kind of employment, because once someone sees that "PhD" on your resume and you're not applying for, say, thermodynamic research at GE or machine translation research at Google, they just toss it in a wastebasket.

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?

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[pointbeing]

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.

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 ;-)

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Gudlyf]

You're probably right about employers considering PhD's as overqualified for certain jobs, and you'd think that the PhD's would figure that out and simply not post that they have their PhD...? I understand that certain employers would fire someone for lying about their educational background on their resume, but would they really fire someone because they claimed less education than they really earned?

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[GPLDAN]

I call posts like these, the "slashdot slant". Since very few Computer Science Ph.Ds read or even bother with slashdot, and since it's mostly filled with early-20s sysadmins - the skewed bias is sometimes laughable. They rationalize that being a Ph.D makes you overqualified and makes it hard to find a job, but they have no real evidence to back it up.

Here is a clue: I know plenty of Ph.Ds, ALL of whom are gainfully employed and highly sought after. I also know alot of 20-something sysadmins with no degrees. They're the ones out of work.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Landaras]

Someone told this story on Slashdot regarding over-qualification months (years?) ago...

Essentially, someone had a Ph.D but was looking for some sort of relatively menial but steady work so he could continue to eat.

In order to avoid being thrown out for being over-qualified and therefore requiring more pay / risk of leaving for better work, he changed his resume to the still truthful:

Education
Diploma: Smalltown High School, 1975

Hobbies
B.S in Mechanical Engineering, Foo State University, 1979
M.S. in Physics, University of Bar, 1981
Ph.D. in Physics, University of Bar, 1984

He was hired, and told that his soon-to-be employer "approved of hobbies."

- Neil Wehneman

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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?

I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time? The customers are often frustrating, the pace can be exhausting, the work rarely has long-term personal satisfaction associated with it... If you get some PhD, hire him / her and feel very lucky to have a (presumably) competent employee for the few months that they are with you.

Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.

Get use to the "would you like fries with that" crowd, then. Face it: Help Desk is no ones ideal job. Why would anyone stick around for an extended period of time?

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[pointbeing]

I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time? The customers are often frustrating, the pace can be exhausting, the work rarely has long-term personal satisfaction associated with it... If you get some PhD, hire him / her and feel very lucky to have a (presumably) competent employee for the few months that they are with you.

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.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[keraneuology]

PhDs are supposedly experts: somebody who knows more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything there is to know about nothing.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[__aawavt7683]

If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.

From earlier, however:
Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile

Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.

I don't know how many masters you actually have applying, but many may stay with the company. This number can be increased by promoting them to the second tier faster. As a way out, you could provide a one month trial period; state that as they are masters, you expect more out of them, and tell them some exemplary support that has gotten other, non second tier support personell promoted.

If possible, offer the chance of promotion out of support in general and on to design teams -- these people with _masters degrees_ now have a significant amount of experience selving real world problems, know what the customer expects and what they don't, etc. Really, it's seeming like a good idea to higher higher degrees for tech support -- just make sure they know the opportunities available to them, and increase expected minimums. If they apply for a 30k$/year job, give them a chance at it.

-DrkShadow

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[starm_]

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.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[pointbeing]

Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.

That it is.

I do hear you loud and clear, honest - and agree with quite a bit of what you say. I can't ask applicants to sign an employment contract - if I could get them to stay for a year or so in *some* position in the company I'd hire the guy with the Masters in a second.

[whine]

I don't have the authority to promote from the helpdesk to a design team because ADP support and application development are two different divisions in my company - the best I can do is recommend. In almost seven years I've been sucessful in placing a desktop tech in the development section only once. I don't have enough personal horsepower in this company to pull something like that off ;-)

[/whine]

I agree that it'd provide real-world experience to the guy with the Masters - and it would build his skill set considerably. But again, my primary responsibility is to the company, not the applicant.

Let me ask you a question, DrkShadow - if you had an MS and I started you at the helpdesk at $30k would you sign an agreement to stay with the company for a year?

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[benhocking]

I used to work at a fairly small company (less than 30 employees), and the "help desk" (customer service) reps were quite talented. I don't know what their degrees were in (or if they had degrees), but I'm fairly certain they weren't in computer science. This didn't matter since their job was to know how to properly use the product, not how to fix it. (When that became necessary, they passed the issues over to us, the developers.) Many of these employees seemed happy with their job and didn't seem to be just biding their time until they could find a "real" job. I would not qualify any of them as the "would you like fries with that" crowd.

Having said that, I do agree that if someone with a Ph.D. comes along, it's probably worth the risk of hiring him/her. Who knows what fresh ideas they'll bring with them. It's also possible that this is someone who hates the work of job hunting and will stay with you rather than spend time looking for another job. (I know someone like this, who is a hard worker, but just doesn't want to put forth the effort during his free time to find a job worthy of his education.)

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[lysium]

I am a 20-something sysadmin in work, and I know lots of overgraduated students without prospects (many living in my Columbia-area neighborhood, others through social contacts). Consider this illustrative example:
When Rutgers University advertised a faculity position in the English department, they received over one thousand PhD-carrying applicants. One job, thousands of Ph.Ds....that is easily equivalent to the response I receive for tech job postings on the Internet.

So who has more slant, your version or my own?

===---===

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, we aren't talking about PhD's in English, are we? Sure the humanities PhD's have a hard time getting a good job, but it's a whole different ballgame if you have a PhD in a scientific discipline.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The guys who have been around for 5 years are either psychotic or illiterate. Or both.

If they weren't when they got here, they are now.

Re:PhDs are sort of a double-edged sword

[Technically Inept]

I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time?

As a technical support center manager I can tell you that the answer is "surprisingly many". Never underestimate the power of inertia. Competence as a helpdesk technician and ambition are often unrelated.

I don't like to see good people leave, but I view the job as a stepping stone, since we can't afford to advance technician pay and responsibilities as they gain skill. I expect to keep people maybe six months, while they parlay the experience they get here into something better.

As for the many that don't take that path, well, I'm happy to have their skills for as long as possible, but I just have to smack my forehead at their complacency.

Um..

[k98sven]

How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

How about: Every company which does any kind of research?

Seriously. In areas like biochem, getting a job (or at least, a good one) without a PhD is near-impossible.

Advanced Degrees

[th1ckasabr1ck]

I may be naive seeing as I'm only 20 years old and just getting started in the coding field (at my first job programming, I've been here just over a year), but it definitely seems to me that advanced degress != coding ability/work output.

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.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[1000101]

Most PHD's aren't code warriors. Sure, most techie PHD's can write code, but the jobs they hold aren't usually your average joe coding position.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Anonymous Coward]

you seem to suggest that all google people do all day long is code. yeah, you're correct in naiveness. a lot of mathematics go into the type of stuff they do (the company founders were PhD dropouts, and the algorithm was something they were working on for thier theses).

even their cluster for their massive search index probably took some mathematical experimentation to determine a proper arrangement and setup.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[razmaspaz]

Yeah...but Google doesn't need programmers. They need brains. Sure it is easy to write code and do it well without a degree in Computer Science. But to create an algorithm that effeciently searches millions if not billions of pages and returns the most relavent thing throughout the ENTIRE Internet is a little daunting and takes someone who has had some advanced training.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[hoggoth]

> advanced degress != coding ability/work output

If your measure is number of lines of code per day, then perhaps not.
If your measure is new algorithms and technologies that no-one has ever thought of before then I'd say the advanced degrees are a little more pertinent.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[D-Cypell]

You act like there is no middle ground between... "I write Javascripts to make cursors flash purty colors" and "I invent new programming languages with a soldering iron!".

The fact is that the majority of employment in the software development field falls between these two posts and does not generally require a degree (if some other conditions are met).

Having worked with both graduates and non-graduates (my category), I can say that there is very little distinction. I have worked with graduates that even if you explained something to them 10 times a day for 5 years they still wouldnt get it.

Infact I would even go as far to say that non-grads are generally slightly better, but generally the grads that bring the average down are those that came to CS for the money rather than talent, this is rarer in non-grads in the craft.

The bottom line seems to be that regardless of education, the most important attributes that make a good coder are a tendancy towards logic and analysis. This is a talent, not a university award.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Simon Lyngshede]

In respect to coding, using people with a ph.d for coding is just stupid. Anyone could learn how to code, not equaly well sure, fare for anyone can think up the stuff that you would expect from a person with a ph.d.

When it come to work output, how would you messure that? Linies of code doesn't make sense, because the ph.d person have more important things to do. You would use ph.ds to develop new technologies and while the coding monkeys start implementing it the ph.ds move on to the next big thing.

I wonder why so many slashdotters are so negative towards people with a ph.d. Is it because you couldn't get a degree yourself? Honestly these people are generally very smart and they work hard. Okay, so they don't produce a product in the same way programmers does, but the people with the degrees are the ones who design and invent the stuff needed for the programmers to even have a job. Many seems to think that a university degree, master or ph.d is just some fancy education in programming, it's not.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[YouHaveSnail]

I may be naive seeing as I'm only 20 years old and just getting started in the coding field (at my first job programming, I've been here just over a year), but it definitely seems to me that advanced degress != coding ability/work output.

Right, that's a pretty common mistake, and I see a lot of newbies make it. In fact, the actual relation is thus:

advanced degrees = work output * coding ability

Re:Advanced Degrees

[Glonoinha]

You are probably correct, from your point of view. A self taught coder, even a guy with a BS/CS or BA/MIS degree in his first year in a code writing position is likely to write a good tight sort routine or a nice tight SQL statement that is 12.7% faster than the bubble sort or select statement an older guy / guy with a few years of experience / guy with better 'credentials' might use - same way some AMD/ATI fanboy is going to put together a computer that uses liquid cooling to keep his overclocked record setting system running circles (18.9% faster!) around the off the shelf Dell system an older guy might be using.

What you are describing right now is a very narrow scope of vision. It is perfectly ok, and even expected from a one year guy - don't get me wrong as I'm not bagging on you. But you are seeing instant gratification, lines of code per hour, faster embedded loops and search routines, and frames per second. What you are not seeing, if I had to guess, is long term maintainability, group cohesion, the ability to integrate different routines together or reuse the existing development effort going forward, the overall architecture of the bigger system, scalability, usability in a business environment, reduced downtime when problems do occur.

In the same way that the overclocking crew can make a single uberMachine run 12.6% faster than a machine off the shelf, a tightly focused coder can write small blocks of code that are quite a bit faster than something written by an old school coder. From a business perspective, however, neither is particularly attractive when considering a large scale rollout of a massive business initiative. You simply can't have users running computers that sound like jet engines to keep their overclocked CPUs cool, and you can't have coders winging it to shave CPU cycles at the expense of long term stability, usability, and interoperability. Sure, you can read your in-line assembly and make it work - but can the guy over in maintenance keep it working without screwing it up or needing to rewrite it from scratch because he doesn't understand what it does?

When (if) you stop to think through all of these things you will take longer to write your individual lines of code than the next generation of hot coders. For every five days on a project, a full day needs to be dedicated to understanding what the customer (internal or external) needs and envisioning how you will design it. A full day needs to be spent doing documentation (documenting the code, user dox, developer design and intent, interaction conventions, installation, maintenance routines, etc.) and delivering the product. A day designing the system architecure, and two days actually doing the work come between the envision and delivery. In theory you could sit down and do the actual 'work' in two days, but someone has to be responsible for the other stuff - not doing the other stuff is why projects fail.

A day will come that you decide that hand building your own machine and getting an extra 7 fps isn't worth the hassle and you will just order a Dell. There will also come a day that you spend time documenting how you understand the customer's expectations and go over that document with the customer before you start designing how the system will work, and you will do that design before you start to write the code. And there will come a day that you write an official separate document describing the code you just wrote. Look forward to that day, consider it your next Graduation Day, and celebrate that day. Because the day after that is the day the youngsters start hassling you because they code faster than you do /grin.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[aricusmaximus]

It's not just the talent, but the mindset. Some people like the solve the current problem at hand as efficiently as possible. Others gravitate towards interesting problems (possibly without solutions) and are willing to take the time to really examine them to find novel solutions.

I have one friend who has been coding professionally since his teen years and is almost completely self-taught. I have another friend who recieved his degree in engineering, and then his Ph.D in computer science. Which one would I hire to create a reliable, user-friendly, efficient software package on time? The first one, no question about it. Which one do I expect to create new and novel solutions in his area of expertise? The second one, without a doubt.

What's interesting here is that Google is betting that they can hire people to do both. It will be interesting to see in the long run if this pays off for them.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[razmaspaz]

You are missing my point. Writing code is SOOO simple. Designing a good system is VERY difficult. The thing is that if you are the guy who takes your instructions from the guy who designed the complicated system all you have to know how to do is read his instructions and rewrite them in computer language. Now working in an environment where you are doing the design because "that guy" isn't there is a whole different story. Of course you should rethink why you are writing all this code if you could just send your spec to india for 15k/yr and free up your brain to do some creative work.

Re:Advanced Degrees

[madsenj37]

You are correct in saying saying advanced degrees =! coding ability (or guarantee any actual job skills that someone without a degree might not have). But having a degree will not hurt in most cases. A degree shows that you can put time into and finish tasks. It shows you can be in it for the long hual. Second of all, PhDs at Google may be researching the feasability and profit of what you are coding. They figure out what needs to be done, while coders figure out to make it happen.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[kwoff]

That link required me to register. I noticed that if I typed the original URL into the browser, I was also required to register, but when I did a search on Google http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=as cii&q=google&btnG=Search+News the story for the NY Times was a regular link. So apparently they're using the HTTP-Referer now instead of partner=GOOGLE.

PH.d.........BAH HUMBUG

[jamie812]

If PH.d's were so great, then the world's best corporation would be the U.S. Government. The fact is, original ideas are not born out of research, but inspiration.

Re:PH.d.........BAH HUMBUG

[BarryNorton]

i'M wiTh yOu man... whaT i need PH.d 4?

Why should research training and experience - or even basic education - be necessary to develop on an inspired idea?

Re:PH.d.........BAH HUMBUG

[mozumder]

Well, considering that that U.S. Government is the single most powerful organization in the world, maybe the PhD's did help...

These days in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a Ph.D. is more a liability than anything else.

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.

Ph. D = cool job

[192939495969798999]

If you have a Ph. D and you're working at Google, you've got a great job. Ph. D jobs are worth the work for the degree, believe me. However, don't think you'll just be able to glide into getting that degree like you can with a BS... because professors will not just let you out! A Ph.D is designed to figure out which people actually can be creative and think of new stuff, and to keep out the "Ivan make basket" (you need communications skills) or "i learned it in 24 hours, and I think I'm a god now" (how many patents do you have? I thought so) folks.

Re:Ph. D = cool job

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding! Most PhD types are there because they don't want to deal with the real world after college and M&S, and figure that collecting degrees is the best way to avoid that. PhDs are just like everyone else - 50% are morons, 40% are good and 8% are those you'd like to work with, and 2% are truely impressive.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[Moraelin]

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.)

that's odd...

[maxbang]

I always thought Microsoft had more phd than Google. Wait, is it spelled fud or phd? See? Their phd has already phdded my fragile mind! Ah, phuk 'em.

As many PhDs as Microsoft?

[Lurker McLurker]

The article doesn't actually say Google has as many PhD's as Microsoft, only that Google has recruited as many PhDs from Washington University as Microsoft has.

Project orientation

[The Ape With No Name]

If you can finish original research and a dissertation, then most likely you can finish any project handed to you if you have acheived a PhD. Most likely! All of the "high-end degrees are unnecessary" whiners never had to teach, research, write, suffer an advisor, AND find time to sleep all for 12000USD a year and a tuition waver. My advisor makes every boss I have ever had look like Caspar Fucking Milquetoast. Science PhDs tend to be particularly motivated, but don't discount us social science types, just because we want our summers off and tenure someday. ;-)

Google's PhD army extends much further...

[WallaceSz]

With the release of their APIs in 2002, Google opened the gates to aspiring PhD's outside the company.

These efforts have yielded some well known products, such as Google Alert and Google Dance Tool. Would be interesting to see how these API offerings will react to Google's IPO.

PhD = Management

[superid]

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 outsource research too!

[manmanic]

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.

Re:Google outsource research too!

[Derek Mason]

Seriously, I reckon that one of Google's main motivating factors behind the APIs is to have top development talent find them, and save them having to scour the earth. But they do also seem to be looking to make money from the APIs - see this article about Google Alert for an example.

How many PHBs

[lecithin]

How many PHBs have PHDs?

Job choices

[BCW2]

Someone with a Doctorate degree looks at a University, where labs and resources are for research, but everything will be owned by the school.

Any major company that does research, where ownership is the companies.

Google, where it appears you can profit from your own side jobs. The regular job is doing cool research too!

Good choices, for different goals.

It's not the amount of PhDs but the amount of PHBs

[Lurker McLurker]

I think one of the reasons behind Google's success isn't just the sheer number of PhDs they have. Its the PhD's having the power, rather than the PHBs (pointy-haired bosses). It's one thing to be working with intelligent, science-oriented people. It's better to be working for intelligent, science-oriented people.

Anyone can hire PhDs. Even the government. But there may be a corporate culture that doesn't take risks, that cares too much about short-term profit, that is affected by political considerations. In Google, the nerds seem to run the show. They have the business people, and great branding. But the technical side of things is the priority.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[Animaether]

At the same time, there's the group of people who can indeed code as well as, or even better than, you but never followed a formal education on it. Thefore they lack the precious PhD title.

Just as a PhD is no guarantee that the person will grok what you're hiring them for - even if it's supposed to be right down their lane of education - the lack of a PhD doesn't guarantee that the person will not grok what you're hiring them for.

Of couse the odds are in favor of those with PhDs, not contesting that :)

Re:Amen

[GoofyBoy]

You might want to get an extra PhD in "Punctuation and Capitalization in Modern Society".

Here's how to solve that problem.

[MongooseCN]

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.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[banzai51]

Seems Google is proving that PhDs are worth the money. A stark contrast to the current conventional "wisdom"

Slashdot reader are naive (suprise!)

[boris_qd]

What is innovation? - you can be coding monkey without a PHD - sure. If you like it then don't get a PHD. But where has the real innovation come from?

The transistor? Nuclear weapons? Drugs that save your ass? What other technology came out of Bell Labs?

The real innovation in our society is done for the most part by people with PHD's. Amazon.com, eBay - these are small innovations compared to the above. The groundwork was laid by the PHD's creating the underlying technology.

Boris

How many companies put PhD is a plus

[arivanov]

A lot. Very few make use of it though...

1% inspiration, 99% perspiration

[doodlelogic]

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!

Army? Well not really...

[jonasmit]

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.

Ph.D. a DISadvantage

[ifwm]

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.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[mattyrobinson69]

ARGH! I made a website for my mums boss last year. He was such an arsehole. He was convinced that computers were easy to use, programming is easy and all that crap. What topped it off, is despite computers being so easy, the only way he knew of opening outlook was to open internet explorer and click on the envelope at the top. i hate people.

How to lie with statistics

[MyNameIsFred]

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.

Don't forget

[plopez]

90% or more of start ups and product launches fail, mostly in the first year. That track record is not a
a good argument for using a 'traditional' business model. There is no doubt Google has beaten the odds, and they have done some things differently. I.e. the radical notion of becoming profitable *before* the IPO.

Google is a good case study. Everything they do should be reviewed for lessons in success.

Re:PHD =worthless

[Kiryat Malachi]

Of course, many of those foreign students got their degrees at US universities.

The primary education system in the US is broken, but the secondary (university) education system in the US is still pretty sharp.

Some other notes: that chart rates the amount of schooling students receive, not the level of education they receive. Of course, its a lot easier to rate 'years attended' than 'worthwhile things learned'. Also, Germany is ranked 12, the US 14, and Japan 25. I don't hear anyone making accusations about the Japanese school systems.

I interviewed at Google

[MarkWatson]

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

Re:I interviewed at Google

[MarkWatson]

One more thing: in just one very long day of interviews, I had my attitude adjusted re: software development:

I am a hacker (at heart), and I always look to rapidly coding something that works and is solid.

At Google, it seemed to me that their main focus is on algorithmic development. In the few months since I was at the Google campus, I have found myself "slowing down" and spending much more time thinking through issues of scalability and efficiency (and not just use a "good enough" algorithm, or pull my copy of Cormen/Lieserson/Rivest Algorithms book from my book shelf and not do much original thinking).

Anyway, I thought that it was cool that an investment of one day actually changed some of my own attitudes about software development (and I am an older guy, coding since the 1960s :-).

-Mark

Doing complex work without degree

[Scott Richter]

Although having an advanced degree is great, some of the best tech sector innovators come without advanced degrees.

Not for what Google does. This is stuff that generally isn't the material of undergraduate courses, even advanced level. The stuff google is doing is so complex that you need a very strong background to even get to the point that you can use your creativity to solve problems.

There may be a very few people out there who have the background to do what google requires and don't have Ph.D.'s. For their innovation in algorithm design, such people will be rare. At that level, the coding is the easy part.

"Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men"

[Dr. Smeegee]

This American Magazine article was mentioned in the NYT piece. I can't find it anywhere! Does anyone have a copy or an excerpt?

phds

[cinnamon colbert]

A phd doesn't imply anything. If it comes with good work, and good recs and from a top univ, then you might be considered smart and productive; if you haven't done anything with your 5/6 years, and your recs are bad, then you are an overpaid donkey. and every permutation in between.
just as technology follows a path from small company/innovative to commoditization, so does ed requirements in an industry; its not that anyone needs a phd, but many cutting edge technologies come out of universitys, and those people have phds.
Google is fortunate - they have a monopoly posistion (at least de facto for now) and that allows them to hire top talent; as soon as the cash flow drys up, the phds go; look at the formerly world class att res labs.

There are a small number of companys that consistently do good science, such as ibm and corning and 3m; i suspect they hire phds because innovation is a character trait of people who are not interested in money, and those people often wind up getting phds, because it is a fun way to get to play with toys and do cool stuff.

Ph.D == Piled Higher & Deeper

[LorenzoV]

Alas, my experience with Ph.Ds in the workforce has been less than satisfactory. I can recall one gorilla with a Ph.D at a former employer who could not seem to get anything done. Poor slob; his first manager, the poster child for the definition for PHB herself, could not seem to find a way to dismiss him. Instead, she transferred him, with no warnings or cautions to the receiving organization. He ended up working on a project I was on. It was dismal! ... It took close to a year for the company to "get it" and release him.

Yet, my last boss at my last job before I retired had a Ph.D. A most brilliant fellow. Able, capable, competent, easy to work with. I suppose that in retrospect, I stayed even longer than I might otherwise have because he, and his boss too, were so easy to work with.

Re:Ph.D == Piled Higher & Deeper

[codefool]

Agreed. I have never, never ever, met a Ph.D that was worth a toss. In fact, most of the Ph.D's I worked with had no background in computer science whatsoever. By and large their Ph.D's were handed to them by their 'sponsors' from their universities, basically as a quid pro quo for doing research for the sponsor.

For me, Ph.D adds no points to a CV, and in most cases, gets expedited to file 13.

Re:Link and Thoughts

[LWATCDR]

There is a BIG difference between coding and what you would want a PHD in CS for. Shure there are lots of people that can code most applications. It does not take a PHD two write a CMS, accounting system, point of sale, or even a spreadsheet. We just hired a programmer with a BS in CS. He did not know what a hash was! I bet he could not code a quick sort to save his life much less decide which sort to use for a given task. Now if you want to set up a server farm that can handle billions of searchs a day then you might want to invest in a PHD or two. A person that has a PHD might not be any better than a really talented person with out one but you can bet that a person with a PHD is not dumb, or lazy, and knows how to learn.

Re:Rich Parents?

[zensmile]

What has this got to do with the topic? I am about sick of /. these days. More political crap being slung than on Slate.

Don't have to be rich

[willy_me]

at least in Canada. Typically, PhD students teach while they're working on their PhD. They don't have to, but they can typically pay their way through school. Other then that there is always student loans. My sister has ~100g of debt from ~8 years of student loans, but with her MD it won't take her long to pay it off.

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.)

Re:Link and Thoughts

[Moraelin]

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.

I've known many

[HerbanLegend]

I worked for several years as an intern at a giant Pharmaceutical company, in research and development, where EVERY employee had a PhD (except me!). To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with their range of knowledge or their overall competence.

I think another poster hit the nail on the head when he said that PhDs are overqualified in a teeny, tiny area of study that only they actually care about. However, the "Doctor" title brings out the Ego in many of them, disabling their critical thinking skills (i.e. - "This project is a total waste of time and will never come to anything"). In essence, they're the reason many failed projects go horribly overbudget before they finally die.

Re:I've known many

[0x0d0a]

"PhD" obviously isn't a qualifier for "knows what they're talking about". It doesn't even mean "pretty good". However:

a) It means that someone is more likely to be willing to do something for the knowledge rather than the direct money. This is, IMHO, a good correlation to knowing what they're talking about.

b) It means that they probably have at least some reasonable ability to deal with things abstractly.

c) It means that they have a certain degree of stick-to-itiveness.

d) If you're lucky enough to get someone who did their thesis on the area that you're working on, they probably know the area very well.

Honestly, perhaps because I've been lucky enough to work mostly with PhDs in *academia*, I've found that a PhD doesn't seem to make people arrogant. I personally suspect that if anything, it's a bit humbling -- you realize how much there is to learn.

Re:One worked for me, and I've worked with others.

[gnuLNX]

Don't worry we woudn't hire you either....to damn bitchy

RTFM? Not really.

[Safety Cap]

The primary goal of the helpdesk is to get the customer to actually RTFM.

For the "internet" helpdesk, the point is to keep your call times up. When I worked help desk for a (now defunct) company, we were graded on call volume, average call duration, and how well we stuck to the script. Solving the customer's problem was the lowest priority. Our "top" performer would always do the 'try x and then call us back if it doesn't work, okay bye' trick, and it worked.

Re:recent interview with google

[Bellyflop]

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.

Ph.d. thoughts...

[algedeon]

I am about to finish my Phd in CS and during these long years, I came to realise that part of the Phd process is (maybe) to figure out what is this all about... be able to answer questions of the form "Does it help me to find a job?", "Should it be useful?" etc.

My take on this is as follows... It's not about finding a job... it's not about adding another bullet in a CV to impress someone... it doesn't have to be useful or practical.. it doesn't have to cure cancer (although some people do this for a phd)...

I think a phd is a long thought exercise. You prove to yourself (and to a bunch of other people) that in a finite amount of time, you can understand an area, the issues involved, and you can come up with something innovate, something new... a new problem or an new solution to an old problem...

how to get a job after all that, is an orthogonal issue... maybe deserving another phd... :-)

Re:Link and Thoughts

[mentatchris]

The link doesn't work. Must be using the referer (sic) tag.
This works.
Google News
Second link down.

Well sure they have more PHDs

[ellem]

But home manny MCSEs do they have?

Well, I have some perspective on this

[Sycraft-fu]

I do computer support for an engineering department on campus. Means I deal with supporting PhDs (and masters students and undergrads). For many of the PhDs, this isn't an unfair generalization. They are so focused on their one little area of expertise, that they seem to loose all basic knowledge. This is an engineering department here, so people should have a little technical skill. None the less I've solved printer problems that stumped a room full of masters and PhD students by turning the printer on (really, twice). They ought to have the basic electrical knowledge and problem solving skills to figure this out. The DID at one time to pass the undergrad courses.

Now that's not to say there aren't some really smart PhDs out there. We have them here too and they are fun to work with. But there are plenty that aren't.

Working here has really shown me that having a PhD doesn't mean your smart, just means that you could play the game long enough and well enough.

PhD: knows what is a significant problem

[peter303]

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.

All a matter of degree

[Sycraft-fu]

Sure you might have nearly 100% turnover, but on what time scale? Someone who is a PhD is probably gone first chance they get, maybe even a month or two if they can find a better job that quick. Somone entering in to the tech industry you can probably get a few years out of. Hiring someone for a couple of months is just not worth it. The search procedure is time consuming (and therefore expensive) and it DOES take time to train someone to work efficently, even if they are highly (or over) qualified. If they skip after a couple months, after you finally have them trained, it's a looser for you.

Also lots of education does not equal highly competent, espically in customer service type jobs (which helpdesk is). Most of the professors here would be TOTALLY unsuited for the help desk and doa much worse job than our students that ear $8/hour. Even the professors best suited would only be on par with a deceant student. Yes they could be trained, but that takes time and if they skip as soon as that's done, it's a loss. Training takes staff time (and therefore money) in additon to meaning less efficecy from the person being trained.

The question is, who

[melted]

who owns the fruits of their research. Most employment contracts in high-tech companies are pretty anal about that. No matter when and how you develop the code, even if your own spare time and using solely your own hardware and software, the company 0wnz0rz the code. And there are also provisions about conflict of interest...

It would be interesting to know how google manages all this mess.

Which is clearly the difference

[Ieshan]

Which is clearly the difference between the US and Europe, as the US currently gives out Patents for the most ridiculous stuff ever.

Just the other day, Microsoft got "A composite protocol system for reintegration of nebulon tubes while simultaneously dispersing intrusive or invasive window-images during a depression of the first actualization lever on a hand-held pointing device" for SP2's popup blocker. Or that's what I'm told.

How long after IPO does this stuff last?

[multimed]

Call me cynical but this seems like another one of the things that differentiates Google & contributes to their success--yet I seriously question whether most of it won't go away once they're a publicly owned & traded company. At any given time, a large portion of stockholders are short-term, looking for a quick profits. I mean what percentage of Google shareholders will look at this and think, "20% of their salary expense is going to things not directly contributing to the bottom line, we gotta get rid of that waste." Just like they'll say, "If Google just puts a few ads on their front page, revenues will double!" Now I'm not saying capitalism in the US isn't the best real world solution. But what makes it work--herd mentality--also makes it less effective in certain things. It just seems like a number of great companies, in particular technology oriented ones, lose their competitive advantage, if not their soul when they effectively turn over the reigns to a herd of short-term thinking owners.

There are two reasons to IPO--to generate capital to expand or to cash out. Certainly I can't image Google needs the former, and while I don't begrudge anyone the right to cash out on their creation, I hope they realize that by definition, they're giving up ownership. Maybe they're strong enough leaders, and will start off with enough shares to be ok--I certainly hope so becaue the list of technology visionaries who were ousted from their own company is already too long.

I guess I am cynical today.

Re:How long after IPO does this stuff last?

[Tazzy531]

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."

Ph.D. Passion

[Enkerli]

Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic.
As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes /. 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.
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.

meanwhile...

[flacco]

...i'm looking for a job that says "college drop-out a plus" that doesn't involve cleaning solvents.

Re:PhD means a single-minded goal...

[Beetle B.]

A PhD in Computer Science may be a wing of CS (Encryption, Chip Design, etc) in which she is a king. Take them out of the area and put them... let's say work on configuring W2K for a proxy Server and they will fail miserably.

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).

Re:Grunt work

[pointbeing]

Are your hiring practices so pragmatic when it comes to degree-less support technicans, I wonder?

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.

I had a phone interview with Google

[camelcai]

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.

Re:PhD means a single-minded goal...

[Kiryat Malachi]

I don't know what PhDs you or Soros know, but most of the ones I've been lucky enough to work with have theirs exactly because they have presence of mind, adaptability, and the experience of taking an idea and forging something new about it.

Also, configuring a W2k proxy server is roughly equivalent to plumbing, and has nothing to do with CS.

Here come the ignorant assholes...

[BasharTeg]

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.

Remember, not everyone works in CS

[Necromancyr]

In biotech/scientific research, a Ph.D. is a MUST if you want to run a lab or a major project. No company is going to hand a large project over to a BS or a MS. It's not going to happen unless it's some kind of insane circumstances (that I have yet to encounter...though I am getting my Ph.D.).

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).

Eesh

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had 2 experiences with PHDs...

1. He was hired in a Director position he did not merit. ("oooh! Ahhh! a PHD! He so smart. He make us money!"). Pissed everybody off. Had a 24/7 "I'm the shit" smirk on his face, but little people skills. Had some worthy goals but really, didn't understand the industry he was hired into.

2. Needed a lead developer to port over a PC game and lead 3 other programmers under him. Hired a PHD. He demanded and got a high salary. He looked great on paper. He aced the company's tests. He talked the talk. Unfortunately, after 2-3 months he had jack all to show for. His social skills were nil. He didn't understand the technology involved. He wasted our time. He got fired.

A PHD means jack all if you're not productive.

I think part of the problem is people assume a PHD = genius. It doesn't.

Re:Eesh

[qtp]

I think part of the problem is people assume a PHD = genius. It doesn't.

An even greater problem is the belief that "genius" = "willing to do whatever crap that you ask for". It doesn't.

1. One does not hire a researcher (ie: PhD) to direct a bunch of programmers working on production code, you get an Engineer for that. You don't hire him to have "people skills", you hire a sales dick or management stooge for that. You hire a PhD because you have a problem that need be solved that his expertise is appropriate for, or you hire him to address old problems in a new manner.

2. Why the hell would you seek a PhD to port a game, other than the rediculous ego boost that business types get from saying they've got a PhD on staff. If you need code monkeys, you hire code monkeys. If you need project managers, you hire project managers.

If you hire the PhD to impress the venture capital, then pay him what he asks and trot him out at parties to impress the investors and let him work on his own shit the rest of the time. If you're hiring him to inflate your own ego ("look at me, I've got two PhDs on my payroll!"), forget it. You're bound to be disappointed, they'll not make you any money, and you'll look like the dumbass, not them.

My experience with PhDs at a startup...

[tyrantnine]

I worked as one of two junior programmers at a startup (now dead), which at its height had approximately 10 or 11 people on the software side of things), and 5-6 of those were PhDs (and 6 or so hardware guys, I think half also had PhDs). Most all of these guys had very impressive resumes/CVs, and were being paid enormous salaries... though some were light on working in industry

Anyway, we were a small startup and I had heavy interaction with basically all members of both the software/hardware teams working on basically parallel processing. To make a long story short, having a PhD didn't lead to a correlation between being good at implementation OR design, or really anything. Out of 5-6, only one was truly good at actually programming/implementing, but I figured their strength was in their ability to help out designing some of the horrendously big and complicated stuff, and the algorithms underlying. However after over 2 years of work at this company, many code reviews, design meetings, etc, it was pretty clear having a PhD in EE/Comp Sci didn't particularly mean you had a handle on algorithms or design, either. I still vividly remember a presentation over a design prototype one of the PhDs had developed on his own (approximately 1-2 months of solo work) that was absolutely ripped to shreds at the most fundamental levels during a code review meeting. It was actually embarrasing to be in the room.

Anyway, my experience there pretty much killed whatever mystique or respect I previously had behind having a PhD. To me it seems to mean you 1) Did a research project, which may or may not have been relevant to anything at one point 2) Had 5+ years to do it 3) May or may not have learned a lot about the subject. I don't mean to belittle it, but I think in general theres a *lot* more fluff surrounding a PhD than meat.

The "ignorant assholes" are on both ends.

[lidocaineus]

You may not have meant it, but you really come off as a high-and-mighty-knower-of-all. Here is a simple fact you might want to consider:

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?

• Don't climb on your high horse
• There's always someone smarter and more qualified
• Real genius and value often comes from the dark corners of life, not the fluorescent hallways of academia.

How To Avoid NY Times Registration

[andyrut]

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.

nothing beats passion

[mevo]

Nothing beats passion to solve a real problem and that is what google is trying to advertise with their bs phd number. Congrats for them, big deal, Broadcom did this for chips a few years ago, where are they now? People with phds are wimps that need a very large security blanket. That being said, it would be very interesting to see what would come from a phd that had to build a business from scratch (no handholding vc funding) and see what happens in five years. Google thinks that through hiring all these phds + 20% free time will provide an ample amount of passion to make it work. All it needs is one very passionate person running the show, unless of course they plan on a cut and run in a couple years when the competition catches up. Look at Apple, Sun, and Oracle, all companies with a CEO that were founded by and continue to produce cutting edge solutions, without anything close to a phd education.

First non Phd employee

[flurdy]

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.