Slashdot Mirror
PhD's in the Industry?
Taylor Flagg asks: "I'm about to finish up with my bachelor's in Computer Science, and am looking into graduate school options. My advisor is persuading me to go right into the PhD program but I know I don't want to be stuck lecturing for the rest of my life. Are companies in the industry hiring PhDs, and if so, what are their roles and is anything different expected of them (aside from making more cash)?"
[Old]
BS - Bull Shit
MS - More Still
PhD - Piled higher, and deeper!
[/Old]
For a career in industry, either start working now, or get a PhD in another area.
It worked for me... (PhD in Mathematics, professional programmer for 8 years now).
http://www.google.com/jobs
I've been searching for a job since I got laid off in June. I've seen quite a large number of PHD jobs go by, mostly from big companies like IBM and Intel. What's expected of them varies from job to job, but they want them for the really important jobs. And yes, they get paid what they're worth.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
I saw a thread of this name and most people recommended the CCIE. Now I dont know if you are talking about IT or not, but I also dont know if you love research.
I love research. I could play with hilbert spaces and QED all day, even if that requires putting up with the odd lecture. But I know for more $$$ I'd aim for the CCIE if heading for IT, or EE if heading out in Physics.
I can think of many places where a CS PhD will be useful but those markets are small. Think of the data scientists at CERN, raking in the data using rooms and rooms of server farms, obtaining data at terabytes per second, and processing it in real time. For that stuff, you need CCIEs, CS PhDs and Math PhDs. Also at places like Google I'd imaging.
Not at your run of the mill IT house, or corp that needs an IT dept though.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
(God help me, management hat on)
First off, you will probably expect higher compensation than someone fresh out of school. When I look at what you will be asking for starting salary, you will be competing with some fairly seasoned veterans out there. I'll very quickly go on to your real world experience - and compare that to someone who has been doing this for many years. You don't stand much of a chance.
Secondly, I'll have a strong suspicion that you will probably move on to another gig once you do get that real world experience under your belt. It costs a fair bit to ramp up a new employee. Again, I suspect the extra years of groveling on a pittance of a salary will leave you expecting a big payout.
Lastly, I'll wonder if you can really do the work. Even if your graduate work truly was world-class stuff, it will be hard to get past the 'it was only in school / hobby' status.
There are exceptions out there... some shops are very focused on the sciences, and a PhD would be considered the norm. These places tend to be the exception rather than the rule. I have worked in shops where they would specifically target physics post grads because they would be *happy* to work for half of what others expect. Not saying it is right...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
It's by a guy who got his doctorate and he discusses reasons to do so or not to do so. Hope it helps!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm not a vegan because I love animals, I'm a vegan because I hate plants!
A good rule of thumb is that you should only do a PhD if you think you'll enjoy the PhD process for its own sake: working for several years on a really hard problem that nobody else has ever been able to solve. A PhD typically takes 4 to 9 years. (4-5 years is typical in the humanities, where grad students are a financial liability to their departments. 5-7 is more typical for people in the sciences whose research goes well, and 7-9 for people in the sciences who find out that their first project simply didn't work.) You can't possibly justify 4-9 years of extremely hard work on the basis of the (non-academic) job it'll get you, or the increased earning potential. If all you wanted was a fancy job with a high salary, you'd be much better off putting the 4-9 years of extremely intense effort into a job.
Find free books.
so...
what "shops" are these (so that I can avoid 'em)?
If you're eventual plan is to go into industry, just do that now. After a few years, re-evaluate whether or not you want to go back to academia and for what purpose.
My experience with academics is that they are generally very disconnected from reality. During my undergrad (97-01), most every major software development project was an interpretter or a compiler for some simple language. During the peak of the internet boom, we didn't even have a class on web development. I'm not sure if we have one geared towards computer science students yet though a few of the more sane professors have tried to feed web development into existing curriculum.
To this day, there has been very little push in the department to address core development issues such as interface design. We have no usability/design/human factors courses offered through the computer science department or (last I checked) whitelisted as electives in our programs.
The party line within the program has always been that they teach fundamentals of computer science, that they give students a strong foundation, that they teach them how to think. People say, the language that people use is not important, it's the underlying concepts.
The end result is that we crank out hundreds of graduates who only have experience working with C++ (and a week or two of lisp plus a quarter with a few assembler labs) and we call them software developers. Most of them have probably never used a debugger anywhere in their academic work.
But I'm ranting now. My point was that, at least in my experience, there are a lot of inequities in the world of academia. If your eventual goal is industry, you will be better served by immersing yourself in the culture of industry before starting another round in the insular world of academics. In addition, practicing your art in the real world will give you a better idea of what you want to get out of your graduate experience.
"in the day" you only had to know your subject to get a job. Than it took at least a HS diploma. Then after the Dot Com Bust, you had to have a BS. But, for the really satisfying and interesting jobs that both pay well and allow you to stretch your mind, yes, you need a PhD. You do not have to "lecture" just because you have a PhD, though you may need to lecture to GET a PhD. Look at Google, they seem only to hire PhDs. But they are not the only fish in the sea. Get it.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Companies also don't like people who are likely to move to a competitor or who might become a competitor. That is threatening - and I can understand why. As a result, people who are "too smart" can get left on the shelf, because they are perceived as being a danger to those who might hire them.
Related to this is an atmosphere of companies not wanting to hire someone who is "over-qualified". Such people are seen as likely to move on at the first opportunity, wasting the company's investment in training them to do the job they were hired for.
Those are the negatives, but as I mentioned right at the start, there are positives. An experienced and well-educated employee can be trusted to do the job right. That's one reason certifications are popular. They "prove" (in theory, anyway) that the person is competent.
A skilled employee, especially in an R&D division, may very well generate revenue by producing cheaper, quicker, easier processes. They're also a primary source of "Intellectual Property" and patents. Given the choice, companies prefer to make money than to give it to one of their rivals.
PhDs are also relatively rare. The value of the degree, as a degree, is relatively small. But its uniqueness draws attention. That makes it a very powerful tool, when you've a saturated job market. Being seen, when you've a few thousand people vying for the same job, is critical if you are to get even to the stage of an interview.
Finally, although "academia" is relatively poorly paid (fools that Governments are), academics are valued in industry, where the money is much more forthcoming. Why? Because academics can give a project much more credibility. A company is expected to spout bullshit and offer vaporware. An academic, especially from places like Harvard or MIT (in the US, Oxford or Cambridge for the UK) is expected to be honest - or, at least, more so. As such, it is not unusual for projects that might raise eyebrows with shareholders or consumers to be carried out by Universities, sponsored in the background by the companies who actually want the work done.
Conclusion? A PhD is a gamble. If it pays off, it'll pay off extremely well and you'll not be short of cash. If it doesn't, then it's cost you a lot of money that you might never earn back. But there's only one way to find out, and that's to give it a try.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are exceptions out there? some shops are very focused on the sciences, and a PhD would be considered the norm.
That's the key right there. If you've got a PhD, don't go applying for web development or desktop administration. On the other hand, my company is hiring PhDs right now to program digital signal processing. We make embedded medical imaging systems, and we've even hired MDs to do SQA testing! My immediate boss has a PhD from Brown. With only a bachelors degree, and a bachelor of *arts* at that, I feel like the dumb guy at my job.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Get a PhD. if you love your field. The process is very demanding in just about every way there is to be demanding. You get paid next to nothing, you teach only the course professors don't want to teach and the work is considerably more difficult than anything else you've done in school by orders of magnitude.
Even in a field like mine, Philosophy, where a PhD. is required just to get interviewed for a position getting the degree is incredibly difficult and often tedious. In a field where you can get a good job without one there is little incentive to get a PhD. beyond personal desire.
Succinctly, if someone where to ask you, "Why are you in the doctoral program?" Your first answer should be, "Because I can't imagine myself doing anything else." If that isn't your first answer then you should probably do something else.
Even comparing 1st year with 4th year. In 1st year, we would go through 1 chapter of a textbook a month. In 4th year, it was about 1 chapter per week. These days, I try to get through 1 technical book a month and 1 non-technical book a month. That's on top of the 50 hour work weeks that I put in.
It's just a whole different ball game. If you continuely challenge yourself, you will adapt.
Btw, this is not a knock against academia. Do what you love. Do what challenges you. If that happens to be academia, go with academia.
I got my Masters degree in computer science because I read the course descriptions and said "I gotta have some of that."
If you aren't drooling over those courses like I was, I can't recommend post-grad work at all.
If you also don't know you want that PhD, but you are drooling over the course descriptions, consider a Masters. My institution offered a course-only Masters program, and I took that, because I looked around and I thought the Masters projects were a joke, and I figured I was better off working on my own. Can't say if I was right yet but it has at least been fun.
Please tell me you have something more than "So... I see that ... you worked at Acme, Inc ... for 2 years ... Do you know... HTML? ... Hmmm... where do you see yourself in five years? ... What is your greatest weakness? ... (etc)"
Yeah, right.
Whoa! Don't listen to this guy. It's obvious that he hasn't the first clue as to what it takes to get a PhD at a good school in a difficult feild such as computer science or mathematics.
e arch/jo b.html
/ resumes .nsf/USAindex.html?Open&count=2000
m sr/jobs/fullti me_positions.aspx
i nformat ics.html
PhDs are definately hired, but usually right into a management position. Also, you will end up looking at different type of jobs, usually research related rather than simple a progammer or similar.
Only hiring PhDs:
http://www.research.att.com/areas/stat/res
Again, mostly PhDs only:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/hr/research
Note the mention of 'postdoctoral-researcher' at the bottom of each job description:
http://research.microsoft.com/about
Again, *requiring* PhDs:
http://www.caprion.com/content/careers/bio
And I could go on and on. Basically you will be looking at totally different types of jobs. Jobs that the parent can't even get! And yes, they will pay you well. But no, you can't get a job doing basic programming easily. You are over qualified.
It beats spending six months after graduation wondering why employers never call you back. In the current market, you should probably consider the idea of starting your own company seriously. If you think a PhD will help you on that track, by all means.
It also depends on the nature of what you'll be doing in the program. Software engineers vs Computer Scientists. Very few companies need the kind of expertise a PhD provides in CS. You should probably be looking for who they are. Essentially, you'd be working in an R&D group for one of the big names. R&D isn't popular at the moment, though usually it never is. That's why you should consider your own company.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
First off, let me say that I have a PhD. However, I didn't do it straight out of my BSc, I took a couple of years out, did an MSc, took a couple more years and then did my PhD. Even then I was only persuaded to do the PhD because it was clear I was suited to it, something I didn't know when I did my BSc. I think too many people go straight into a PhD from their undergraduate work and these people can often struggle. I have seen a number of students who did well at their BSc but who didn't fit into the PhD style of work.
Is it worth having a PhD? I did mine because I was told by someone I respected that if I didn't do it then I would always be someone's assistant rather than ever get to lead my own research. This is true within academia but is less true in the commercial world. If anything, a PhD can make you less employable because you may be seen as too expensive, too 'brainy' or too much of a threat to the higher ups. If you think about getting into management the MBA people are likely to look down on you as a PhD because they will think you are far too interested in research and less interested in making money. This is a sweeping statement I know but it does come from my personal experience.
So, a PhD is hard work, the effect on your pay and job prospects is likely to be minimal unless you want to stay in academia, and people who don't have one will consider you a threat and you may have to hide the fact that you have it. IMHO.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Get some input from recent PhD grads who are now working in industry, and some who have been in the industry for several years. Contact the school that you are looking to study at and ask them for contact information for some of their recent grads. Most schools will also have overall statistics about where their PhD grads have gone and what they are doing. I would think that the ACM would have some data as well, but I am not sure that they do. Most Slashdotters are not going to be in a very good position to answer your question. Ask the people who are.
If you're better qualified for another aspect of chemistry, like photo chem, plastics or inorganic - then I don't know. You should be able to do OK
You are not limited to academia with a chem PhD - it's VERY hireable.
..........FULL STOP.
I graduated in 2001 and I decided to stay for my MS. After 1 year, I had the almost the same discussion with my advisor if I should get a PhD or start looking for a job. If I wanted a PhD, I was going to do a thesis and I also needed to start writing papers or I could just take more courses and finish my Masters without a thesis. He asked what I really liked doing...did I like doing research in lab, do I find myself reading textbooks and papers becuase the subjects were so interesting. The answer for me was no. I liked the practical side of programming, working on projects and fixing real world problems. I decided to just finish up my Masters and then get a job.
A MS is a good choice because you can see if you like doing research and still be able to make your final decision a few months down the road
The NSA has the highest concentration of PhD's anywhere in the world, and they're hiring in droves over the next 5 years (10K openings). Also, each branch has a Research Lab, and the DoD itself has labs. That's just the DoD, there are a lot of other gov't institutions (DoE, etc) that need to hire smart Americans who can also get cleared.
It seems to me that the situatin is a bit different in North America, in Europe, you need a Masters' in order to do a Ph.D. (It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but with the reform, it should be this simple from now on).
Even if you want to stay at the university, you have to consider that a lot has to do with politics and the chance if you get a professorship depends on this.
I would think you need to do a Ms before starting on a Ph.D., just to get the 'practical' and 'theoretical' background required.
You have to consider that, once you have a Ph.D., the expectations in industry are also larger: if you just want to 'score', go right to industry; if you like a challenge, get the degree (challenge 1) and next fulfill the high expectations of your employers... (challenge 2..n).
And most importantly, don't do it for the money (in any case): do it because you are interested in the field and have a passion for it; you like to dig into a problem where little is known of and you don't get to sleep easily unless you figured out the problem... If you have this, you will not mind the pushing around that much and still love what you are doing and work with collegues with the same passion.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
It is about doing research. I am in a PhD program atm. The reason I am is my drive to learn and build things that no one else has done before.
There are plenty of jobs outside of academia if/when you want to leave (speaking of PhDs from physics/math/CS ie technical fields)
Go for the PhD but get your Masters along the way. The MS will help you get a good, well-paying job, and decent job security. The PhD will get you challenging, enjoyable, and ground-breaking assignments (not to mention respect) in that job. But of course that depends on what kind of company you work for. Does the company do ground-breaking work? or are they just making more pop-up blocker software?
The defense industry contracts many PhD think-tank like outfits, small companies (like a few people, all PhDs). Those guys usually work on algorithms.
If you plan on being technical at all in your job, get a Masters, but not a PhD. I have a Masters in Computer Science, and I get plenty of respect. However, anybody with a PhD gets treated like they can't handle the simplest of technical tasks, and for the most part, it's true. They sit around and write documents that are of no use to technical people and spout off ideas that never work in practice. The PhDs that can handle technical stuff try to keep people from finding out that they're doctors. (Yes, this is a generality, but stereotypes are born out of reality)
Plus, a Masters will get you more pay, while a PhD might keep you from getting a job, because companies feel that they can't afford to hire you.
However, do decide now. If you don't get the Masters right after your Bachelors, it's not really worth your time. If you wait, you'll be forced to just go to some local college or university rather than choosing one that's really suited to you. You'll get a poorer education and it'll be more difficult to balance work and school.
I'm not a PhD, but I did get the opportunity to help recruit for a Fortune 500 company for several years. We had a number of PhD grads talk to us, and not one made it past the screening interview, because their interests didn't match our needs. PhD's gave the impression of desire in research and more esoteric computing activities - very valid, but not what most companies need. Combine that with the fact that most wanted more money than their backgrounds appeared to merit, and it was no-go. Most companies need someone who have a good understanding of the basics, an area or two of focused knowledge, and the ability to execute, all at a reasonable price. PhD's often don't fit that bill.
That said, I have to agree with a few posts above - you should go with what you love. If you want to do the research and high end computing - do it. But do it because you love it, not as a career advancing step, because it may not help.
And how many of the companies you mention are going to hire a recent PhD grad without real world experience? I know of quite a few underutilized PhD people. Many of the companies on your list are quite proud of their research facilities in India -- where they can find plenty of grads who will work for peanuts. In a few years, the bargain hunt moves to China and Russia.
Some people really will graduate with a PhD in CS and get a meaningful job right away. Then again, a bench player in major league baseball gets $250,000/yr. to start and probably half a million if he can stay in the league for a few years. Sure, he's washed up at 35, but is that any different than being downsized, outsourced, or offshored? Given the odds, the would-be PhD graduate might have a better shot a pro sports.
Do what you want to do. A Ph. D is for someone who wants to pursue research in a field. Don't commit to 3+ years of study at any university just because your prof thinks it may be a good thing to do. If you don't have the interest/aptitude for research, you should not be getting into it. As for the industry, let the examples speak: Google hires Ph. Ds Apple hirese Ph. Ds NVidia hires Ph. Ds (There would be more, but I'm not your google assistant) OSK
1) Everything depends on where (and what field) you want to work. Do you plan on writing placement or synthesis software to perform automated layout of VLSI chips? (Aside: That's the field I work in.) Then you need a PhD -- no exceptions. While the field is comparatively small, there are *plenty* of jobs for good workers at IBM, Intel, Xilinx, Altera, Actel, Synplicity, Synopsis, Cadence, etc. etc. etc. I'm pretty sure that if you don't have a PhD in a field like this, you won't get hired -- or worse, you'll be stuck fixing the GUI for a few years before you get "interesting" work.
On the other hand, some areas don't require a PhD. Mind you, I find it hard to believe that a PhD will ever hinder your possibilities of employment -- in the worst case, you can just as easily accept a lower salary.
2) Do you enjoying researching? Don't get a PhD simply because you think that you'll earn more money. Remember: It's a significant chunk of your life to spend the next 2 years getting a Master's degree, then 4 years after that getting a PhD. Think of it like a job that has some obvious downsides and upsides -- you'll watch your friends go into industry and buy fancy SUVs and cool computer equipment, while you're living a very thrify lifestyle. However, you'll be able to research and grow in a field that interests you, working with someone you like (i.e., it's one of the few jobs where *you* get to pick your manager), and developing a name for yourself among colleagues. Plus, you get to travel to conferences, and there are admittedly few restrictions on your life (e.g., work from home all day, wake up late, do whatever -- just get the research done).
Just some thoughts.
My experience with PHDs has been nothing but bad news. The reality is you'll get huge salaries for that PHD, but you need to be hired by big corps and in specialized fields. If you don't mind working for the machine, go for it.
On the downside, my experience has shown that PHDs aren't much value to smaller outfits, and though they may hire them, your job might not last long. PHDs are so used to study rather than practical application that their productivity levels in straight development don't justify the huge salaries they command. In other words, the guy with the Bachelors can usually do just as good a job at half the cost.
So be prepared and able to either go for highly specialized fields/positions where a PHD is truly required, or be prepared for a challenge. You might be bounced from job to job as your big salary makes you cost-prohibitive.
And like someone else here said, you can get hired right into management, but let's face it, just having a PHD doesn't necessarily make you a good manager. I worked for a well known video game publisher/developer where they hired a PHD to be director of R&D. I am absolutely convinced his PHD got him that position, because he was right out of school, and had NO experience in either game development or even game PLAYING. Yet he got the job, helped grow the company, but pissed off all the best talent, who eventually all left the company in disgust. No one likes someone in charge who knows less than you do. And more than likely, someone with a PHD would be inclined to BELIEVE they know more just due to that very fact (they have a PHD and you don't).
Bingo.
You have illuminated a totally different path. Study for the sake of study, fulfillment in itself. Career happiness by doing what you enjoy, which in some cases means being a professional student.
I never had that option, having followed the "real world experience" path. I got sucked into management not because I wanted to do it, but if I passed up the chance I would have to babysit a PHB and do most of their job anyway.
When I was younger, I associated money with happiness. I lived alone, making OK money as systems programmer in a mainframe shop. It was pure fun and I had no worries. That was a long time ago.
Today I have a wife and family, and I support them nicely with the money I make in management. My family is my reward; my job is what I do to make everyone comfortable.
I remember getting paid to play all day, and there was nothing wrong with it. Having a family is also very nice, and I want to do everything humanly possible to help them. The choice of a fun job vs. family is not mutually exclusive -- it's more of a gradual tradeoff of career enjoyment vs. compensation that you can use for other pursuits.
The PhD path is not a great way to maximize revenue, as their are faster and easier ways to get a higher salary. I make more than most PhDs although I have no degree at all. On the other hand, I know some people who enjoyed the process, so this is the life for them.
The submitter of this article, as well as the slashdot editors, seem ignorant of the fact that 's indicates possesion, not plurality. See the title of the post (PhD's). Start with the basics, then build from there. Mastery of the language you are writing in will be mandatory for your doctoral thesis.
PHDs specially today are playing vital part in development of systems that are goin to be the future be it networking or real time systems. However, people who do PHD chooses academics so that they can find time for their respected research and to really focus on it!! I think if you have an aptitude to study and like to work on lots of hardware you should opt for PHD as it will definately help u stand out in a queue. As according to the current trends that i see There is lots and lots of work to be undertaken and people who know what they are doing are required be it any field. Moreover there are quite a few doors opening in the IT sector who require high tech research for example Mobile Agents etc etc.
Are top-heavy with PhDs. Companies like that might hire over-educated people for the immediately available positions in hopes the extra smarts pay off later on.
On the other hand you'll find some companies that wont take a chance with a PhD because they think a PhD wants too much money or feel certain types of work are beneath them.
I agree with But no, you can't get a job doing basic programming easily. You are over qualified. But would add it may be difficult to get initial advanced programming job. You may be underqualified. The problem is there is a perception of a large gap between the two. I'm also willing to bet someone just finishing a Csci degree goal was not to be management.
Perhaps I sound a bit bitter, because I am... I was a bioinformaticist, who slowly devolved to a soulless code whore (and then worse) when the money shifted. The management notes came from feedback as I wandered further from my niche looking for a better job. I'd disagree with PhDs are definately hired, but usually right into a management position, because that did not happened from personal experience (or others I knew). In one case I was explicitly warned the interviewers would filter all 'science stuff' and to leave advanced degrees off the CV. They were right.... the money was right... my life forked from what I expected...
The kicker is I *do* know how much work it was for me and how much it was worth to them. How does the poster go, "sometimes your purpose in life is only to serve as a warning to others?"...
And yes, you listed some of the exceptions I mentioned. To that, I would also look for positions that required clearances and/or heavy research departments.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Most shops avoid hireing fresh PhDs unless they really need them. Everything (H)elix1 wrote is basically true. The fear of an overqualified employee leaving is a valid concern. It is an employers market right now, so employers can be selective.
In contrast many employers appreciate an employee who earns a PhD while on the job. Part time graduate work is quite common. Even the few R&D shops that really appreciate PhDs seem to prefer PhDs earned while on the job over fresh PhDs.
See: http://www.crazycolour.com/os/grammar_03.shtml
use Blunt::Instrument;
If you're primarily concerned with being employable, there's not much point in spending the extra 2yr as a PhD. For 98% of positions, there's very little practical difference between a PhD and an MS (the only place it makes a difference is if you want somebody with very specialized knowlege of a specific area of the discipline) and for most of those jobs, there's not much of a pay difference between the two. Don't get a PhD for the money - you'll be disappointed.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
I have a 1983 Ph.D. in computer science, and I'm now a "software architect" working at a startup. First, I agree with many other posts stating that a Ph.D. is the long and uphill path to a good job in software development.
If your ultimate goal is to write software for a living, but you don't like doing independent research (reading books and journals, pencil & paper research, writing and publishing your research), don't do a Ph.D. You'll be miserable doing it, and if you manage to get through, which is doubtful, you'll find yourself at a disadvantage in the job market.
If you enjoy both software development and research, as I do, then after graduating, be aware of the implications of your career choices. The more time you spend in research, not writing software for a living, the harder it will be to make the transition. You may find yourself as a 30-35 year old researcher who has not shipped software. You will be competing with 22-25 year olds coming out of B.Sc. and M.Sc. programs, going for their first software jobs. I have seen many Ph.Ds who stay in research so long that they cannot make the transition.
Writing software for a research project is very different from writing (and supporting) software that goes into a shipping product, and experience in this area is what most employers look for, (the smart ones, anyway).
In my case, I was an assistant prof. for two years after getting my Ph.D. I realized that being a successful professor/researcher was a lot less fun than being a grad student. It's very much like the distinction between a manager and an individual contributor. As a professor, you need to write grants and supervise student research, doing less hands-on research yourself. I then went into DARPA-funded industry research in the mid 80s. I happened to be doing research in the hot topic of the day (object-oriented database systems), and landed my first real software job at a startup. I was hired because they valued my research background -- I was very lucky. I stayed at this company for eight years. I got to write a lot of software, but also spent time doing the grunt work of real software development: source control, writing tests, fixing lots of bugs, measuring and tuning performance, supporting customers, writing documentation. I've been doing software at startup companies ever since.
A generation ago, when I was an undergrad, the Computer Science department at my University was sufficiently pressed finding PhDs that other departments within the University were left to shift for themselves. They had to find the guy or gal within their own ranks who took some computer courses, when they were undergrads, to teach the introductory computer course for Geographers, or English majors. This was a worldwide phenomenon.
Professors who were newly minted PhDs, around here at least, commanded a salary comparable to that of a brand new, starting high-school teacher, who only had a Bachelor's degree and a teacher's certificate. While in industry they could earn at least twice as much.
Isn't this still basically true?
Simple math demonstrates that most PhD's don't go onto a teaching-style academic position. People in said positions have students under them, and tend to graduate at least one new PhD every year or two. That's Fibbonaci growth--we'd be overrun with PhD's if that were the case. The majority go into industry.
The result of getting a PhD is two-fold: it teaches you to think/do totally orginal things on your own, and teaches you to focus on one small problem. Those two qualities are universally useful, but because of the intense focus, you're likely to be inexperienced in fields not related to your research area. OTOH, you know a *lot* about your research area. Systems and architecture are areas that industry is always hiring (even during "hiring freezes"). However, both areas can take 2 to 3 years longer to complete, an especially tough row to hoe.
You can get jobs in industrial research labs, MS Research, Lucent, Bell Labs (still exists, just smaller), IBM (at multiple sites), and just about any other large company. You can get jobs in development, if you know something specialized and hard. AI and networking are approved of by game companies, for example. You can get jobs at government research labs (LLNL, Sandia, Argonne, etc.). And of course there's work in academia, from pure teaching to a research position.
Don't expect to get rich doing it though; you're taking years out of your life to earn crap wages for hard work, and although starting pay once you're done is good, you won't recoup the lost earning potential of those years. OTOH, check out what the professors at good research universities drive...
Nail it in 3 years, no messing around. Presumably there is something we miss out on doing it that way. OTOH, given I'm employed by an American company and was hired by interview with American stuff, your compatriots don't necessarily seem to worry about it too much. YMMV I suppose.
None of what you say is fair or even true in my experience. It is however the case you have an axe to grind.
And more than likely, someone with a PHD would be inclined to BELIEVE they know more just due to that very fact (they have a PHD and you don't).
This is very unfair actually, most PhD holders of my acquaintance are accutely aware of where the experience and expertise lie. This is why placements and secondment are very common in academia, as is partnering industrial organisations.
You clearly have never done a PhD or otherwise you wouldn't be parotting moronic crap like this: PHDs are so used to study rather than practical application that their productivity levels in straight development don't justify the huge salaries they command.
Stop watching too many films and basing all your comments on a single experience with someone who sounded like an arsehole and would have been had he only a BS or a MS Cert. Tried applying for funding lately? Good luck if you can't (a) specify and meet tough productivity standards (b) give a clear roadmap for practical application.
Lose the chip on your shoulder or perhaps look into heading back to school yourself.