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)?"

Comments

For industry, get a PhD in something else

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you wanting an academic job? If so, get the PhD in Computer Science.

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).

You'd be surprised

[yorgasor]

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.

Re:You'd be surprised

[Dalcius]

Is it not also true that folks with higher level degrees tend to be put into more focused positions like research or management?

It's been my perception that higher level degree folks go to the big companies. The jobs there are more focused and the large companies can pay the large paychecks and give good benefits. To be honest, you can keep them.

I personally love the small company I work for. Great people, awesome environment, lots of room for career development where you can do what you want instead of micromanage an isolated project.

My impression is that higher level degree carrying folks are often passed over in small companies because of fears that they will leave for big-bucks jobs and that they may not be as flexible as someone with only a BS.

I know /. is pretty education biased, so let me pose this question to the managers out there who have been doing it for a while, preferably those in small-middle sized companies: what do you think about all of this?

Cheers

phd vs CCIE

[mnmn]

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.

It will probably do you more harm than good….

[(H)elix1]

(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...

Get it.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

"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.

That's actually a very tough question

[jd]

Companies love to get highly qualified people. Provided they don't have to pay too much for them. However, companies prefer to pay as little as possible to get the job done. This is one reason outsourcing is so popular - they can find people just as skilled in countries where the average pay is less. It's also why younger people are preferred over experienced people - younger people have less earning power.

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.