Ask Slashdot: Which Ph.D For Work In Applied Statistics / C.S.?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Which Ph.D For Work In Applied Statistics / C.S.?

Posted by timothy on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @05:30AM from the there's-a-spray-to-reduce-the-inflammation dept.

New submitter soramimo writes "I'm currently a Ph.D student in Machine Learning and Biology at a pretty good European university. As my lab is moving to the U.S., I have the chance to get my Ph.D from an Ivy League university instead of the one in Europe (without much additional work, as I'm close to finishing). However, I would be getting a Ph.D in Biological Sciences rather than Computer Science. As I'm planning to work as an applied statistician / computer-scientist / analyst in the U.S. after graduating, I'm wondering which path to take. Is a Ph.D in Biological Sciences frowned upon by technology companies, or is it out-weighed by the Ivy League tag? How big of a role does the type of Ph.D play in the hiring process in the U.S., compared to what you actually did (thesis focus, publication record, software)?"

41 of 173 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Do you plan to work in the real world? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the world of business, what you did is much more important. Your experience and actual outputs are far more important then the kind of Ph.D you have.
1. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by nothousebroken · 2011-11-22 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That might be true at the bachelor level, but at the PhD level people hire you for your specialized expertise based on your degree. For example, no brokerage house is going to hire a biology PhD to do statistical analysis research. They're going to hire someone with a PhD in math/statistics. It might be somewhat different if you are going to work for a pharmaceutical or other biology-related company. But in general, don't expect to get a degree in biology and then get job offers from companies looking for a PhD statistician. In fact, I would suggest that you view the corporate PhD hiring process as being quite similar to the faculty hiring process.
  A PhD is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, employers immediately assume you are mature, intelligent, and highly-motivated. On the flip side, they are generally not willing to pay PhD salaries to someone outside their field of expertise. Put yourself in the employer's shoes. Why would an employer pay PhD rates for someone who doesn't have a PhD in the required discipline.
2. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 06:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As someone who worked in High Finance, I can tell you that you are full of it. Most of the employees were science and liberal arts Ph.D's with very few of those degrees directly relating to what they were working on. My manager (I was doing fixed-income pricers) was a Chemical Engineering doctor, my partner on the project had a Ph.D. in english. There are other examples, but I'll stop there. All that matters is aptitude.
3. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  if all that matter is "aptitude" why did you all have a PhD? You could hire a genius out of high school in that case.
4. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your Ph.D. will be the name of the department you graduate from, but that says little about the work you do. I work in a Department of Anatomy, and some of our students do purely physics work using MRI technology to quantify signal intensities based on a chemical marker. Their Ph.D. will be in Anatomy, but their work will be in Applied Physics.
  Your C.V. should show your entire career trajectory, not just a single line with some name of a department on it. In fact, many people simply omit the department name because it is unnecessary. When you apply for jobs, you will write several letters: a general cover letter, a letter introducing your research, a letter proposing future research potential. You will not be judged on the name of your Ph.D., you'll be judged based on how cogently you can write a letter.
  In addition, your P.I. may get a primary appointment in one department, but he can also request secondary appointments to OTHER departments, say in Biostatistics, Neuroeconomics, Computational Statistics, etc.. This might benefit him as well, by giving him a stronger association with potential collaborators. One of our professors has 'dual-appointments' in four departments, including Anatomy, Electrical Engineering, and Chemistry, because their research reflects all of these disciplines.
5. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > That might be true at the bachelor level, but at the PhD level people hire you for your specialized expertise based on your degree.
  Every PhD that I have ever seen just says "Doctor of Philosophy" on it. You can claim any specialization that you want afterwords. It wont matter if he was in a bio department if he studied stats. He just says his PhD was in statistics, and his thesis will back up that claim.
6. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by backwardMechanic · 2011-11-22 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  The faculty hiring process (at least here in Europe) really doesn't care what subject is listed on your certificate, as long as you have the right experience. The title of your thesis is much more important. In fact, people who cross subject boundaries often earn a little extra respect - it helps you to bring new ideas from one field to another. My prof is famous for his work in biochemistry, but his degrees are all in physics. It hasn't hurt him at all. I do not know if this works outside of universities though, where there is likely to be less understanding of the details of your PhD. The hurdle, as ever, is to get past HR so you can speak to someone who actually knows something about the job you've applied for. Sadly, I suspect HR will dismiss anybody who has a PhD in anything other than stats, if that is the job title. I'm not sure CS has any advantage over biology in this case though.
7. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by nothousebroken · 2011-11-22 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Special cases are just that, special cases. Sure, there are lots of PhDs working outside their degree field. But the reality is that most employers hiring someone fresh out of school are going to too look at what that person did in school, both in terms of the degree field and the dissertation. Companies generally don't pay PhD salaries to new graduates for aptitude. They pay for somebody who is highly educated in the desired discipline and who can hit the ground running. If you don't believe that, just look at a bunch of PhD-level job postings. They don't say: Candidate should have an aptitude for, and ability to learn, statistical analysis". They say something more like: Candidate should have extensive experience in xxx analysis as applied to yyy systems. If someone is many years out of school and can show the requisite experience they might get the job. But even then they could easily lose out to someone with similar experience and PhD in the desired field.
  So, yes you can switch fields. Lots of people do. But if you have a PhD in math, you can expect to have an uphill battle convincing people you have PhD-level expertise in biology. You're probably going to have to provide a lot more evidence than the guy with the PhD in biology.
8. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by pigwiggle · 2011-11-22 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I second that - you are full of it. People are going to look at what a PhD did. I've personally seen brokerage houses recruiting out of computational labs at the University of Chicago. They were looking at people doing computer simulations of large biological systems, among other things. They wanted people with experience in statistical mechanics and and computer modelling. I had a former colleague with a PhD in Physical Chemistry go through the application process for a Quant position. His experience was that the prospective employers took his computational and mathematical aptitude on faith, given his schooling, and were only interested in asking question about what he had taught himself about economic and investment models.
  
  --
  46 & 2
9. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by idbedead · 2011-11-22 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, as a Biology Ph.D. I have watched many of my friends go into finance and consulting and a number of other fields. No one gives a crap what your Ph.D. is in. They will look at your publication record (academic jobs) or just interview you to asses your specific skills/reasoning abilities.
10. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by winkydink · 2011-11-22 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I have hired five PhD's over the course of my career (maybe more, but five that I remember). All of the where hired based on what they did / what they could do and not on the basis of their theses. Granted my statistical sample is tiny, but there you go.
  
  --
  "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
11. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by idbedead · 2011-11-22 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A Ph.D. like all degrees has very little to do with genius. It is a signifier of your ability to work independently for long periods of time (3-6 years), and adapt to changing circumstances. This is the kind of aptitude that employers in nearly any field look for. A high schooler, even a genius, remains unproven in that area. This is why many genius people don't get any degree's yet companies still like to hire Ph.D.'s (even though most of them are not genius).
12. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by hrvatska · 2011-11-22 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  if all that matter is "aptitude" why did you all have a PhD? You could hire a genius out of high school in that case.
  How would companies identify HS geniuses? Grades? SAT scores? Dissertation? Oh, that's right, they don't have one of those. Generally speaking, aptitude + a PhD is a better indicator of ability and potential performance than aptitude + a HS diploma. A person with a PhD has a much longer and better documented track record on which to judge how well they would fit into a job and an organization. There's more to aptitude than being extremely bright.
13. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by kubernet3s · 2011-11-22 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think what Anon was trying to say is that the PhD is not a vocational degree. It's actually sad how little people understand that. True, there are positions which require vocational experience, and employers will fill those positions banking on PhD applicants previous experience. However, the PhD is more than learning a set of specific skills: it is an experience which teaches a broad range of specific cognitive behaviors, many of which are extremely useful to many disciplines, not just the one on the degree. A PhD must by default be disciplined, skilled in problem solving, an excellent written communicator, and have modest experience giving presentations. STEM PhD's have to have experience with math up through linear algebra, possibly with partial differential equations, and often quite a bit more than that. They are able to think critically, organize projects, work in groups, solve problems, and moreover their degree now indicates that they have *expert level* capability in those skills. True, a pharmaceutical company isn't going to hire a philosophy major to fill a position requiring the experience of a PhD in biochemistry, but the facts are that industrial positions for specific PhD's are fairly few and far between: a lot of companies are just looking for PhD's in general. That would be the only explanation for Anon's English major friend, who I sincerely doubt was hired in the firm's "English department" before clawing his way over to financial analysis. That bloke was likely hired for his degree, and the aptitude it promises.
14. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by ScottyLad · 2011-11-22 07:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Personally when I'm interviewing for staff (in the UK), I only look at what university they went to, not what they studied.
  I'm not sure what other countries are like, but over here everyone under 30 years old has a degree, so the only interest I have in their university experience is whether they went to a "Red Brick" (Ivy league equivalent) or a "modern" university (re-branded technical college or polytechnic)
  The fact you have a degree shows your ability to learn. What you learned in the past 4 years of University is of less interest to me compared to your potential to learn over the next 30 or 40 years of your career.
  I personally value the fact someone even managed to get in to Oxford or Cambridge higher than someone else's 2:1 "degree" from some "university" I've never heard of in the North of England. Sadly this is what happens when governments devalue higher education with misguided targets such as 50% of the population must have a degree.
  
  --
  Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
15. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by Chapter80 · 2011-11-22 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  Applied Statistics?
  Can I assume that the results of this Slashdot "survey" will appear in your dissertation?
16. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by ShakaUVM · 2011-11-22 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  >>For example, no brokerage house is going to hire a biology PhD to do statistical analysis research. They're going to hire someone with a PhD in math/statistics.
  Given that some of the best stats guys I know where biology researchers, that's a bit of a stretch. (What do you think biology research IS, mostly? You have undergrads to actually work with the test tubes and mice, and grad students to oversee them.)
  Brokerage houses have been known to hire anyone, in the past, who are whizzes at math, and the guy in TFA should be able to do so. Especially if he takes advantage of the networking opportunities Ivy League schools offer.
17. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by luis_a_espinal · 2011-11-22 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the world of business, who you know is much more important. Your friends and parents are far more important then the kind of Ph.D you have.
  Rhetorical nonsense.
18. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by tehcyder · 2011-11-23 00:14 · Score: 2
  
  I personally value the fact someone even managed to get in to Oxford or Cambridge higher than someone else's 2:1 "degree" from some "university" I've never heard of in the North of England.
  What a load of bollocks, a lot of the people who get into Oxbridge do so because they were born to well off parents who could afford to funnel them through the public school system. Yes, there are very clever poor students from inner city comprehensives at Oxbridge, just disproportionately few.
  
  Oh, and there are many other very good universites apart from Oxford and Cambridge, depending on the subjects you're talking about. It's not just those two or ex-polys.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
19. Re:Do you plan to work in the real world? by slashsloth · 2011-11-23 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  A PhD is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, employers immediately assume you are mature, intelligent, and highly-motivated. On the flip side, they are generally not willing to pay PhD salaries.
  Potential employers do make immediate assumptions about an applicant who has a PhD on their CV for sure; however those assumptions are not always as positive as you suggest. When I'd completed my PhD the only jobs for which I could even get an interview were junior developer positions, same as I'd have gotten if I'd just come straight from primary degree to job market. The PhD counted for nothing & was in fact a bit of a sticking point. Interviewers seemed to think that getting a PhD involves sitting on your ass wasting time & that you'd do the same on their dime if they hired you. Of course, that's Ireland for you -- go figure. Not that I'm bitter or anything :D
  
  --
  The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. [http://www.27bslash6.com]
What you actually did is more important by ClickOnThis · 2011-11-22 05:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Employers will care about what you did more than what your degree is named. There are lots people working in fields that don't correspond to the subject-name of their PhD degree.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1. Re:What you actually did is more important by reg106 · 2011-11-22 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with this. Average starting salaries for a PhD in CS will be higher than for a PhD in biology. This could matter during salary negotiation.
  
  For BS and MS degrees, the name of the university is important, because there is generally no guarantee that you spent significant time with a faculty member. For a PhD, the name of your thesis adviser takes precedence over the name of the university, especially if the adviser has a respected name in the field. For these reasons, I would opt for the CS degree from the (lesser known?) European university rather than the Biology degree from the American Ivy League university.
Put yourself in their shoes by NeumannCons · 2011-11-22 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative

You're hiring a someone to be a computer scientist. Would you rather see them have a CS degree or a biology degree? Ivy League degree or Pretty Good European University? I think everyone is going to look at this differently. I know *I'd* rather see the CS degree. I wouldn't be overly impressed by Ivy League but I think a lot of others would be. I work in the the tech field along with people who have degrees in unusual areas (Dance?) but are technically top notch.

BTW, these days it seems a lot of resumes are searched for key words. If they're hiring a computer scientist - guess what keywords they're going to look for?
1. Re:Put yourself in their shoes by tixxit · 2011-11-22 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Usually jobs at the PhD level don't get hundreds of applicants and the resumes can be looked at a bit more carefully. Moreover, if someone is posting a position requiring a graduate degree, they're probably interested in your thesis and research, not what your degree says.
2. Re:Put yourself in their shoes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I've applied for many university faculty jobs (that require a Ph.D.) and they routinely had several hundred applicants.
3. Re:Put yourself in their shoes by ClickOnThis · 2011-11-22 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  You're hiring a someone to be a computer scientist. Would you rather see them have a CS degree or a biology degree? Ivy League degree or Pretty Good European University? I think everyone is going to look at this differently. I know *I'd* rather see the CS degree. I wouldn't be overly impressed by Ivy League but I think a lot of others would be. I work in the the tech field along with people who have degrees in unusual areas (Dance?) but are technically top notch.
  BTW, these days it seems a lot of resumes are searched for key words. If they're hiring a computer scientist - guess what keywords they're going to look for?
  I think a good way to put yourself in the employer's shoes is to look at the requirements stated in job postings. If the software job calls for hard-core CS work, you might see "PhD in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering or related field or experience" [emphasis mine.] For software jobs that involve a heavy scientific component (e.g., biology) you might see "PhD in Biology or Bioinformatics preferred; PhD in Chemistry, Mathematics or Computer Science acceptable; biology experience a plus." And so on. The point is that employers describe an ideal candidate in a posting. Yes, they do search for keywords, but in the end they're going to hire someone who they think can do the job, not someone with the ideal subject-name for their PhD.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
4. Re:Put yourself in their shoes by ShakaUVM · 2011-11-22 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >>You're hiring a someone to be a computer scientist
  No, he wants to work as a statistician. A biology degree is completely appropriate, as you basically have to be a SPSS whiz to do any research in biology these days. Undergrads actually handle the test tubes and mice, overseen by grad students. PIs get everything set up and then work mainly on the data analysis level. A lot also get involved in computer science for modelling and related reasons.
  That said, if I was hiring a computer science computer science position (you know, to have someone refactor code for me or whatever), I'd definitely hire a person with a CS doctorate over a biology one (or a CS person without a doctorate over a bio person), because I can basically guarantee you that no Biology single-subject major will have the necessary classes in software engineering. As someone who spent years working with the code created by biology people... well, that's why they hired me and other CS grad students to do the actual software engineering side of things for them.
  So, yeah. Basically it depends on what the ultimate nature of the job is. I'd hire a PhD in biology to do stats over a computer science guy, but I'd hire a computer science guy over a bio PhD for a software engineering job.
A few suggestions by codeAlDente · 2011-11-22 05:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Bio-informatics is a good place to be an applied statistician. There are also good opportunities in neuroscience, especially if you want (or are willing to) do experiments. Some of the data analysis and acquisition code is pretty sophisticated, and a grad student from my last lab got a good CS job by doing that. Further, any lab that uses super-resolution or EM microscopy is a good place to look. If you tell me which school, I can perhaps give you a few names.

--
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
1. Re:A few suggestions by gstoddart · 2011-11-22 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  I was such a lazy bastard, I automated everything I could when I worked in the group I worked in, and got done faster than most others.
  You're hired. ;-)
  OK, so I don't actually have a job to offer you in bioinformatics (or any job, really) ... but on a recent project we took the opportunity to automate anything that allowed for it.
  Automating reduces manual errors, cuts down on human time, and means you have more consistently reproduceable outcomes. It also means you've thought about the long-term and realized that if it was tedious and error-prone the first time, scripting it would yield better results.
  I guess we probably saved hundreds of man-hours by automating some of our steps that would have had one or more techies plodding through some repetitive steps. And, I'm really not kidding about the amount of time we saved.
  When I told my manager it was out of mostly being too lazy/unwilling to do that over and over again he more or less said "I'll take that kind of lazy any day of the week" ... most of these have become standard process now, since there's just no damned good reason to do it otherwise.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A Ph.D is only a foot in the door by Matt_Bennett · 2011-11-22 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

In my experience, the employers that really want Ph.Ds are educational and research institutions, and the odd technology company that wants to have some additional buzzwords to put on slides. It doesn't really add much for a technology company, unless your area of study is very specific to their business area. I'm kinda scared of any place that would do hiring based upon a degree or where it came from rather than what the person can actually do.
1. Re:A Ph.D is only a foot in the door by Diss+Champ · 2011-11-22 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My employer historically has hired lots of PhDs; we design mixed signal chips. My own PhD has basically nothing to do with my job, but the sort of person who can make it through the PhD process in a hard (science or engineering) field has tended to do well here. That high % of PhD folks is changing a bit as we have been growing way too fast lately to not hire a larger % of MS, but when your bread and butter is to do chips that are "hard" enough to get decent margins rather than being commodity priced the ability to go figure things out that everyone doesn't already know is quite useful. Actually FINISHING the PhD is a lot better predictor than STARTING a PhD BTW.
Are you sure you have a choice? by vossman77 · 2011-11-22 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative

In my experience when the lab moves the students either (1) get a degree from old university or (2) apply to new university and go through the qualification process over. I would check again, before assuming it is your decision. I even know a case, where a 3rd year grad student at Yale was turned down acceptance into Berkeley grad school
Market Your Skills Appropriately by Frightened_Turtle · 2011-11-22 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most of the Biopharmaceutical companies in the Boston area are going to look at your Ph.D. to determine whether it is relevant to the work they do. But it won't be the only thing they look for.
Many biopharms are leaning very heavily on computer simulations to model various molecules they are pursuing as potential drug candidates. Having a an advanced degree in biology and the ability to prove strong computer skills might open vastly more doors for you than just having a Ph.D. in a relevant field. Having a programmer who can also intimately understand what the scientists are trying to accomplish is desperately needed by many companies.
But don't sell yourself as a programmer with a doctorate in biology. Rather, sell yourself as a biology doctorate with advanced computer skills. If they think you are a programmer, they'll treat--and pay--you like one. Sadly, there are still WAY too many CEOs (and CIOs, CFOs, and COOs) who are still under the 1980's notion that "high school kids could do this work," and treat computer engineers like they are unskilled labor. As a "respected scientist" you'll be treated far more appropriately by management/business types.

--

Whew! This water sure is cold!
Re:Really? by misosoup7 · 2011-11-22 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would you think that a PhD in Biological Sciences would be closely related (or even related) to one in Computer Science? Really?
The intelligence of PhDs really are Piled Higher and Deeper.
Biological Sciences have a lot of need for Computer Sciences right now. Everything from Genetics to Molecular Biology spends on staggering amounts of Statistics and CS work. I have a few friends of mine working for the National Health Institute and at Medical Schools and they all need CS and Stats background. So there is a pretty deep connect between Biology and CS right now. So yes, there is a very close relationship.

Obviously, a software firm may ask you why you got a Biological Sciences Ph.D. as opposed to a CS one, and why you are qualified. You may also get filtered out if CS is not on your resume as well. So, if you do get the Ivy Ph.D. you'll have some work cut out for you on your resume to make sure you come off the right way on paper.

Also, if you end up working for a Bio Tech, then this argument is moot, they would take a Biologist any day of the week.
Technology companies need a variety of knowledge by burnin1965 · 2011-11-22 06:01 · Score: 3, Informative

From my experience in semiconductor manufacturing, technology companies frequently hire individuals with degrees and areas of research that deviate from the core function of the business. Be prepared to discuss the details of your research and work while pursuing your degree and you will do fine.
Many of the skills utilized in your education are common across job fields and in some cases they are not utilized as often as they should in the work place. Some examples include...
- The scientific process itself. A sound decision process is key to problem solving within technology businesses and all too often mistakes are made by "gut feeling" or "common sense" decisions that are followed far too quickly without proper critical thinking.
- Understanding statistical significance and proper reading or presentation of statistical data. This is a hugely critical field to technology companies and at the same time a massive weak point in U.S. businesses. In my opinion there should be some basic statistics courses in K-12 education.
- Working in groups. U.S. corporations spend millions in consultant and training fees trying to instil some group working skills into employees but from what I have seen it is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to teach people to set aside their individualistic wild west cowboy mentality.
- Communication and presentation skills. Meetings are frowned upon, partly due to the lack of group work skills, yet they are also necessary. You will quickly lose an audience that already doesn't want to be there so you need good communication skills to both keep the attention of individuals but also to transfer the information and knowledge effectively.
There are many more, of course, but these are just a few that come to mind.
what you do by cthlptlk · 2011-11-22 06:08 · Score: 2

Bioinformatics seems to have an especially even spread of people over the continuum from comp sci to biology, so (from what I have seen) readers of C.V.s tend to focus on work and publications to figure out where you fall.
Re:Really? by Sir_Sri · 2011-11-22 06:09 · Score: 2

We have a bioinformatics PhD where I am, which is half biology, half CS. Maybe you didn't read the part where he mentions machine learning which is decidedly computer science.
The Lead systems guy on WoW (Greg "Ghostcrawler" street) is a PhD in marine biology, so it's clear you can move around easily enough. You can simply omit the Biology part and say "PhD from Ivy league school, thesis: Machine Learning for ....".
My PhD is decidedly CS, but it steals a lot of stuff from strategic studies and economics, so just by the title, it's not really possible to know which field is the 'core' area.
easy answer by Khashishi · 2011-11-22 06:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Biological Science. Any scientist these days is going to have to be proficient with computers and analyzing data. In fact, you'll probably be doing much more statistics and number crunching in biological science than in PhD level computer science, which tends to be in some theoretical study less focused on crunching of numbers. And biologist just commands respect. There's just no similar honorary title for computer scientist, and although PhD is different, it's hard to not associate CS with a factory-like undergraduate program, churning out low-skilled CS majors.
Re:I went to school for art by rk · 2011-11-22 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Some of the finest people I've worked with in software have degrees distantly related to computer science, math, or software engineering. Music, religion, "interdisciplinary studies", and an accounting dropout are included in that mix. They are right to pish-posh it away. Actually, as an art person, you wouldn't happen to live near Phoenix, know Java well, and be interested in working on GIS applications for remote sensing, would you? We have a good product that probably could use a techie with an art background to improve its UI.
Which PhD for Applied Statistics? by Smallpond · 2011-11-22 08:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Just choose one at random.
Hiring Scientists for Financial Services by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-22 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

I have been actively hiring PhDs to do analytics work for financial services for the last two years. We primarily use machine learning techniques to develop risk management tools. We prefer the applicants to have a PhD, although industry experience can make up for the lack. In general, however, we do not specify that the PhD come from a specific field. Indeed, we have a bio-informatics PhD in our group, and we have interviewed several others. I myself come from a physics background, and others came from engineering, cognitive science, etc. We like to interview candidates who have experience in machine learning or computer science, but even those without such experience are considered if they have shown strong analytical skills during the course of their research.