Getting a PhD is the stupidest decision of all time? (100 Reasons not to do it?)

[mozchron]

If you want a PhD for the money, or the glory, or you can’t think of anything better to do, then yes, its a stupid life choice.

If you go into eyes wide open it with a plan, and a goal, and you love the work, and you understand the risks and are willing to take them, then it is stupid not to do it.

I loved grad school (and it didn’t take 7 years - more like 4 and a bit). I did a one year post-doc and got a tenure track position at one of the best places in the country. But I had a plan. And it paid off. I have a great job, and am well-compensated doing what I love.

But it was a risk. I wasn’t willing to post-doc forever. If I hadn’t gotten a job within 5 years, I would have dropped it and gone into industry or government.

Most people in grad school are worried about whether their next experiment will work. If they are very far-thinking, they are worried about writing that next chapter.

I was thinking about my future faculty position as a third-year grad student. I had my first NIH grant outlined and half-written before I graduated (even though I wouldn’t be able to submit it for another 3 years). I wasn’t thinking specifically about finishing that next chapter, but rather what it would take succeed as a faculty member. I rightly figured that if I did that, the dissertation etc… would take care of itself.

You need to be lucky to succeed in academia. You can be the best in the world, but without that break, you won’t succeed. But its not all luck. Even now, of my students and post-docs I can pick out the ones who I think have a pretty good shot. Its not that they are smart (everyone is). Its not that they work hard (they all do). Rather, they PLAN. They have original ideas, and implement them. They are ambitious, but also focused about it.

And contrary to what is says above, the best advisers don’t hold onto good people forever. Its part of my job to move people along, especially the people whom it would benefit me most to hold onto.

[typoink]

@sassyfras

And are there any good (as in you will get a good job, $$$$$ / job security) i’m talking here) Ph.D. programs left? Engineering? Business? Is it just the Humanities that is FUBAR’d up the wazoo?

I don’t get it.

Somebody will likely be along to correct me, but I’ve been looking into Psych phD programs and it seems like one of the fields that might be ahead of the curve in this regard.

A psychology phD isn’t restricted to research positions. You can also go into private therapy practice, school work, marketing, or business / motivational consulting.

[Voyager]

I have a PhD in Computer Science. I agree that it only makes sense if you have research you want to do, and if you love research. I had a topic I loved, and I got it done, and enjoyed nearly every minute of grad school (except waking at 3 am to work on my dissertation some more.) Some intermediate work we did got referenced more, but it was like an itch I needed to scratch. I decided I didn’t want to go into academics, but when I graduated there were still industrial research labs, and though I switched fields I have had a good time ever since.
My wife on the other hand was in a biology PhD program and decided that she didn’t want to do that kind of stuff, and dropped out, and also hasn’t regretted it. Daughter number one has my love of research, and is now working on two PhDs. Daugher number two has no interest in research at all. So one size does not fit all.

[Ruken]

I guess my experience must have been atypical. Since starting grad school as a chemist I’ve been at three PhD-granting institutions. All of the students who graduated from my labs (~25% did not) did so in 5-5.5 years (as did I) without too much trouble. They all easily got postdoc positions or industry jobs. The postdocs who came through (1-3 years, usually 2, never 4) all got faculty or industry jobs. AFAIK everyone from the labs I worked in is still gainfully employed in a chemistry-related job.*

To get into grad school, you do not have to “work for several years in a lab as a technician” if you don’t have prior research experience. It certainly helps a lot, but there are certainly people in top programs without. The 2009 numbers say grad school takes an average of 6.7 years for physical sciences and 7.0 years for life sciences, although I don’t know a single person person who took more than 6, and my grad school roommate got out in 4.5. I wonder if certain crap programs push up the average. If it ever “sed to be that it took around 4 years”, that was before 1984, when the numbers were about the same as they are now.

Most PhD chemists who do research work in industry. IIRC it’s a 50/50 split industry/academia, but many of the academic positions are teaching undergrads only, so no research. I never got the impression that “[m]ost PhD students are expected to go be university professors running academic research labs.” In fact, my colleagues agree that you have a little bit of the crazy in you to want to do that. Besides, everyone knows that only the top people from top labs are able to get positions that are worth the trouble.

Writing the dissertation wasn’t that big a deal. I mostly just reformatted the papers I’d already published and wrote an introduction, which we later published as a review anyway. The boss said it shouldn’t take more than 2 weeks, and was irritated that I took more time.

I’ve also never seen someone who was kept back by an adviser who couldn’t stand to lose a productive worker. Oh people have said it was happening to them, but it was always because they just didn’t have their shit together and both the adviser and committee knew it. That’s not to say it’s never happened elsewhere.

*Actually no, one decided she wanted to stay home and grow babies.

[John_Mace]

I was in a PhD program, got a little antsy, and decided to take a year off and get some work experience before committing myself to the whole deal. Well, that year turned into a career, and I never looked back. Then again, I was in Silicon Valley during the boom years, and there were tons of opportunities. After a few years, some of my fellow graduate students who stayed to get their degree were working for me.

That said, if you have the passion, and especially if you want to be in academics, no reason you shouldn’t get your PhD.

[Mighty_Mouse]

@Ruken

I guess my experience must have been atypical.

<snip> <snip> <snip>

To get into grad school, you do not have to “work for several years in a lab as a technician” if you don’t have prior research experience. It certainly helps a lot, but there are certainly people in top programs without. The 2009 numbers say grad school takes an average of 6.7 years for physical sciences and 7.0 years for life sciences, although I don’t know a single person person who took more than 6, and my grad school roommate got out in 4.5. I wonder if certain crap programs push up the average. If it ever “sed to be that it took around 4 years”, that was before 1984, when the numbers were about the same as they are now.

.

Okay when I was a grad student (for the first time at Virginia Tech) 20-25 years ago, I knew no one who had been working on his or her PhD for more than five years. There were plenty of poor postdocs in Physics, Chemistry and Biology though who were in the evening MBA program or even Computer Science program, because they were stuck for years with end in sight. There would be hundreds of applicants for each faculty position that came open even at third rate schools.

Then I went back about ten years later to Georgia Tech, and the PhDs would take longer, but the post docs got either industry or faculty jobs much more easily. Probably because Georgia Tech has a better reputation and this matters a LOT. They also seemed to have higher standards on pretty much everything than Virginia Tech did.

Finally I went to Georgia State, where academic standards were much, much lower. At the time there were 15-20 post docs in Chemistry. Every single one of them was on an J-1 visa, from China, India or former Soviet Union countries. The job market was pretty good at the time (pre 9/11, pre offshoring boom) but none of them had any hope of escaping into the H1-B market, never mind a job with a green card scholarship. So it was post doc or nothing. Don’t know what they were paid, but they lived very frugally indeed. Maybe it was just the money, but these were one depressed bunch of folks.

Unless they took some classes in database management or dot net programming and got out that way. There was plenty of demand for those, and my impression was that many of the post docs had a very high native intelligence level, and could leapfrog many Information Systems majors. Hiring managers in industry (including me at the time) couldn’t snap these guys up fast enough. The computer science and information systems graduates were full of knowledge that was useless to someone who wanted to actually ship product.

Now we live in Boston and hang out with a lot of the graduates of the top schools here. No one seems to have any horror stories of postdocs in Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, Brown or Tufts.

My conclusion. The better the school, the less dysfunctional the postdoc program. Not sure if it is getting worse over time.

[lazybratsche]

@Mighty_Mouse

Now we live in Boston and hang out with a lot of the graduates of the top schools here. No one seems to have any horror stories of postdocs in Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, Brown or Tufts.

My conclusion. The better the school, the less dysfunctional the postdoc program. Not sure if it is getting worse over time.

Hmm, you may be right about postdocs there. I was going to correct you, but on further consideration the horror stories I’m aware of (from some of that particular bunch of schools) are mostly related to grad students, as well as adjuncts and junior faculty. For instance, I’ve seen instances of senior faculty who are unashamedly using their grad students to publish results that support floundering business ventures, but otherwise have no scientific value. Some of the worst departments really do abuse their grad students, even at the top schools. At the other end there are underfunded state schools that require grad students to TA for 4+ semesters.

But there are some departments who aren’t interested in retaining students for as long as possible. Each department will usually tell how long it takes to graduate with them. Mean in the life sciences is 6.5 years, some programs take 7+ years on average, others just a bit over 5.

Myself, I’m going to grad school next year (Just accepted an offer from one of my top choices). The most important thing I was looking for was a department with good research opportunities but little grad student exploitation.

[Wesley_Clark]

My brother did his PhD in math, and once he completed that he went to medical school for his MD.

Benefits of getting his PhD

1. He likes math and got to study it for 5 extra years, doing interesting research
2. He moved to a nice city to do his PhD, and got to live somewhere cool for 5 years
3. His PhD helped him get into medical school (some schools considered it a plus, some didn’t)
4. While doing his PhD he got to travel around the country for conferences. I don’t think he left the country to travel internationally for conferences, but some people do get that (a friend of mine doing his PhD in physics in Canada has left the country several times). My impressoin was these trips were compensated by the school.
5. Ego boost, not many people can survive a PhD.
   He told me a career in math was a dead end. He said an assistant professorship got several hundred applications, so most go nowhere unless you were the best of the best of the best. Which he isn’t (he is more the best of the best IMO).

IMO, now that blue collar jobs have largely disappeared as a means of obtaining a stable middle/upper middle class lifestyle, the children of that generation are throwing themselves into professional schools to find a better life. The problem is demand isn’t going up to make up for the new trainees and applicants, if anything demand is going down due to outsourcing. So now we have an endless stream of unemployed and underemployed scientists, lawyers, MBAs, engineers, IT professionals, physicists, etc. floating around the US. I really don’t know what the solution is, but when anyone says ‘more education is the solution’ I want to punch the TV.

I have a BS in a life science field. The BS degree has problems (most full time jobs are being replaced by part time temp/contract jobs), but good paying full time jobs do exist on the bachelor level. However the info I gathered made me decide against a PhD back when I was an undergrad.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Fiveyearlurker

The problem is that in academic science, unlike say law or medicine, the incentives are to train as many graduate students/postdocs as possible. They are cheap labor that allow labs to run with lower than free market paid, highly skilled workers and the more there are, the easier it is for the established scientists to run their labs. Doesn’t matter that they are “training” for positions that will never exist. Think about law and medicine where the incentive is to train fewer “replacements” to keep the demand high. There is no need to do that in science. There are already a limited number of positions, and a steady supply of underpaid labor supporting them helps.

I agree with you on medicine, but not on law. I think the incentive is there to train as many law students as possible. One argument was that if you get 30-40 extra students, that is an extra $1 million a year in tuition w/o any major increases in overhead (slightly bigger class sizes, but the same professors could still teach).

So law is oversaturated too.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

Medicine controls how many people can join. But since it is one of the few fields with good career prospects left applications have skyrocketed, so only a handful get in.

[No_Wikipedia_Cites]

@Wesley_Clark

My brother did his PhD in math, and once he completed that he went to medical school for his MD.
He told me a career in math was a dead end. .

I don’t get it.

What does (advanced, Ph.D. level) math have to do with practicing medicine? Even high level research docs can’t possibly be using 4 semesters of calculus, much less ph.d. brain-busters.

Seems like getting a phd in math is like backpaking in Malaysia, not for money for the experience.

And how could a math career be a dead end? All we ever hear is how we have a shortage of science, and american kids suck at science and math, and the Chinese are the best, and we are doomed. But there seems to be no actual need for math wizards in the economy.

[Kevbo]

@Ruken

Getting a science PhD isn’t that hard. Given some of my coworkers, it’s more about persistence than raw smarts. I was more stressed in undergrad.

+1

I don’t have a PhD. I have worked with many who did. A fair number of them were sharp cookies. At least an equal number were sad examples of men (and one woman, but I work in a male dominated field) educated far beyond their intelligence.

Many of the very sharp PhDs I have known were working in other fields…for the reasons mentioned above. Academia and government labs seem largely not to be a meritocracy. Luck and politics play a far larger role in filling the available slots than talent, at least from what I have observed.

[Wesley_Clark]

@sassyfras

I don’t get it.

What does (advanced, Ph.D. level) math have to do with practicing medicine? Even high level research docs can’t possibly be using 4 semesters of calculus, much less ph.d. brain-busters.

Seems like getting a phd in math is like backpaking in Malaysia, not for money for the experience.

And how could a math career be a dead end? All we ever hear is how we have a shortage of science, and american kids suck at science and math, and the Chinese are the best, and we are doomed. But there seems to be no actual need for math wizards in the economy.

I would assume just because doing a PhD in math shows you can work in a cross discipline, and the thinking skills that would come from advanced math would likely help. He also told me he felt he could do more with innovation of medical equipment with his background in math if he ever chose to go that route (a PhD in engineering or physics would likely give the same benefits).

We ‘hear’ we have a shortage of scientists. But it is largely bullshit. Saying ‘we have a shortage of scientists, therefore more education is the solution’ is PC pablum since it doens’t require any painful decisions or painful truths to face about our standard of living, life prospects, global competitiveness or economic system. Just get more education and life will work out somehow (replace ‘education’ with ‘romantic love’ and you get popular culture). The impression I got from him was that academia was a dead end, but he might have been able to find something in government security or the financial industry with his background.

We may experience a shortage of STEM workers in the future though, because foreign born ones do not stay after completing their education as much anymore (something like 50%~ of grad students are foreign born). Plus as the US becomes more and more stagnant for careers in science, foreign nations become more appealing. Some American born and trained scientists now work in places like Singapore on things like stem cells. I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 years from now the best US scientists leave for places like China, Brazil, Russia, etc. looking for a better life. It beats a series of 70 hour a week post-docs at 30k a year here in the US.

[Ruken]

@Wesley_Clark

We may experience a shortage of STEM workers in the future though, because foreign born ones do not stay after completing their education as much anymore (something like 50%~ of grad students are foreign born).

I’m surprised there isn’t more stink raised about this, given that the taxpayers typically pay for their tuition and stipends.

[deanc2000]

@Wesley_Clark

Medicine controls how many people can join. But since it is one of the few fields with good career prospects left applications have skyrocketed, so only a handful get in.

You’ve got to pick the right field to pursue. Medicine and nursing are in very big demand at this time. Go ahead and go to law school, but you’ll be competing with the million other law school grads looking for work.

About getting into Medical school. It IS very difficult to get in, BUT many many people go to foreign schools, as a last resort, and have ended up just as happy as the US grads. The demand IS that high. The other option is PA (physician assistant) school, but I hear it is very difficult to get in to those also.

D.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Ruken

I guess my experience must have been atypical. Since starting grad school as a chemist I’ve been at three PhD-granting institutions. All of the students who graduated from my labs (~25% did not) did so in 5-5.5 years (as did I) without too much trouble. They all easily got postdoc positions or industry jobs. The postdocs who came through (1-3 years, usually 2, never 4) all got faculty or industry jobs. AFAIK everyone from the labs I worked in is still gainfully employed in a chemistry-related job.*.

I was speaking pretty specifically about biology fields. Chemistry is a different animal. Shorter time to PhD (though creeping up over the last fifteen years), and because there is more industry demand, there is an outlet for postdocs.

There is no such thing as a one year postdoc in biology. Fewer than three years, and people will question why you bailed out so soon (not to mention, you will likely have to do a second postdoc. “Only” three years of posdocing is not generally sufficient to apply for academic positions).

No chance anymore of getting into a biology PhD program anymore without lab experience.

[mozchron]

@Fiveyearlurker

…There is no such thing as a one year postdoc in biology. Fewer than three years, and people will question why you bailed out so soon (not to mention, you will likely have to do a second postdoc. “Only” three years of posdocing is not generally sufficient to apply for academic positions).

I had a one-year post doc (actually, an 11 month post-doc) in biology. And it wasn’t that long ago (6 years ago).

Its not common, I’ll admit that. The stars aligned. But its not impossible.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@mozchron

I had a one-year post doc (actually, an 11 month post-doc) in biology. And it wasn’t that long ago (6 years ago).

Its not common, I’ll admit that. The stars aligned. But its not impossible.

If it happens, you have to have a good explanation. I’ll say that if we were to see that on a CV on an interviewer we have to figure out what the story was.

[mozchron]

@Fiveyearlurker

If it happens, you have to have a good explanation. I’ll say that if we were to see that on a CV on an interviewer we have to figure out what the story was.

When I was on the market, my area of research was very hot. There were more jobs than there were good applicants on the market (lots of applicants, not many good ones). I also had a unique skill set.

My institution actually interviewed me a week before I defended my PhD, but didn’t hire me because they couldn’t imagine hiring someone that green (they didn’t fill the position). I started a post-doc, but still was interviewing for faculty positions. I got an offer from another place and called up the first place. They flew me out for a second interview and gave me the job (this was 6 months into my post-doc).

Now, I’m the first to state that my position wasn’t common. The department knew me. I had (if I may say so) a very good record from my graduate work. I developed my own project independent from my adviser - got my own funding, did my own thing, and took it all with me when I left. I had a 5-year plan for obtaining NIH funding ready to go (this impressed them, and as an aside, its pretty much played out as I wanted it to). Many people in the department were against the hire, but since I’ve been successful the most strident opposition became some of my strongest supporters.

Frankly, I was groomed by my PhD adviser for a research-intensive faculty position from my first year in his lab: grant writing, papers writing, contact network etc… Without that, it wouldn’t have gone so fast.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

A masters degree in business administration, engineering, computer science, mathematics, or one of the hard sciences is worth getting. A PhD in the humanities or social sciences is only worth something if you get it from an elite university. About the only thing one can do with something like that is teach.

If you want to be a novelist, do not major in literature. If you want to be an actor or actress do not major in drama. Major in something to fall back on if your dreams do not come true, because they probably will not. Take electives in what interests you, but do not expect anyone to pay you a decent salary for what you know.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@mozchron

Frankly, I was groomed by my PhD adviser for a research-intensive faculty position from my first year in his lab: grant writing, papers writing, contact network etc… Without that, it wouldn’t have gone so fast.

I hope you groom your students the same way. Sounds like you found one of the good ones.

Like I said, I love science, and I love my job. I’m one of the lucky ones. I think that upcoming students should be made aware of the hurdles. I wouldn’t tell them not to go into science, but going into science without a backup plan is foolhardy. Particularly when there is often little internal support for “alternative careers” in science (on odd term when the majority of PhDs end up in them!).