The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

vivace
How about 40-50 hour work weeks filled with mundane point and click?
Not to mention the that you will not get the same advanced training as if you did a PHD. However my point is simply to think twice before accepting that industry experience is more important than a PHD. Like I said, it might be for getting that 70,000 - 90,000$ coding job but these jobs might not be as much fun or rewarding as you imagine them to be, and there is kind of a low ceiling given the amount of skill involved.

You don't have to take such a job filled with "mundane point and click". Certainly, there are lots of interesting jobs out there, which are not incompatible with the sort of things you do in academic research. The point is you can do interesting things in industry with a computer science degree, which involve elements of the sort of things which go in academic research. Speaking as someone doing a Computer Science PhD having done similar sorts of things in industry, I can say this with a reasonable amount of confidence :smile:

vivace
You dont always get a job that can give you any feel good factor. In fact the chances are that you wont. The chances are that your day will be filled with unbelievable mundane tediousness... Compared to the day of a research PHD student certainly!


Industry has not got a monopoly when it comes to tedious activity! As a research student, I get to read lots of tedious and potentially irrelevant papers and texts, just in case that one paper has an important point which impacts an argument I am putting together.


vivace
Ummm I dont really know what you mean by qualitative CS PHD? Maybe an example might help. The things CS PHDs get very good at are mathematics, algorithms, and applying this to things like AI, computational biology, machine learning, etc.

An example would be using techniques such as grounded theory and hermeneutic circles as part of a structured review of literature. Most Computer Scientists haven't even heard of these concepts, but that doesn't make them any less relevant as research tools. The point is that Computer Science is a big area, which sometimes requires an interpretive as well as a positivist epistemological standpoint ; in other words, it's not just about maths and algorithms. :smile:

vivace
When companies want to get some one to solve the serious problems efficenctly, and to design algorithms, they really feel comfortable with PHD applicants. The degree says you are an expert, and thats what they want.

The degree actually means you have a broad understanding of the discipline and are the world's expert in one particular part of it. That particular part may or may not be relevant to what the company wants. Of course, a research degree is an education in its own right and this is of interest to some companies.

vivace
However my point was that coding jobs are just one sliver of the possibilities when you have a phd in cs. Other doors are open like the financial industry, not to mention various research positions and academics. You are much less restricted because a lot of areas just want to hire people they think are 'smart' and a phd in something like CS goes a long way there.

I think there is some truth in what you say, although I suspect that most of the doors that will open will be in academia rather than industry.
Reply 41
GraveMentor
You don't have to take such a job filled with "mundane point and click". Certainly, there are lots of interesting jobs out there, which are not incompatible with the sort of things you do in academic research. The point is you can do interesting things in industry with a computer science degree, which involve elements of the sort of things which go in academic research.

Well I guess it all depends on what one deems interesting. From my experience your view that industry can be intellectually rewarding is absurdly optimistic.

GraveMentor

Speaking as someone doing a Computer Science PhD having done similar sorts of things in industry, I can say this with a reasonable amount of confidence :smile:

funny , I have background in research academics and a lot of industry experience ..so i feel confident in what i say as well :smile:

GraveMentor

Industry has not got a monopoly when it comes to tedious activity! As a research student, I get to read lots of tedious and potentially irrelevant papers and texts, just in case that one paper has an important point which impacts an argument I am putting together.

This has not been my experience at all in academic research. But I am more on the mathematical side of things...things get daunting and difficult but not so much tedious.

GraveMentor

An example would be using techniques such as grounded theory and hermeneutic circles as part of a structured review of literature. Most Computer Scientists haven't even heard of these concepts, but that doesn't make them any less relevant as research tools. The point is that Computer Science is a big area, which sometimes requires an interpretive as well as a positivist epistemological standpoint ; in other words, it's not just about maths and algorithms. :smile:

Indeed, I have never heard of these areas. I find them extremely fringe, within epsilon of not counting in fact. With the exception of some special cases CS is quantitative.

GraveMentor

The degree actually means you have a broad understanding of the discipline and are the world's expert in one particular part of it. That particular part may or may not be relevant to what the company wants. Of course, a research degree is an education in its own right and this is of interest to some companies.

right. For example google wants to hire someone to work on their page rank algorithms. Pretty non trivial math going on there. There is a good chance person they will hire has a phd, because the chances of learning about the eigen values of graphs while working in industry is pretty much null. Same goes for statistical based algorithms--they want phds, optimization, etc..the list goes on and on. For advanced problem solving they arent just going to promote some in house code jockey.

GraveMentor

I think there is some truth in what you say, although I suspect that most of the doors that will open will be in academia rather than industry.


With a phd you can get a lot of the same interviews as MBAs. In fact some financial companies dont like MBAs and much prefere quantitative PHD degrees. It shows you can think creatively and really make a contribution. It probably wont do much for just landing an average SE job, but its really a whole other level of qualification. Having said that it matters a whole lot about not only the degree but also getting good quality publications.
vivace
Well I guess it all depends on what one deems interesting. From my experience your view that industry can be intellectually rewarding is absurdly optimistic.


We can agree to differ on our perspectives of working in industry. I can only assume that my experiences, and those of my friends and colleagues who work in the industry in the UK, are more positive than yours. :smile:

vivace
Indeed, I have never heard of these areas. I find them extremely fringe, within epsilon of not counting in fact. With the exception of some special cases CS is quantitative.


I think it is a little unfair to judge areas you have not heard of as "extremely fringe" and "within epsilon of not counting". Yes, ours *is* a largely quantitative science, but lots of different areas are bundled under the rubric of "Computer Science" and not just a few edge cases.

vivace
right. For example google wants to hire someone to work on their page rank algorithms. Pretty non trivial math going on there. There is a good chance person they will hire has a phd, because the chances of learning about the eigen values of graphs while working in industry is pretty much null. Same goes for statistical based algorithms--they want phds, optimization, etc..the list goes on and on. For advanced problem solving they arent just going to promote some in house code jockey.


In these cases, I suspect the chances are the selected candidates will have PhDs in cogent subjects.
The question is should getting a shot at these jobs be considered sufficient motivation for doing a research degree? Your line of reasoning suggests you believe it is. Personally speaking, this would motivate me enough to do a 1 year taught course in the relevant areas, but not enough to do a 3-4 year research degree.
Reply 43
In these cases, I suspect the chances are the selected candidates will have PhDs in cogent subjects.
The question is should getting a shot at these jobs be considered sufficient motivation for doing a research degree? Your line of reasoning suggests you believe it is. Personally speaking, this would motivate me enough to do a 1 year taught course in the relevant areas, but not enough to do a 3-4 year research degree.


Well the point here is not that you should be familiar with some subject or have taken a few classes. When companies want some hefty thinking having a PHD in CS or Mathematics looks really good, it signifies that you are capable of independent high quality original research, and you have some schools ultimate seal of approval. That means a heck of a lot to a company that is thinking of investing millions of dollars on for example the trading algorithm whoever they hire comes up with.

Less fantastically, most people do a PHD at a university with a better reputation then they did their previous degrees.
For example I know someone who did his undergrad at Simon Fraser and then PHD at Cambridge . The name brand alone has opened a lot of doors, if he applied for just some software engineering job they would just be thinking "this guy is from Cambridge" . The enhanced name alone can get you more interviews of the same sorts of jobs you wanted after your undergrad.

But all in all the real advantage of a PHD is giving you the certification to be taken seriously for positions which you wouldn't otherwise be. 3 years of experience is great for continuing down a particular path one step at a time but if you ever find you want or need to switch paths I think you will find that you want that PHD behind your name. In the least you have teaching at a community college as a fall back for the rest of your life.


This argument assumes that people are motivated purely by financial reward. If this were the case, how do you explain the success of open source software? Many people doing open source development don't earn "big bucks" (certainly the people I know doing it don't), but they earn enough to get by. In many cases, the reward comes from the peer-acknowledgment and the feel-good factor of knowing that they are making a difference.

I would just like to respond to this point again. First of all I would not say my experience in industry has been bad. I just feel that for the investment in terms of skills and time it is financially unsatisfying compared to other professions. Lets face it people who love carpentry find their own non financial rewards by becoming carpenters for the rest of their lives. However the reason there is not more carpenters and other sorts of craftsmen is not because it pays horribly or that it is useless, its just that the financial rewards do not come close to measuring up to the skill involved. People go to university because the basic qualification of a bachelors degree allows(hopefully) you to get more financially rewarding positions. This is sort of analogous to the question of doing a PHD. It doesnt make you a better carpenter but it opens up more comfortable doors.

Latest

Trending

Trending