To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/SamuelBosch . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
PHD's think better than most people. i did a phd in nano stuff and reneuable energy stuff, it was really easy took me 3 years. best decision i didn't want a job yet and i was paid to do it.
I did my PHD in physics at MIT. Never once thought about going into academia as a career. It was all about my love of physics and my love for a real challenge. It was hard,but glad I did it.. never once regretted doing it.
I did a PhD at a state university for exactly the same reason - a love of physics. I currently work in industry. I came away from academia disenchanted. I did not like it at all. Many academians are intellectual snobs who relish their elitist status.
@@andyjin1453 In the right situation a PhD could be super fun but from what I find it seems to be a waste of time. I've worked around many PhD's through the years and many don't contribute much to be honest. I've always worked on the real products and in most cases the PhD's don't contribute at all. The system seems to want the cover of "we have PhD's" and just see it as an operating expense but some do contribute . When times get times get tough they get laid off. Look at the furloughed people during Covid.
You are right about so many things you said in the video. If someone wants to work in academia, a PhD is necessary, in industry... Not so much. I currently work in a hospital and have done so for over a decade, I am extremely burnt out and tired of seeing neuro patients everyday. All of a sudden I fell in love with Cancer epidemiology after a clinic day where I saw three patients in whom I established a diagnosis of prostate cancer, what are the odds! They were all there for spinal problems but left with a prostate cancer diagnosis. I became more curious and started researching and reading about the cancer in my locality, but was baffled at how only very little is known about it's distribution here. So I decided to get a second MSc in PH, specializing in cancer epi. It was the most academically fulfilling thing I have ever done, made me feel alive, and decided it was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. That's why I am getting a PhD, although my employers don't need it or support me to get one, and I may end up leaving the position, I feel like its my purpose. I feel that's what's missing in many people, the right purpose for doing the PhD
That’s a great and logical reason to do a PhD. You actually have a goal and mission for it, which most PhD candidates don’t. Wishing you best of luck and I hope something great comes out of your PhD 😊
@@Seacle14Right like it is about the love of the field and the journey. He is talking about the outcome afterwards. There is a beauty in pursuing the unknown
PhD isn't for average people also it isn't for those who loves money because it requires lots sacrifices and time. You don't need a PhD in order to become a CEO or Executive director. However it is for those who are willing to solve problems and advance our understanding on complex subjects. If you don't like to work under pressure and uncertainty, then don't go for a PhD instead get a job and take care of yourself otherwise you will end up like thise who complain on TH-cam about their bad experiences on PhD program.
Right? This guy is so salty for no reason, seems like a meathead bro who thought PhD is a get-rich-quick scheme. For STEM fields PhDs are just as important in industry and government as they are in academia. In fact a lot of industries like semiconductor and photonics piggyback off of the findings of academia, it’s not that “no one cares about the research”.
have you ever worked in idustry? All the "qualities" you mention are basic requirements in any of the real eingener job - but they need to be scalable and peformant, while many PhD research is on small data, prototype quality and ... small.
Just another perspective. PhD in the US can be a great way to improve your life, especially if you're from a developing country. I'm a PhD student at a lower-ranked US university. Many people from my country and neighboring countries pursue PhDs because master's degrees are too expensive. PhDs are free here, and the stipend is almost as high as the top salary you could earn. After getting a PhD, you can find a job in software or tech, even at an entry-level. Work for a few years, then do enough to potentially work remotely from your home country. Some of my seniors have done this successfully and potentially will retire before 40. So, a PhD can be a smart strategy for people from developing countries.
That makes a lot of sense. In some way, this is similar to my own situation. Wouldn't have been able to do a master's degreee so easily either. And keep in mind, you can also always "master out" :)
@PKperformanceEU OP says he's from a different country. The money he earns and saves in the US is probably enough for him to live a decent life back in his home country.
That’s what I don’t understand about people saying you have to become a professor with a PhD. Like isn’t industry R&D and government labs/organizations an option as well?
Not really. You get paid to work. And you don't get paid much - typically about as much as a fast food worker. Typically, it's a lot of work. Either you're reading for background knowledge, planning experiments, running experiments, interpreting results, writing papers, coordinating with co-authors, meeting (and usually getting owned) by your advisor, planning talks, working on your thesis, etc. If I had just spent all day thinking, I would have gotten dropped within a semester. It was an incredible amount of work just to stay afloat!
I mean you guys also have like several 5 hours exams during your attempt becoming a Dr.. That's also almost unheard of in any other fields except for maybe some physics & chemistry PhDs around the world.
I am a maths undergraduate and have plans on doing masters and then a PhD can you tell me some tips on how to progress also I want to study pure mathematics as well(most notabley number theory and areas of descrete math from graphs to combinatorics) but I don t think is practicall at first maybe do a masters on algorithms or smth like that and then PhD and then somehow approach other professors and try doing research on number theory and more pure mathematics
I worked in industry for a little, and now I'm starting my PhD in CS this fall. I loved research and did not like working as a SWE or quant nearly as much as those were the two jobs I worked in industry. It's just personal, decision, I always think people should spend time in industry first then decide; if you go back that means you really want it, and you'll probably be a very good PhD student.
@@SamuelBoschMIT The problem with trying industry and then eventually going back to academia is that in many cases a PhD position only presents to you once, being in the right place in the right moment. Of course there are people with outstanding CVs that will have the door opened any time they knock on it, but for most people its more of a take it now or leave it sort of deal. Another question is that possibly a PhD fresh out of uni is going to be behind his alternative self if he instead been working in industry salary wise. But what is the case going to be 10 or 20 years from there? And related to this two scenarios, who would more valued if in the case of switching companies, the PhD or the one with experience? Cause depending how you look on it, the one that has limited himself to work in a company has better soft skills, but in other sense it's the PhD who has built(paradoxically enough) the deepest and most transferible abilities. I see the point of toughening yourself eventually in real world more applied settings, but sometimes it's the industry job that ends up being the poorer and most repetitive experience Really interesting video and topic in any case, a PhD is certainly not a decision to make mindlessly
After i finished my Masters degree, my advisor wanted me to continue on with a PhD. I looked at employment for PhD's from my Big 10 university in my field. It was not encouraging. So, i switched careers and picked up a couple of degrees in a better paying field.
As a generalist who easily gets bored once 90% of a field is grasped, I probably won't pursue a PhD. Perhaps a start-up is the ultimate fulfillment for all generalists...? Looking forward to what you will achieve with Marveri. Good luck!!
@@filipposchelfi1874 a jack of all trades, master of none. In my field of software development for instance, a generalist would be someone who is decent at frontend, backend, devops and so on. Meanwhile, a specialist would be someone who specializes in one of these tracks and has great amounts of knowledge in it compared to a generalist who may know a little beyond surface level stuff only. Also, no dumb questions, never fear when asking, that's how we all learn.
@@SamuelBoschMIT Good Consulting is invaluable. But I feel like, your impact ultimately is not as high as if you were a high profile project manager in a company, keeping track of every part of a project to make it as good & qualitative as possible. Especially for such high level generalists like you, Samuel. People like you who are able to go so deep into specialized theory, I would not call you a generalist per se. More like a hybrid type: Specialized Generalist - which I think, is one of the most impactful & powerful things a human can be/can possess. Because people can be generalist but only understand superficially the things in specialized area, effectively making them pretty incompetent (sorry for the straightforwardness). I am very confident that you will always be able to detect which project was manages/directed by a specialized generalist compared to just a normal generalist. Almost always the former will have much higher quality, since projects most often are implemented to tackle a specific problem.
I got a Ph.D. in astrophysics in the 1970s. With my acceptance letter was another letter saying that it was unlikely that I would find employment in the field, just because the employment situation was particularly bad. I went anyway because I was interested, and I figured I could do something else after that if it didn't work out. As it turned out, I had a great career doing a wide range of interesting things. If you think of the Ph.D. program as a trade school to get a job, I think you are missing the point.
Yea. The degree is great for knowledge in that particular field, but at the end of the day work skills, discipline, and money making skills are king and you dont need a degree for that. Combine that with phd in astrophysics and you could make a rival to SpaceX.
Samuel, a few of your videos may have helped me cross the mental knot I had in my mind regarding whether or not I should quit my PhD to get into an industry oriented position. Your thought process resonates so much with the values I hold dear. Thank you for making me realize what truly matters.
I am very happy to hear that my video(s) helped you with your decision process. And definitely make sure to also get other peoples' opinions, not to end up overly biased with my own :)
If ever you go for a STEM PhD, choose a research topic that would force you to learn skills and knowledge and tools valued by the industry. For example, learn an upcoming industry standard and then apply your concepts to it to see potential real-world benefits. The point here is to do relevant 'applied' research if you want industry employers to see your value as a future PhD holder.
For some certain specialized jobs, getting a PhD is a must. I'm planning to pursue a PhD in Condensed Matter Theory to enable me to work on material science projects that I am passionate about.
I am one. CMT has zero things to say about Materials. The latter is still trial and error in the lab. The former studies ideal systems that have nothing to do with real systems...
I think, in general we have to change our mindset that PhD must be a very difficult journey of a person. What is important is to do the stuffs we love, like researching the topic you are interested in. For teachers, it is great to pursue PhD not only for research but also to be updated of the current trends in their field.
The biggest reason for me not to pursue a PhD is that you can conduct nearly the same research in a large company. Especially in the US, I see that research in industry is a big deal. It tends to be more applied and often has a direct connection to our day-to-day life. In contrast, academic research is sometimes better for long-term advancements, but by the time it could become relevant, the industry may have already advanced in another direction, making the research irrelevant, or the industry may achieve the same results through simpler means.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. People often talk about "academic freedom" allowing you to do reserach in anything you like. This is often/usually not the case. If you really know what you wanna do, then yes. But usually you end up working on whatever the latest grants were for
In my PhD I studied lasers but primarily about what happens at the center of a focused beam. The laser system itself is already built for you by companies in industry. In industry, to be useful you have to know how to build lasers and control them with electronics, how to build optics and components used in laser systems.
But the thing is that without PhD in most cases you end up just as an engineer and not doing independent research. Having PhD gives an opportunity to attract new funding or lead a research. This is true in most cases, of course you may be independent researcher with MS only if you are coming from top tier lab with famous people
@@daulet-zi4mj A PhD is only one and often not very significant variable. More important variables are the experience you have, the amount of funding available for R&D projects, and the field that you're in. There are high school graduates entering MIT that have stronger maker portfolios than I did coming out with a PhD.
Who told you it's about "learning how to think" ? I think it's about learning to work with literature, papers, books, and independently to find out what's under the hood and what makes things tick.
Naaah that is the work and experience of a researcher. To dig into data and understand things. You don't have to write a 150 page thesis about it. Just write scientific papers
@@adideno2771 I think it's the same. If you can publish papers, especially, high enough quality (and that's a given in PR journals) and independently enough, just tie a few of them up into a story and you can have a 150 pg thesis, hence PhD.
@@albondar depends on whether the faculty allows paper-based PhDs. But my point was, if I have done the "valuable" research work and presented them in papers, why do I have to still go for that PhD title? It is just for prestige...
@adideno2771 the whole point of a PhD is to be "paper-based": paper = chapter. The second thing is there is definitely also levels to every type of work, ex. undergraduate honors thesis vs. masters vs PhD level. If you can gather a committee and convince them you have done impactful enough work, at the boundary of the state of the knowledge and that fills the gaps in literature, yes, you can have yourself a PhD ! And what's more is your success at convincing will very well depend on the individuals in the committee or even department (some quality of work may be more acceptible in engineering than in sciences or vice versa, etc.).
Working in high tech companies in Silicon Valley and had managed more than 50 Ph. D's, I can tell you most of them are really good, creative and able to jump into a unknown field to solve real problems. If you want to do advanced research and development, getting a Ph. D paves the way to Silicon Valley. If you want to make money, come to Silicon Valley. In my 40 year industrial experience in Silicon Valley, nearly 50% of engineers/scientst have Ph. D and most of them make good money.
There are many applied science and engineering fields where you can find employment in industry, and having a PhD in that field is often the key to getting those positions in the first place.Choosing your school, advisor, research topic, and industrial sponsor are critical in this process.Everyone’s situation will be different.I appreciate your perspective.
People usually have to have some industry exposure first to know of such opportunities, especially the industrial sponsor part. I've went to science conferences for most of my PhD until my last year when I decided to go to an industry conference called Photonics West, hoping to make some connections for job opportunities. By then, my research had already been completed and I was writing my thesis, which is really meant to impress the science community, not industry. When I tell people in industry about my research, they look at me as more of a customer who needs their products than someone who can work for and benefit them internally. Ironically to advance my research I would need better technology that nobody has made yet, or lots of funding so I can have access to lots of different state of the art tech in order to cobble together different systems and keep trying them out to see if they work. Since we do experiments at a lab one month in a year at most, and requires a lot of bureaucracy like proposal submissions and discussions years beforehand, there is not enough opportunity to try things out at high frequency.
@@cryorabut what’s the difference between industry research and academic applied science research? Aren’t the R&D at companies done by PhDs/researchers? It seems like industry benefits a lot from the findings of academia.
@@thematrix1101 They differ in what topic is researched and who owns the results, as well as how funding is handled. In academia you submit proposals to places like the national science foundation, get funding from them, and you publish your results in journals. In industry, money might come from the company's discretionary budget, investors, or self-funded, or through institutions like startup funds or SBIR funds. The topic of research is typically on something that would bring the company profit, or result in a product that the funding sources want. Publishing to a paper won't be emphasized or outright disallowed to protect intellectual property or maintain secrecy. Research in industry won't be carried out primarily by graduate students, but by entrepreneurs or salaried professionals.
I got my PhD in chemical engineering in 1986 from a top US University with the intent of entering corporate R&D. At that time, you needed a PhD to get that entry level job. I did well in my career, and am glad I did the PhD, although it took a lot of discipline and perseverance. But, I must say, did I need a PhD to do that job? Probably not. As you mentioned, it wasn't about learning how to think. I already did very well with that - I was salutatorian of my undergraduate engineering school. It was earning the credentials that corporate R&D required, so that they were sure that their new employee could tackle large, complex projects, persevere and drive them to completion. In that environment, I was surrounded by about 100 other PhD chemical engineers and chemists. It was exhilarating and rewarding to be in such a community of super smart, dedicated, and successful people. It was also humbling. One colleague sent his two sons to Harvard. Another colleague's daughter won a national piano competition at age 6. Another colleague's son won the national violin competition. My academic advisor's son won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Normally students that can do a PHD usually have great grades already and because of that probably can work at top companies. So its PHD vs working at a top company not some average company. PHD students are usually the best undergraduates.
I have 8 years in industry and went back to academia this year to pursue research in Computer Engineering. I took a very large pay cut but it’s a very strategic move given the direction my field is headed. I have a clear focus on what I want to get out of my degree and also view this as an opportunity to course correct my career back toward my passion. I’ve had many roles across my career and am most passionate about technical leadership. Research skills are a core competency there and it’s never been a better time to be working in edge computing. This path is much more personally fulfilling as compared to the generalist project manager role industry was pushing me towards, and the practical, social, and soft skills industry taught me have given me an entirely different perspective on my graduate education.
I used to work for FB. A PhD starts as IC4, an undergraduate starts as IC3. The amount of time it is expected to take an IC3 undergrad to become IC4 is a year. In 6 years, you can become IC6 or IC7, which is staff level eng. If you are a coder, your compensation at that level would be 800K. You do the math :)
Nice! Question: in your opinion, which are the odds to be employed in FB (or Faang in general) just being an undergraduate vs. holding a PhD? From the pov of an European-based AI engineer like me it seems impossible to even get your CV considered if you don’t have a PhD o like 10 yrs of relevant experience in the field.
I can’t speak for Europe and it definitely has become more competitive in the US in the last couple of years. I got laid off myself, together with a bunch of others in my department, so that should tell you something. But when this current fog clears, it will likely be easy to be hired again. It is a lot about luck and your interview prep. I had a master’s degree in math from a pretty weak university, many years of somewhat irrelevant experience, and a few years of relevant experience. It all depends whether you are good with interviews after you are called. It used to be very easy to be interviewed and they still have a ton of openings I believe. I disliked working for a large company, but the compensation was out of this world given the movement of the stock.
I should also add that basically nobody needs a doctorate to code. There might some positions where it is necessary, but all and all it is a waste of time.
Sure. But the staff maybe just in product team, and the PhD is in FAIR, Facebook AI Research or the equivalent. FAIR probably doing new research, while product team applied what's known
@@NinjaKirikoJediTrue, but you do have an option to move around in FB and if you don’t like what you are doing, you can find something you do like. True that some positions in data science might be closed to you if you don’t have a phd. Core data science, for example, requires a phd. This is much less so for coders though.
Here a Math Phd with three post-docs and changed for HPC one year ago. Of what you say I find something True, something completely False. Restarting as entry level in another job, still another place where to live with little money and the burden to work but also learning at the same time is really hard. And I could have went for this job 12 years ago! I find completely false that the 19 years old me would be faster, more productive and learning more. I can safely say that I would completely destroy the 19 years me in any learning/intellectual competition (I am not talking about something I already know, but about unknown things.). Also, I lived a lot of difficulties and the 19 years me would be very weak in front of troubles for which now I stay calm , breathe and think. The 19 years old me would work much less than me, I get used to work much more than what I was. It could be strange, but also in terms of energy my 19 years could not match me nowdays, the only thing it could do it would jumping about 12cm more and running about 1,5 seconds faster 100m. I am working in HPC, yes there are various people who, instead of something like my abstract Math phd, learnt a lot of IT tools and often I feel embarassed they are so fast and I don't know anything. But other time I look at them as retarded, they don't have any critical thinking and vision of the problems. For example now we are training some Neural Networks and they can not grasp the basic of the variance-bias dilemma in training the models. They forgot any math beyond high school, and I am quite sure that many of them are so used to type just characters on a computer that they could not solve anymore neither a one variable study of function with pencil and paper. Also if you aim to enter working in something like "Nvidia Deep Learning Institute" (where I work there are two guys working there), you need a Phd to work there. The point of a Phd is choosing one that can be with transferred outside Academia with minimal effort, in case you go for a plan B. And there are good topic in many Phds Nowdays for this. The problem is finding mentors that guide you. A point that you did not mention is that (independently from the Institute where you get your Phd) not all Research field are goods, many are fancy dead-paradigmas that go on because there are professors with grants, prizes and power to keep them alive and have new pupils to perpetrate the species (at the end of my first post-doc I realized that I was exactly in this kind research community). A reason because many choose a Phd is because most of the work in companies is awful, in particular IT and consultancy companies(these are pure garbage)
As ML Engineer we know math, Linear Algebra, Calculus 1, and numerical optimization and that is enough, unless we are on the research side, we don't need to specialize in math. You don't need to know quantum psychics to drive a car. Your argument of solving with pen and paper is like saying why use a calculator when they can just add stuff. We don't need pen and paper they are plenty of things that make things easy, so we can focus on other important aspects. Our job is to solve real world problems, and fine tune parameters and alter models if needed. We solve real world solutions, a lot of our models are handicapped by the machines itself, due to the amount of data is getting out of hand. so we don't need further math, cuz the problem lies with the limitations of the hardware, or the nature of the problem is hard. We combine many fields in one. We don't need to be expert at every field. Your job is to develop, our job is to deploy, both have their challenges.
@@OmarElghamry1 Of course. I think that I have been misunderstood. I wanted to say that quitting from Academia for real world is really hard. But sometime you can see who has a stronger theoretical background which can help in some situations.
"Not all research fields are good, many are fancy dead-paradigms that go on because there are professors with grants". Very true and on point. I am a bachelor's student in physics (though I am far ahead academically, thus more comparable to a grad student). But I clearly see that there is an example of this phenomenon at my university in the field I am most interested in (theoretical physics). Glad I see that now, so that I can avoid it before I would have found myself in that research group. (A big part of the research effort there is looking for signs of so-called "supersymmetric particles" in the data from the particle collider LHC. Trouble is, LHC has found no signs of these particles and the persistent null results have ruled out a huge range of possible models of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is an incredibly fancy and perhaps beautiful mathematical theory (which is probably why there are students who still get into this stuff), but to continue looking for these particles in the data now is a complete dead end.)
@@frede1905 Hi, I am really impressed you went for reading my "rant" until the end. Yes, you are right, in general particle physics is something to stay away as much as possible if you will go into research. (More generally, who knows what they really measure in those machines. Crazy here in Europe they are insisting to have the new collider.) Overall it is hard time for physics, the main business is adding ad hoc terms in spin models of condensed matter. But not that interesting. Given the great new computational power of GPUs in computational physics there will be work to do, but this will be more engineering than physics. Even if it is not traditional theoretical physics, I think a good idea for a theoretical phd in physics is working in Graph Neural Networks, they will give a different way to modeling the physical world (And you might have the option to find good research outside Academia). Instead if you like math , good topics for a phd are Information Geometry, Graph Theory and Discrete Calculus. The only real interesting thing that I see in physics, that could bring something important and it would be good for a phd, are experimental-phenomenological aspects of testing macroscopic super-positions. There is a good community in Austria starting the project Q-Xtreme, that direction is good. I say this because is at the classical-quantum boundary that I expect the next revolution, or maybe I should say the uncompleted revolution. In my view the real questions stopped at the 30'-'40 ( there was a war in physics, maybe the II World War, maybe new generations, maybe the colliders came and things went somewhere else), I say this because Quantum Mechanics does not have Newton equations as sub-case, it can not produce any randomness like Brownian motion or the chaos that we see in fluids. The real things are under our nose. But there are not that much money at the moment for these serious things. ( I consider Quantum Computing a joke. And Quantum Information a diversion maneuver).
I think the main reason why one should pursue a PhD degree is the passion for studying and researching a particular topic. Any other reason may not be appropriate, as obtaining a PhD degree is a long and very challenging journey. Job market requires other skills; however, generally speaking, a PhD usually has very high cognitive qualities that can be exploited appropriately and successfully with the right amount of humility and adaptation.
I did not like to work in industry. Prepared docs and moved to the PhD. Industry was really stressful and unhealthy. Could not get not any sleep. Mondays were so dreadful. Crazy, crazy. Now I am pretty much my own boss and I can decide what to do. Although startup path is also not bad. Considering it as a great alternative to PhD.
I've got a friend with a high paying industry job. A PhD would bump up his salary but not by much. And doing a PhD would cost him >0.5M in foregone wages over 4 years.
I know of an individual who put the cart before the horse and wildly succeeded in what he was doing on his own. He was not involved in a PHD program to be a researcher. But by a stroke of serendipity, he had a brilliant insight into a subject matter (not in the sciences) that just would not cease to give. He embarked on decades-long research, and developed a body of knowledge that still has to come to light. The downside, even academia is clueless about his achievement, even though some academics know about it. The academic model would not have worked for him. To be sure, he has a doctorate in a field wholly unrelated to the research he ended up doing. He labored out of sheer curiosity even though he neither received recognition for it, nor made money out of it. That is another issue altogether. It is an odd situation to be in. He thinks that academia is a racket.
Any thoughts on industrial PhD? I saw a relevant number of such positions within IBM and Meta in Switzerland, France, Italy and Ireland and a lot more in Germany with German companies (BMW, SAP, Bosch, Siemens etc). I'm pretty sure such pisitions exist in other European countries as well. The deal is: you are a fixed term employee of the company for 3-4 years and a PhD student at some partner university, they cover your fees (if any) and pay you a usually better salary while you do your research, publish your papers etc.
I’m french, in france i never heard about such thing. It’s not impossible, perhaps it’s in some big companies, but most of the time you make a Phd when you are young. When you work you could have some formation but it’s very hard to make a Phd.
Good point. In my case, I already have over 12 years of experience as a Machine Learning Engineer (sometimes also as a Research Scientist in some roles) and a Master Degree in AI, but I would like to become a full-time AI Research Scientist ( some positions in Industry, as you said, require a PhD ), and having a PhD and also from a well-reputed University like MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Oxford and so on seems like dream to me. Right now I'm revisiting Calculus, ODE, and others related Math subjects, and doing a lot of research in Meta Learning ( my favorite topic ) to apply for a PhD Position. but being from Brazil, having a lovely son and wife to take care of, it's extreme difficult to compete for a PhD position in US or European University. but thanks a lot for your help and your videos you have been posting here.
'Nobody cares or knows about that topic' yeah I bet that most people don't know how a phone or a computer work either, but they still use it daily and it plays a huge role i their lives. Some topic are very important to learn about to contribute to society or be a professional in rare, helpful ressources.
I’m a clinical psychologist. In my home country the exit degree for being a Clin Psych is a MA degree (course work, empirical thesis, internship etc). Now at 47 I’m busy with my PhD - research only, the course work is the MA degree. I have a full time private practice and after hours I must do my PhD. It is super tough when you’re working full time! But I am immersing myself deep into complex theory and that is what I love and why I decided on thePhD. It’s a personal challenge. I will submit sometime in 2025. But to work full time and then to switch gears from clinician to researcher after hours is not easy.
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
My advice to anyone thinking about doing a PhD is that the main motivation must be to perform an original piece of research making you an accomplished scientist. If that is not your number 1 motivation, do not do it.
I would add that to advance at many biotech companies you probably should have a PhD. This includes moving into management. There is a definitely worker versus researcher division at these firms.
I worked for the military for 6 years and came to the US for a Masters and understood that getting my green card without a PhD was terribly hard in my field (aerospace engineering), I embarqued in a PhD prorgam in very difficult topic (Computational and experimental fluid dynamics) and hopefully I expect to graduate by spring 2025, I will be 39 years old by that time. By watching this video, I understood that I took the wrong train since the beginning by applying for a Master in aerospace engineering, that was a one way path that made my life terrible hard. Thank you for sharing your experience.
I’ve personally never thought of PhD as school or education. It’s a work that kind of leads to a title. But the best bet would be to work on something that solves a real problem just like an entrepreneur will solve a real problem.
Great video! I believe that today, the job market is changing so fast that planning for your career 20-30 years ahead (as in academic careers) is just impossible.
I am struggling so much with decisions I want to commit to. I am a second year PhD in theoretical nuclear physics at a reputable university (not top 10, but well regarded in the USA at least). I have been purposely trying to pivot my speciality into something building plenty of practical skills, including machine learning applications. In the past year, I have gradually come to close the academic pathway for myself as I have realized, among other things, the lack of location flexibility that comes with postdocs and professorship. It is just too terrible for me to convince myself otherwise. I would like to end up in quant finance one day, but I am struggling with leaving my PhD or not. I have an MSc in physics with a thesis and an upcoming paper to be published. But down the line, I think I might like to do research in industry, maybe in quant research. All in all, I am in a rough patch as I try to figure out what is best for me. Nice video. This captures my dilemma pretty well haha. I agree with the inertia point, I feel that fear whenever I seriously think about leaving for good.
Finish your PhD. There's an ongoing revival of nuclear industry in many countries around the world. All are facing a lack of experts in the field. There will be lots of golden opportunities. Get into a startup, solve the world's energy problems (or at least a tiny problem with reactor coating or whatever) and make it big with RSUs. Or become a manager at a large energy corporation building plants, where you could help oversee multibillion Dollar projects. A job in finance should be a last resort for you.
I know excellent students who did PhDs that did Quality Job Training after their College Research carreer before landing their job outside academia. People who dropped out of their university carreer paths became teachers or Quality engineers. With PhDs you can contribute to the science community. As an excellent student it may be worthwhile.
Yeah all the breakthroughs in technology aren't done in academia anymore, it's by the industry, I found academia needlessly sterile and slow, more so focused on the quantity of research papers they churned out rather than quality. Load of bs papers as such. I fared much better in the industry and I dare say I gradually started to understand the architecture and the way things worked naturally after a few months as a SWE. Undergrad took 3 years to explain these concepts, because they're super outdated imo. Currently running my own business w a mentor and quitting my job once it takes off lol, glad I didn't take the chance to do a PhD when offered, if not I wouldn't be where I am today. All the best to the people pursuing PhDs though, I still have deep respect for what you all do.
One alternative option people may consider (especially in the nordics), is the opportunity to do an industrial PhD, where a company sponsors a PhD student in collaboration with a university, which is common in Scandinavia. The general benefit is that the student/employee gains industrial experience in conjunction with completing an advanced degree (and can progress their careers within the company). The drawback is that it usually takes longer (e.g., 8 years), so it requires sustained effort for a much larger period of time, so it is better suited for young professionals with no family obligations.
PhDs have two career paths, Research and Teaching. Having done a PhD, it’s not fun. It sounds very romantic spending time learning and thinking, but at the expensive of living in poverty for 4-6 years. In all honesty, if you like the biological sciences, go to medical school instead. If you want to work in pharmaceutical drug discovery, research, statistics and in any of the pharmaceutical sciences, you must have a PhD
Thanks for the video. Over my career I've heard the most complaints about education from people that only went to high school - too little, PhD - too much. The least complaints have come from the group that did trade school, 2 year associate's, 4 year bachelor's and 6 (4+2) year master's degrees.
I'm in the Physics Dept at MIT as a PhD student. In my second year and am having serious doubts if this is the right path for me, but I don't know what else I'd do. I wish I would have explored other industries during my undergrad/before entering a PhD program.
I think this is correct. My former undergraduate professors kindly took their time and held a meeting with me to see if I should get a PhD in electrical engineering hgh-frequency RF semiconductors. I was . In the end, they concluded that "unless the sun wouldn't come up for me", I shouldn't get a PhD. After all, I was about 31 years old in 1988 when I was asking this question. So I did the PhD anyway. I couldn't imagine doing boring jobs. Yes, the PhD did get me into interesting work and does so to this day. I'm betting I've made more money doing highly-technical work than I would have rotting in a boring job. I still don't recommend attempting to get a professorship. Professors wind up doing the management work rather than the hands-on research and technical work. I wanted to be the "go-to" guy when you needed a tough technical problem solved. I don't, and never have care about moving into management. If you want to do research, work in a company or for a startup who gets government grants. That way, you get to work with university professors and students without the university politics.
If you don’t value higher education , you probably haven’t run multiple businesses, or interviewed to be an executive. I have Seventeen years n business, in everything from Construction, Clean Energy, Private Equity, Venture Capital, and I went back to school because I realized the positive impact research has on business. I have had over 10k people work for me on my life, and I have managed at the highest levels possible. There are several terminal degree programs that accommodate working professionals now… Even some Ivy Leagues are offering online terminal degrees.
I have a bachelor’s in business (marketing) and a master’s in liberal arts (history). I briefly checked into a PhD. It was tempting, but it just wasn’t for me. I had a great career in business and just retired. I admire those that are able to complete a PhD.
I completely agree! Fantastic video. I am doing masters in Retrieval Augmented generation in AI and going into Phd soon. I would like just to mention there might be some exceptions. AI jobs actually often do require PhD and it is a place where research and industry merge, mitigating the risks of doing a PhD. If you can enter a AI/ML PhD program in the best schools then it is more often than not worth it.
I did a PhD in biophysics at a public university in the USA. Now I’m starting a university from scratch. I have several startups companies in biotech and pharmaceutical industries. I’m sure that this perspective would not be possible without doing a PhD. So I highly recommend completing a PhD if you want knowledge to do something amazing instead of just to make money. And as a bonus I can tell immediately when someone is taking nonsense like Elon Musk or SBF or any of the frauds leading high tech companies.
Getting a PhD is a mistake for a lot of people. Its very hard, time consuming and most jobs care more about experience than degree titles. While youre still taking classes and working on a dissertation, many of your colleagues in late 20s early 30s have already purchased a home and gotten married and promoted. There's a reason most wealthy people have a bachelors masters or professional degree (MD, JD etc.) But a PhD is a big accomplishment for many people, especially in tge science realm. As someone who studied economics, it was absolute hell
Probably worth emphasising that this is US specific - here in the UK a full time PhD usually only takes 3-4 years so you _could_ be entering the workforce at around age 25. (though even then, people I know that have done one here _still_ say "Don't do it !" :) - or at least make very sure you know _why_ you're doing it)
My BIL went to get his PhD for physics at Caltech for 6 years, and failed. He went home and sulked for 2 years in his parents basement, and only when his parents started complaining he got a job at Safeway (canada) as a stocker and worked there for the last 15 years. He was a researcher and did not want to be a professor, there's not many job avenues to make a living.
Tale of 3 PD's--(1) PhD in German--he finished all the course work, but bailed on the disertation. No jobs in the field. (2) PhD in Geography. No jobs in academia; he is te financial aid director at a community college. (3) PhD in History--couldn't find work. Was working at a MacDonalds. Worth it?
In the 1980's you were a big cheese if you were doing research. Back in the day at university, most of my tutors had just a master’s degree. It really is qualification inflation.
I’m so glad that in France the PhD is only 3 years and I could go straight to it after the engineering school… in my home country (Brazil) I would have needed to do a 2 years masters and a 4 years PhD
Why can't someone get a PhD in something not very niche? In a topic which people care about like astrophysics instead of quantum effects in high-energy ray propagation through intergalactic magnetic fields.
We’ve made so much progress in science that you cannot be a generalist anymore if you wanna contribute to some research field. If you do a PhD on astrophysics , you’ll still have to work on some tiny niche subfield of astrophysics. That is, unless you somehow discover a new theory of everything, but that’s unlikely
I don't quite understand what you are asking. Are you asking why you can't do a broader, more generalist phd? That's because a PhD addresses a specific research question you try to figure out. Or are you actually asking why you can't do a phd in astrophysics? Of course you can do a PhD in astrophysics, you still have to try to answer a specific question in astrophysics. A PhD is a research endeavor.
Disclaimer; I’ve not earned a Ph.D. I’ve known many PH.Ds, each have their own reason for pursuing the degree, but the common thread is that they have a passion for the subject. Earning a Ph.D does not guarantee knowledge in any other area. Many Ph.Ds I know wear slip on shoes for a reason.
One good thing about science or tech PhD programs is that they are often very low tuition versus a master's program. You are often doing lab work and research that is funded by a grant and that covers all course and research material costs and pays you a small salary. One I am familiar with paid students around $40K/year back in the 2010s.
You should be doing your PhD because you love and are passionate about your topic. Don't do it because you think having a PhD would look great on your resume or you like the idea of having a PhD.
That is definitely fair. If you wanna do a PhD mainly for fun and you’re fully aware that this may slow down your career (particularly from a financial standpoint) and you can afford that, then doing a PhD is a very conscious fun thing you do, which is ok
My dream: work as a AI researcher at OpenAI, Antrophic, Google, Meta, etc… The problem: I am from Brazil, I study in PUCRS, a university no one knows outside of Brazil. My only shot on landing a job like that, is to go through a PHD a get a publication at a high level AI conference. There aren’t many options for me, except the PHD (I already work as a ML Engineer, but that won’t get me anywhere).
I agree with a lot of this video, a PhD is certainly not for everyone. But I would argue that a PhD definitely develops your soft skills and in many ways develops them better than industry. I give presentations about once a month where I needed learned to present complicated topics to people that aren't familiar with the field. I learned to answer difficult questions and deal with professors asking really dumb questions. I learned how to work with other students and post docs in my group, which in my experience is more difficult than an industry setting as everyone has their own goals that don't necessarily align with other peoples. I have undergrads which I manage. and learned how to keep them engaged and make meaningful contributions.
I think it was a fine decision. Maybe I could be a level 6-7 now (am a senior data scientist aka 4) but I get paid well, am respected by colleagues for the research I do, and I don’t really need to let go of doing research (don’t want to). Those higher levels that you could have achieved right now are essentially are career in politics which is definitely not for everyone. It’s all about science at the end of the day!
interesting. I think a PhD is not for everyone. However, I highly doubt you would have got $3M in startup funding if you didn't have "MIT PhD" next to your name. Having a PhD simply opens doors like that
Actually, I don't have an MIT PhD hahahahah I left before graduating, and only have a master's degree ahhaha But I agree, having a PhD is surely helpful. The question is just if it is more helpful than having spent the same amount of time in industry. Either might be better depending on the specific circumstances
@@SamuelBoschMIT yes, I'm aware. I mean the association as a MIT PhD (as it says on your linkedin, etc.). They've actually proven this in VC funding, it's all about signalling. Being able to signal that you got into MIT/Harvard etc. is helpful in convincing people they should trust you and invest in you. But agree totally, industry experience is very helpful! Some folks hit a ceiling without a PhD, especially in the medical field where others will have MD or PhD and advancing without a terminal degree is hard.
I used my PhD time to build a deep learning architecture which I hold an international patent and that, after its implementation, paid me a nice flat and a nice car. Meanwhile, I published my thesis. So, bottom line, PhD gave me the time to create wealth in my private life. The most comic part is that, 10 years after completing it, I am AP and do it for fun.
As much as some points are true some big points are missing … if you are working alone .. this comes down to the lab you are working for .. if you are highly technical and looking for challenges PhD such as PhD in robotics does help you .. A masters degree is simply not enough, because you don’t get enough exposure to what’s need in building robots and especially if you want to be in the edge of technological innovation. And taking the responsibility of your project comes a long way. This builds the quality of manager as well. Technology also keeps changing whether you are in the industry or in the academia so everything changes.
As you work in the industry while waiting to get back in academia, you also need to maintain good relationships with your profs. You need those recommendation letters.
1. PHD is waste of Time. 2. It Will take 7-10 Years to Complete. 3. You Will be Earning Bare minimum (Scholarships). 4. You Will become OLD and no one Will give you Employment. 5. What is the Use of a Degree which Doesnt help you in earning More Money ? 6. You Spend the same 7 Years in Top Companies you will be Earning and Saving Money. 7. Finally, in doing PHD you will become OLD and SADDIST like your Professor. 8. DONT DO PHD. Working in a Tea Shop is far better than Doing PHD.
That is the problem when means become ends in themselves. The commodification of every aspect of human endeavor leads us to absurd situations such as the fact that the most skilled people in the world have to subordinate all their life's work to the need of some chubby investor who only cares about his profits today. That only generates the consequences that the whole world in every human endeavour is experiencing today.
What do you think about short (3 Year) PhDs in Industry like its usually the case here in Germany for example. Dont they just neutralize most of your arguments. Especially if you consider that you need them to climb the coorporate ladder here in germany (most higher ups in big companies do have PhDs). If you then compete against anyone who has a PhD you are usually doomed because they will choose the PhD any day. Feels like what you are saying is mostly for america
Most countries have an produce more PhDs than they need to fill the open university faculty spots, but to some extend that is necessary. We need a filtering mechanism to allow universities to hire the best brains. The rest can work in industry or work as high school teachers.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/SamuelBosch . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
PHD's think better than most people. i did a phd in nano stuff and reneuable energy stuff, it was really easy took me 3 years. best decision i didn't want a job yet and i was paid to do it.
I did my PHD in physics at MIT. Never once thought about going into academia as a career. It was all about my love of physics and my love for a real challenge. It was hard,but glad I did it.. never once regretted doing it.
That's great. If you love physics (as I used to too), then it's definitely not a bad idea. Especially if you wouldn't have liked anything else
that's the way to do it
I did a PhD at a state university for exactly the same reason - a love of physics. I currently work in industry. I came away from academia disenchanted. I did not like it at all. Many academians are intellectual snobs who relish their elitist status.
so the job that you have now doesnt require any phd? that sounds like a waste of 5 years
@@andyjin1453 In the right situation a PhD could be super fun but from what I find it seems to be a waste of time. I've worked around many PhD's through the years and many don't contribute much to be honest. I've always worked on the real products and in most cases the PhD's don't contribute at all. The system seems to want the cover of "we have PhD's" and just see it as an operating expense but some do contribute . When times get times get tough they get laid off. Look at the furloughed people during Covid.
You are right about so many things you said in the video. If someone wants to work in academia, a PhD is necessary, in industry... Not so much. I currently work in a hospital and have done so for over a decade, I am extremely burnt out and tired of seeing neuro patients everyday. All of a sudden I fell in love with Cancer epidemiology after a clinic day where I saw three patients in whom I established a diagnosis of prostate cancer, what are the odds! They were all there for spinal problems but left with a prostate cancer diagnosis. I became more curious and started researching and reading about the cancer in my locality, but was baffled at how only very little is known about it's distribution here. So I decided to get a second MSc in PH, specializing in cancer epi. It was the most academically fulfilling thing I have ever done, made me feel alive, and decided it was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. That's why I am getting a PhD, although my employers don't need it or support me to get one, and I may end up leaving the position, I feel like its my purpose. I feel that's what's missing in many people, the right purpose for doing the PhD
That’s a great and logical reason to do a PhD. You actually have a goal and mission for it, which most PhD candidates don’t. Wishing you best of luck and I hope something great comes out of your PhD 😊
@@SamuelBoschMIT thanks 🙏👍, wishing you all the best!
Most men die WITH prostate cancer, not OF prostate cancer. Your "discoveries" were meaningless.
Looks like this guy got his PHD in bodybuilding
💪💪💪
Lol, my thoughts exactly
😂😂😂
Exactly!
That man was flexing
There’s a reason for it: pure and genuine passion for academia
This. These passionless people cynically optimising for their idea of "success" make me sad.
@@Seacle14Right like it is about the love of the field and the journey. He is talking about the outcome afterwards. There is a beauty in pursuing the unknown
PhD isn't for average people also it isn't for those who loves money because it requires lots sacrifices and time. You don't need a PhD in order to become a CEO or Executive director. However it is for those who are willing to solve problems and advance our understanding on complex subjects. If you don't like to work under pressure and uncertainty, then don't go for a PhD instead get a job and take care of yourself otherwise you will end up like thise who complain on TH-cam about their bad experiences on PhD program.
Right? This guy is so salty for no reason, seems like a meathead bro who thought PhD is a get-rich-quick scheme. For STEM fields PhDs are just as important in industry and government as they are in academia. In fact a lot of industries like semiconductor and photonics piggyback off of the findings of academia, it’s not that “no one cares about the research”.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear he just did the PhD for prestige. Kinda a sad watch.
have you ever worked in idustry? All the "qualities" you mention are basic requirements in any of the real eingener job - but they need to be scalable and peformant, while many PhD research is on small data, prototype quality and ... small.
Just another perspective.
PhD in the US can be a great way to improve your life, especially if you're from a developing country. I'm a PhD student at a lower-ranked US university. Many people from my country and neighboring countries pursue PhDs because master's degrees are too expensive. PhDs are free here, and the stipend is almost as high as the top salary you could earn. After getting a PhD, you can find a job in software or tech, even at an entry-level. Work for a few years, then do enough to potentially work remotely from your home country. Some of my seniors have done this successfully and potentially will retire before 40. So, a PhD can be a smart strategy for people from developing countries.
That makes a lot of sense. In some way, this is similar to my own situation. Wouldn't have been able to do a master's degreee so easily either. And keep in mind, you can also always "master out" :)
The wisdom of this perspective can not be overemphasized, especially for those who desperately need to harness this path.
Clever!!👏🏽 👏🏽
Retire?!! You mean living a cheap shit life or else you run out of money?! I will be working until 85yo and feel alive and have good money
If you have the need to retire before the age of 40, then you might want to reevaluate your career.🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@PKperformanceEU OP says he's from a different country. The money he earns and saves in the US is probably enough for him to live a decent life back in his home country.
My reason is to become a Researcher, not a professor. But later I will go into it. Researcher in industry or non profit or gov lab.
That’s what I don’t understand about people saying you have to become a professor with a PhD. Like isn’t industry R&D and government labs/organizations an option as well?
Doing a PhD means getting paid to think for three years, and that's a luxury
It would be great if it didn't limit that to a mind bendingly narrow band.
Phd lasts longer than 3 years
Not really. You get paid to work. And you don't get paid much - typically about as much as a fast food worker. Typically, it's a lot of work. Either you're reading for background knowledge, planning experiments, running experiments, interpreting results, writing papers, coordinating with co-authors, meeting (and usually getting owned) by your advisor, planning talks, working on your thesis, etc. If I had just spent all day thinking, I would have gotten dropped within a semester. It was an incredible amount of work just to stay afloat!
Jejejeje. Yeah right
In my country of residence, all university-provided PhD scholarships are below or at minimum wage.
I'm a pure mathematician so a PhD is the absolute minimum to be someone in the field.
Oof
I mean you guys also have like several 5 hours exams during your attempt becoming a Dr.. That's also almost unheard of in any other fields except for maybe some physics & chemistry PhDs around the world.
I am a maths undergraduate and have plans on doing masters and then a PhD can you tell me some tips on how to progress also I want to study pure mathematics as well(most notabley number theory and areas of descrete math from graphs to combinatorics) but I don t think is practicall at first maybe do a masters on algorithms or smth like that and then PhD and then somehow approach other professors and try doing research on number theory and more pure mathematics
@zackkassner3374most PhD programs have you do a masters first.
@@Trazom488 also if you want to do a PhD in a good university you must have done a masters at a good university respectively
I worked in industry for a little, and now I'm starting my PhD in CS this fall. I loved research and did not like working as a SWE or quant nearly as much as those were the two jobs I worked in industry. It's just personal, decision, I always think people should spend time in industry first then decide; if you go back that means you really want it, and you'll probably be a very good PhD student.
I 100% agree. That’s the right way of doing in :)
@@SamuelBoschMIT The problem with trying industry and then eventually going back to academia is that in many cases a PhD position only presents to you once, being in the right place in the right moment. Of course there are people with outstanding CVs that will have the door opened any time they knock on it, but for most people its more of a take it now or leave it sort of deal.
Another question is that possibly a PhD fresh out of uni is going to be behind his alternative self if he instead been working in industry salary wise. But what is the case going to be 10 or 20 years from there?
And related to this two scenarios, who would more valued if in the case of switching companies, the PhD or the one with experience? Cause depending how you look on it, the one that has limited himself to work in a company has better soft skills, but in other sense it's the PhD who has built(paradoxically enough) the deepest and most transferible abilities.
I see the point of toughening yourself eventually in real world more applied settings, but sometimes it's the industry job that ends up being the poorer and most repetitive experience
Really interesting video and topic in any case, a PhD is certainly not a decision to make mindlessly
1:38 NOBODY
After i finished my Masters degree, my advisor wanted me to continue on with a PhD. I looked at employment for PhD's from my Big 10 university in my field. It was not encouraging. So, i switched careers and picked up a couple of degrees in a better paying field.
As a generalist who easily gets bored once 90% of a field is grasped, I probably won't pursue a PhD. Perhaps a start-up is the ultimate fulfillment for all generalists...? Looking forward to what you will achieve with Marveri. Good luck!!
Yup, startup or consulting or similar business domains can be much bettet for generalists
Dumb question: what's a generalist?
@@filipposchelfi1874 a jack of all trades, master of none. In my field of software development for instance, a generalist would be someone who is decent at frontend, backend, devops and so on. Meanwhile, a specialist would be someone who specializes in one of these tracks and has great amounts of knowledge in it compared to a generalist who may know a little beyond surface level stuff only. Also, no dumb questions, never fear when asking, that's how we all learn.
@@revenger211 thank you so much for the answer!
@@SamuelBoschMIT Good Consulting is invaluable. But I feel like, your impact ultimately is not as high as if you were a high profile project manager in a company, keeping track of every part of a project to make it as good & qualitative as possible. Especially for such high level generalists like you, Samuel. People like you who are able to go so deep into specialized theory, I would not call you a generalist per se. More like a hybrid type: Specialized Generalist - which I think, is one of the most impactful & powerful things a human can be/can possess. Because people can be generalist but only understand superficially the things in specialized area, effectively making them pretty incompetent (sorry for the straightforwardness). I am very confident that you will always be able to detect which project was manages/directed by a specialized generalist compared to just a normal generalist. Almost always the former will have much higher quality, since projects most often are implemented to tackle a specific problem.
I got a Ph.D. in astrophysics in the 1970s. With my acceptance letter was another letter saying that it was unlikely that I would find employment in the field, just because the employment situation was particularly bad. I went anyway because I was interested, and I figured I could do something else after that if it didn't work out. As it turned out, I had a great career doing a wide range of interesting things. If you think of the Ph.D. program as a trade school to get a job, I think you are missing the point.
Yea. The degree is great for knowledge in that particular field, but at the end of the day work skills, discipline, and money making skills are king and you dont need a degree for that. Combine that with phd in astrophysics and you could make a rival to SpaceX.
Samuel, a few of your videos may have helped me cross the mental knot I had in my mind regarding whether or not I should quit my PhD to get into an industry oriented position. Your thought process resonates so much with the values I hold dear. Thank you for making me realize what truly matters.
I am very happy to hear that my video(s) helped you with your decision process. And definitely make sure to also get other peoples' opinions, not to end up overly biased with my own :)
If ever you go for a STEM PhD, choose a research topic that would force you to learn skills and knowledge and tools valued by the industry. For example, learn an upcoming industry standard and then apply your concepts to it to see potential real-world benefits. The point here is to do relevant 'applied' research if you want industry employers to see your value as a future PhD holder.
For some certain specialized jobs, getting a PhD is a must. I'm planning to pursue a PhD in Condensed Matter Theory to enable me to work on material science projects that I am passionate about.
I am one. CMT has zero things to say about Materials. The latter is still trial and error in the lab. The former studies ideal systems that have nothing to do with real systems...
@@quasarsupernova9643 how about CME? The whole world runs on the applications of the solid state.
I think, in general we have to change our mindset that PhD must be a very difficult journey of a person. What is important is to do the stuffs we love, like researching the topic you are interested in. For teachers, it is great to pursue PhD not only for research but also to be updated of the current trends in their field.
The biggest reason for me not to pursue a PhD is that you can conduct nearly the same research in a large company. Especially in the US, I see that research in industry is a big deal. It tends to be more applied and often has a direct connection to our day-to-day life. In contrast, academic research is sometimes better for long-term advancements, but by the time it could become relevant, the industry may have already advanced in another direction, making the research irrelevant, or the industry may achieve the same results through simpler means.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. People often talk about "academic freedom" allowing you to do reserach in anything you like. This is often/usually not the case. If you really know what you wanna do, then yes. But usually you end up working on whatever the latest grants were for
Plenty will require a PhD. Perhaps just because they can.
In my PhD I studied lasers but primarily about what happens at the center of a focused beam. The laser system itself is already built for you by companies in industry. In industry, to be useful you have to know how to build lasers and control them with electronics, how to build optics and components used in laser systems.
But the thing is that without PhD in most cases you end up just as an engineer and not doing independent research. Having PhD gives an opportunity to attract new funding or lead a research. This is true in most cases, of course you may be independent researcher with MS only if you are coming from top tier lab with famous people
@@daulet-zi4mj A PhD is only one and often not very significant variable. More important variables are the experience you have, the amount of funding available for R&D projects, and the field that you're in. There are high school graduates entering MIT that have stronger maker portfolios than I did coming out with a PhD.
Who told you it's about "learning how to think" ? I think it's about learning to work with literature, papers, books, and independently to find out what's under the hood and what makes things tick.
Naaah that is the work and experience of a researcher. To dig into data and understand things. You don't have to write a 150 page thesis about it. Just write scientific papers
@@adideno2771 I think it's the same. If you can publish papers, especially, high enough quality (and that's a given in PR journals) and independently enough, just tie a few of them up into a story and you can have a 150 pg thesis, hence PhD.
@@albondar depends on whether the faculty allows paper-based PhDs. But my point was, if I have done the "valuable" research work and presented them in papers, why do I have to still go for that PhD title? It is just for prestige...
@adideno2771 the whole point of a PhD is to be "paper-based": paper = chapter.
The second thing is there is definitely also levels to every type of work, ex. undergraduate honors thesis vs. masters vs PhD level.
If you can gather a committee and convince them you have done impactful enough work, at the boundary of the state of the knowledge and that fills the gaps in literature, yes, you can have yourself a PhD !
And what's more is your success at convincing will very well depend on the individuals in the committee or even department (some quality of work may be more acceptible in engineering than in sciences or vice versa, etc.).
Working in high tech companies in Silicon Valley and had managed more than 50 Ph. D's, I can tell you most of them are really good, creative and able to jump into a unknown field to solve real problems. If you want to do advanced research and development, getting a Ph. D paves the way to Silicon Valley. If you want to make money, come to Silicon Valley. In my 40 year industrial experience in Silicon Valley, nearly 50% of engineers/scientst have Ph. D and most of them make good money.
As a Harvard PhD alumnus, I agree with many of the things in this video. Think carefully before deciding to do a PhD.
There are many applied science and engineering fields where you can find employment in industry, and having a PhD in that field is often the key to getting those positions in the first place.Choosing your school, advisor, research topic, and industrial sponsor are critical in this process.Everyone’s situation will be different.I appreciate your perspective.
People usually have to have some industry exposure first to know of such opportunities, especially the industrial sponsor part. I've went to science conferences for most of my PhD until my last year when I decided to go to an industry conference called Photonics West, hoping to make some connections for job opportunities. By then, my research had already been completed and I was writing my thesis, which is really meant to impress the science community, not industry. When I tell people in industry about my research, they look at me as more of a customer who needs their products than someone who can work for and benefit them internally. Ironically to advance my research I would need better technology that nobody has made yet, or lots of funding so I can have access to lots of different state of the art tech in order to cobble together different systems and keep trying them out to see if they work. Since we do experiments at a lab one month in a year at most, and requires a lot of bureaucracy like proposal submissions and discussions years beforehand, there is not enough opportunity to try things out at high frequency.
@@cryorabut what’s the difference between industry research and academic applied science research? Aren’t the R&D at companies done by PhDs/researchers? It seems like industry benefits a lot from the findings of academia.
@@thematrix1101 They differ in what topic is researched and who owns the results, as well as how funding is handled. In academia you submit proposals to places like the national science foundation, get funding from them, and you publish your results in journals. In industry, money might come from the company's discretionary budget, investors, or self-funded, or through institutions like startup funds or SBIR funds. The topic of research is typically on something that would bring the company profit, or result in a product that the funding sources want. Publishing to a paper won't be emphasized or outright disallowed to protect intellectual property or maintain secrecy. Research in industry won't be carried out primarily by graduate students, but by entrepreneurs or salaried professionals.
I got my PhD in chemical engineering in 1986 from a top US University with the intent of entering corporate R&D. At that time, you needed a PhD to get that entry level job. I did well in my career, and am glad I did the PhD, although it took a lot of discipline and perseverance. But, I must say, did I need a PhD to do that job? Probably not. As you mentioned, it wasn't about learning how to think. I already did very well with that - I was salutatorian of my undergraduate engineering school. It was earning the credentials that corporate R&D required, so that they were sure that their new employee could tackle large, complex projects, persevere and drive them to completion.
In that environment, I was surrounded by about 100 other PhD chemical engineers and chemists. It was exhilarating and rewarding to be in such a community of super smart, dedicated, and successful people. It was also humbling. One colleague sent his two sons to Harvard. Another colleague's daughter won a national piano competition at age 6. Another colleague's son won the national violin competition.
My academic advisor's son won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Normally students that can do a PHD usually have great grades already and because of that probably can work at top companies. So its PHD vs working at a top company not some average company. PHD students are usually the best undergraduates.
I have 8 years in industry and went back to academia this year to pursue research in Computer Engineering. I took a very large pay cut but it’s a very strategic move given the direction my field is headed. I have a clear focus on what I want to get out of my degree and also view this as an opportunity to course correct my career back toward my passion. I’ve had many roles across my career and am most passionate about technical leadership. Research skills are a core competency there and it’s never been a better time to be working in edge computing. This path is much more personally fulfilling as compared to the generalist project manager role industry was pushing me towards, and the practical, social, and soft skills industry taught me have given me an entirely different perspective on my graduate education.
I used to work for FB. A PhD starts as IC4, an undergraduate starts as IC3. The amount of time it is expected to take an IC3 undergrad to become IC4 is a year. In 6 years, you can become IC6 or IC7, which is staff level eng. If you are a coder, your compensation at that level would be 800K. You do the math :)
Nice! Question: in your opinion, which are the odds to be employed in FB (or Faang in general) just being an undergraduate vs. holding a PhD? From the pov of an European-based AI engineer like me it seems impossible to even get your CV considered if you don’t have a PhD o like 10 yrs of relevant experience in the field.
I can’t speak for Europe and it definitely has become more competitive in the US in the last couple of years. I got laid off myself, together with a bunch of others in my department, so that should tell you something. But when this current fog clears, it will likely be easy to be hired again. It is a lot about luck and your interview prep. I had a master’s degree in math from a pretty weak university, many years of somewhat irrelevant experience, and a few years of relevant experience. It all depends whether you are good with interviews after you are called. It used to be very easy to be interviewed and they still have a ton of openings I believe. I disliked working for a large company, but the compensation was out of this world given the movement of the stock.
I should also add that basically nobody needs a doctorate to code. There might some positions where it is necessary, but all and all it is a waste of time.
Sure. But the staff maybe just in product team, and the PhD is in FAIR, Facebook AI Research or the equivalent. FAIR probably doing new research, while product team applied what's known
@@NinjaKirikoJediTrue, but you do have an option to move around in FB and if you don’t like what you are doing, you can find something you do like. True that some positions in data science might be closed to you if you don’t have a phd. Core data science, for example, requires a phd. This is much less so for coders though.
Ok bro, say whatever you want, I'll do it anyway bcs I love science.
There's no such thing as a former PhD. Either you are one, or you are not, unless you've had it revoked due to some scandal.
I think it should have been: "former MIT PhD student".
Here a Math Phd with three post-docs and changed for HPC one year ago. Of what you say I find something True, something completely False.
Restarting as entry level in another job, still another place where to live with little money and the burden to work but also learning at the same time is really hard.
And I could have went for this job 12 years ago!
I find completely false that the 19 years old me would be faster, more productive and learning more. I can safely say that I would completely destroy the 19 years me in any learning/intellectual competition (I am not talking about something I already know, but about unknown things.). Also, I lived a lot of difficulties and the 19 years me would be very weak in front of troubles for which now I stay calm , breathe and think. The 19 years old me would work much less than me, I get used to work much more than what I was. It could be strange, but also in terms of energy my 19 years could not match me nowdays, the only thing it could do it would jumping about 12cm more and running about 1,5 seconds faster 100m.
I am working in HPC, yes there are various people who, instead of something like my abstract Math phd, learnt a lot of IT tools and often I feel embarassed they are so fast and I don't know anything. But other time I look at them as retarded, they don't have any critical thinking and vision of the problems. For example now we are training some Neural Networks and they can not grasp the basic of the variance-bias dilemma in training the models. They forgot any math beyond high school, and I am quite sure that many of them are so used to type just characters on a computer that they could not solve anymore neither a one variable study of function with pencil and paper.
Also if you aim to enter working in something like "Nvidia Deep Learning Institute" (where I work there are two guys working there), you need a Phd to work there. The point of a Phd is choosing one that can be with transferred outside Academia with minimal effort, in case you go for a plan B. And there are good topic in many Phds Nowdays for this. The problem is finding mentors that guide you. A point that you did not mention is that (independently from the Institute where you get your Phd) not all Research field are goods, many are fancy dead-paradigmas that go on because there are professors with grants, prizes and power to keep them alive and have new pupils to perpetrate the species (at the end of my first post-doc I realized that I was exactly in this kind research community).
A reason because many choose a Phd is because most of the work in companies is awful, in particular IT and consultancy companies(these are pure garbage)
As ML Engineer we know math, Linear Algebra, Calculus 1, and numerical optimization and that is enough, unless we are on the research side, we don't need to specialize in math. You don't need to know quantum psychics to drive a car. Your argument of solving with pen and paper is like saying why use a calculator when they can just add stuff. We don't need pen and paper they are plenty of things that make things easy, so we can focus on other important aspects. Our job is to solve real world problems, and fine tune parameters and alter models if needed. We solve real world solutions, a lot of our models are handicapped by the machines itself, due to the amount of data is getting out of hand. so we don't need further math, cuz the problem lies with the limitations of the hardware, or the nature of the problem is hard. We combine many fields in one. We don't need to be expert at every field. Your job is to develop, our job is to deploy, both have their challenges.
@@OmarElghamry1 Of course. I think that I have been misunderstood. I wanted to say that quitting from Academia for real world is really hard. But sometime you can see who has a stronger theoretical background which can help in some situations.
@@leojack1225 yeah I get you, and I think it is not fair, and sorry if I sounded aggressive.
"Not all research fields are good, many are fancy dead-paradigms that go on because there are professors with grants". Very true and on point. I am a bachelor's student in physics (though I am far ahead academically, thus more comparable to a grad student). But I clearly see that there is an example of this phenomenon at my university in the field I am most interested in (theoretical physics). Glad I see that now, so that I can avoid it before I would have found myself in that research group. (A big part of the research effort there is looking for signs of so-called "supersymmetric particles" in the data from the particle collider LHC. Trouble is, LHC has found no signs of these particles and the persistent null results have ruled out a huge range of possible models of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is an incredibly fancy and perhaps beautiful mathematical theory (which is probably why there are students who still get into this stuff), but to continue looking for these particles in the data now is a complete dead end.)
@@frede1905 Hi, I am really impressed you went for reading my "rant" until the end.
Yes, you are right, in general particle physics is something to stay away as much as possible if you will go into research. (More generally, who knows what they really measure in those machines. Crazy here in Europe they are insisting to have the new collider.) Overall it is hard time for physics, the main business is adding ad hoc terms in spin models of condensed matter. But not that interesting. Given the great new computational power of GPUs in computational physics there will be work to do, but this will be more engineering than physics.
Even if it is not traditional theoretical physics, I think a good idea for a theoretical phd in physics is working in Graph Neural Networks, they will give a different way to modeling the physical world (And you might have the option to find good research outside Academia). Instead if you like math , good topics for a phd are Information Geometry, Graph Theory and Discrete Calculus.
The only real interesting thing that I see in physics, that could bring something important and it would be good for a phd, are experimental-phenomenological aspects of testing macroscopic super-positions. There is a good community in Austria starting the project Q-Xtreme, that direction is good.
I say this because is at the classical-quantum boundary that I expect the next revolution, or maybe I should say the uncompleted revolution. In my view the real questions stopped at the 30'-'40 ( there was a war in physics, maybe the II World War, maybe new generations, maybe the colliders came and things went somewhere else), I say this because Quantum Mechanics does not have Newton equations as sub-case, it can not produce any randomness like Brownian motion or the chaos that we see in fluids. The real things are under our nose.
But there are not that much money at the moment for these serious things. ( I consider Quantum Computing a joke. And Quantum Information a diversion maneuver).
I think the main reason why one should pursue a PhD degree is the passion for studying and researching a particular topic. Any other reason may not be appropriate, as obtaining a PhD degree is a long and very challenging journey. Job market requires other skills; however, generally speaking, a PhD usually has very high cognitive qualities that can be exploited appropriately and successfully with the right amount of humility and adaptation.
I did not like to work in industry. Prepared docs and moved to the PhD. Industry was really stressful and unhealthy. Could not get not any sleep. Mondays were so dreadful. Crazy, crazy. Now I am pretty much my own boss and I can decide what to do. Although startup path is also not bad. Considering it as a great alternative to PhD.
Samee
Are you in computer science?
Getting a phd is completely useless. And yes, I do have one 😅
I've got a friend with a high paying industry job. A PhD would bump up his salary but not by much. And doing a PhD would cost him >0.5M in foregone wages over 4 years.
This was interesting from someone who hasn’t been in academia for a while! Learned a lot :)
😊
I know of an individual who put the cart before the horse and wildly succeeded in what he was doing on his own. He was not involved in a PHD program to be a researcher. But by a stroke of serendipity, he had a brilliant insight into a subject matter (not in the sciences) that just would not cease to give. He embarked on decades-long research, and developed a body of knowledge that still has to come to light. The downside, even academia is clueless about his achievement, even though some academics know about it. The academic model would not have worked for him. To be sure, he has a doctorate in a field wholly unrelated to the research he ended up doing. He labored out of sheer curiosity even though he neither received recognition for it, nor made money out of it. That is another issue altogether. It is an odd situation to be in. He thinks that academia is a racket.
Any thoughts on industrial PhD? I saw a relevant number of such positions within IBM and Meta in Switzerland, France, Italy and Ireland and a lot more in Germany with German companies (BMW, SAP, Bosch, Siemens etc). I'm pretty sure such pisitions exist in other European countries as well.
The deal is: you are a fixed term employee of the company for 3-4 years and a PhD student at some partner university, they cover your fees (if any) and pay you a usually better salary while you do your research, publish your papers etc.
I’m french, in france i never heard about such thing. It’s not impossible, perhaps it’s in some big companies, but most of the time you make a Phd when you are young. When you work you could have some formation but it’s very hard to make a Phd.
@@romaric9874 It's called CIFRE in France.
Most people become doctors because they love their discipline, not for money.
Good point. In my case, I already have over 12 years of experience as a Machine Learning Engineer (sometimes also as a Research Scientist in some roles) and a Master Degree in AI, but I would like to become a full-time AI Research Scientist ( some positions in Industry, as you said, require a PhD ), and having a PhD and also from a well-reputed University like MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Oxford and so on seems like dream to me. Right now I'm revisiting Calculus, ODE, and others related Math subjects, and doing a lot of research in Meta Learning ( my favorite topic ) to apply for a PhD Position. but being from Brazil, having a lovely son and wife to take care of, it's extreme difficult to compete for a PhD position in US or European University. but thanks a lot for your help and your videos you have been posting here.
Wishing you all the best with the applications :)
All The math makes me nervous
'Nobody cares or knows about that topic' yeah I bet that most people don't know how a phone or a computer work either, but they still use it daily and it plays a huge role i their lives. Some topic are very important to learn about to contribute to society or be a professional in rare, helpful ressources.
I’m a clinical psychologist. In my home country the exit degree for being a Clin Psych is a MA degree (course work, empirical thesis, internship etc). Now at 47 I’m busy with my PhD - research only, the course work is the MA degree. I have a full time private practice and after hours I must do my PhD. It is super tough when you’re working full time! But I am immersing myself deep into complex theory and that is what I love and why I decided on thePhD. It’s a personal challenge. I will submit sometime in 2025. But to work full time and then to switch gears from clinician to researcher after hours is not easy.
Did you hear about the Physics Phd at Brown Uni? He was 89. That was his second PhD, by the way. He was already an MD and PhD.
I realized that academia was a racket 30 years ago during grad school when I noticed that a 30-page paper suitable for "Physical Review" would get submitted as ten 3-page papers to "Physics Letters".
My advice to anyone thinking about doing a PhD is that the main motivation must be to perform an original piece of research making you an accomplished scientist. If that is not your number 1 motivation, do not do it.
Thx for the upload. Very interesting information with the best possible foundation: your own experience
I would add that to advance at many biotech companies you probably should have a PhD. This includes moving into management. There is a definitely worker versus researcher division at these firms.
I worked for the military for 6 years and came to the US for a Masters and understood that getting my green card without a PhD was terribly hard in my field (aerospace engineering), I embarqued in a PhD prorgam in very difficult topic (Computational and experimental fluid dynamics) and hopefully I expect to graduate by spring 2025, I will be 39 years old by that time. By watching this video, I understood that I took the wrong train since the beginning by applying for a Master in aerospace engineering, that was a one way path that made my life terrible hard. Thank you for sharing your experience.
I’ve personally never thought of PhD as school or education. It’s a work that kind of leads to a title. But the best bet would be to work on something that solves a real problem just like an entrepreneur will solve a real problem.
Great video! I believe that today, the job market is changing so fast that planning for your career 20-30 years ahead (as in academic careers) is just impossible.
I am struggling so much with decisions I want to commit to. I am a second year PhD in theoretical nuclear physics at a reputable university (not top 10, but well regarded in the USA at least). I have been purposely trying to pivot my speciality into something building plenty of practical skills, including machine learning applications. In the past year, I have gradually come to close the academic pathway for myself as I have realized, among other things, the lack of location flexibility that comes with postdocs and professorship. It is just too terrible for me to convince myself otherwise. I would like to end up in quant finance one day, but I am struggling with leaving my PhD or not. I have an MSc in physics with a thesis and an upcoming paper to be published. But down the line, I think I might like to do research in industry, maybe in quant research. All in all, I am in a rough patch as I try to figure out what is best for me.
Nice video. This captures my dilemma pretty well haha. I agree with the inertia point, I feel that fear whenever I seriously think about leaving for good.
Finish your PhD. There's an ongoing revival of nuclear industry in many countries around the world. All are facing a lack of experts in the field. There will be lots of golden opportunities. Get into a startup, solve the world's energy problems (or at least a tiny problem with reactor coating or whatever) and make it big with RSUs. Or become a manager at a large energy corporation building plants, where you could help oversee multibillion Dollar projects. A job in finance should be a last resort for you.
I know excellent students who did PhDs that did Quality Job Training after their College Research carreer before landing their job outside academia. People who dropped out of their university carreer paths became teachers or Quality engineers. With PhDs you can contribute to the science community. As an excellent student it may be worthwhile.
Yeah all the breakthroughs in technology aren't done in academia anymore, it's by the industry, I found academia needlessly sterile and slow, more so focused on the quantity of research papers they churned out rather than quality. Load of bs papers as such. I fared much better in the industry and I dare say I gradually started to understand the architecture and the way things worked naturally after a few months as a SWE. Undergrad took 3 years to explain these concepts, because they're super outdated imo. Currently running my own business w a mentor and quitting my job once it takes off lol, glad I didn't take the chance to do a PhD when offered, if not I wouldn't be where I am today. All the best to the people pursuing PhDs though, I still have deep respect for what you all do.
Not everyone can think of a PhD because it requires a great deal of talent and creativity.
Lol. It has nothing to do with that. It's a question of passion.
One alternative option people may consider (especially in the nordics), is the opportunity to do an industrial PhD, where a company sponsors a PhD student in collaboration with a university, which is common in Scandinavia. The general benefit is that the student/employee gains industrial experience in conjunction with completing an advanced degree (and can progress their careers within the company). The drawback is that it usually takes longer (e.g., 8 years), so it requires sustained effort for a much larger period of time, so it is better suited for young professionals with no family obligations.
PhDs have two career paths, Research and Teaching. Having done a PhD, it’s not fun. It sounds very romantic spending time learning and thinking, but at the expensive of living in poverty for 4-6 years. In all honesty, if you like the biological sciences, go to medical school instead. If you want to work in pharmaceutical drug discovery, research, statistics and in any of the pharmaceutical sciences, you must have a PhD
Thanks for the video. Over my career I've heard the most complaints about education from people that only went to high school - too little, PhD - too much. The least complaints have come from the group that did trade school, 2 year associate's, 4 year bachelor's and 6 (4+2) year master's degrees.
I'm in the Physics Dept at MIT as a PhD student. In my second year and am having serious doubts if this is the right path for me, but I don't know what else I'd do. I wish I would have explored other industries during my undergrad/before entering a PhD program.
I would stay the course until you get your PhD, but seriously consider getting other certifications and exploring other fields along the way.
do it. it's fun. you learn so much, but more than anything it opens doors. teach anywhere in the world.
I think this is correct. My former undergraduate professors kindly took their time and held a meeting with me to see if I should get a PhD in electrical engineering hgh-frequency RF semiconductors. I was . In the end, they concluded that "unless the sun wouldn't come up for me", I shouldn't get a PhD. After all, I was about 31 years old in 1988 when I was asking this question. So I did the PhD anyway. I couldn't imagine doing boring jobs. Yes, the PhD did get me into interesting work and does so to this day. I'm betting I've made more money doing highly-technical work than I would have rotting in a boring job. I still don't recommend attempting to get a professorship. Professors wind up doing the management work rather than the hands-on research and technical work. I wanted to be the "go-to" guy when you needed a tough technical problem solved. I don't, and never have care about moving into management. If you want to do research, work in a company or for a startup who gets government grants. That way, you get to work with university professors and students without the university politics.
He will be putting out a workout video by the end of the year lol
I want to, but there is too much fitness stuff already online 😂
If you don’t value higher education , you probably haven’t run multiple businesses, or interviewed to be an executive. I have Seventeen years n business, in everything from Construction, Clean Energy, Private Equity, Venture Capital, and I went back to school because I realized the positive impact research has on business. I have had over 10k people work for me on my life, and I have managed at the highest levels possible. There are several terminal degree programs that accommodate working professionals now… Even some Ivy Leagues are offering online terminal degrees.
My PhD did not pay off. The jobs I got did not require a PhD.
for a few months , I have been thinking about it. It helped a lot, thanks, dear Samuel
You're welcome 😊
I have a bachelor’s in business (marketing) and a master’s in liberal arts (history). I briefly checked into a PhD. It was tempting, but it just wasn’t for me. I had a great career in business and just retired. I admire those that are able to complete a PhD.
I completely agree! Fantastic video. I am doing masters in Retrieval Augmented generation in AI and going into Phd soon. I would like just to mention there might be some exceptions. AI jobs actually often do require PhD and it is a place where research and industry merge, mitigating the risks of doing a PhD. If you can enter a AI/ML PhD program in the best schools then it is more often than not worth it.
I did a PhD in biophysics at a public university in the USA. Now I’m starting a university from scratch. I have several startups companies in biotech and pharmaceutical industries. I’m sure that this perspective would not be possible without doing a PhD. So I highly recommend completing a PhD if you want knowledge to do something amazing instead of just to make money. And as a bonus I can tell immediately when someone is taking nonsense like Elon Musk or SBF or any of the frauds leading high tech companies.
Appreciate the honesty Samuel!
Getting a PhD is a mistake for a lot of people. Its very hard, time consuming and most jobs care more about experience than degree titles.
While youre still taking classes and working on a dissertation, many of your colleagues in late 20s early 30s have already purchased a home and gotten married and promoted. There's a reason most wealthy people have a bachelors masters or professional degree (MD, JD etc.)
But a PhD is a big accomplishment for many people, especially in tge science realm. As someone who studied economics, it was absolute hell
Probably worth emphasising that this is US specific - here in the UK a full time PhD usually only takes 3-4 years so you _could_ be entering the workforce at around age 25.
(though even then, people I know that have done one here _still_ say "Don't do it !" :) - or at least make very sure you know _why_ you're doing it)
That's tremendous, Here in LATAM one finishes his degree career at around 24 years old
Totally agree with u Samuel, pursuing a Phd just because u want to stay in school is absolute bs
My BIL went to get his PhD for physics at Caltech for 6 years, and failed. He went home and sulked for 2 years in his parents basement, and only when his parents started complaining he got a job at Safeway (canada) as a stocker and worked there for the last 15 years. He was a researcher and did not want to be a professor, there's not many job avenues to make a living.
Tale of 3 PD's--(1) PhD in German--he finished all the course work, but bailed on the disertation. No jobs in the field. (2) PhD in Geography. No jobs in academia; he is te financial aid director at a community college. (3) PhD in History--couldn't find work. Was working at a MacDonalds. Worth it?
But then who will do research, publish papers and advance human knowledge?
People who love doing this and are great at it. Regardless of whether they get a PhD or not, they are the ones who can do this :)
Now a Ph.D. process is not valuable in real world. You can do Ph.D. process alone.
In the 1980's you were a big cheese if you were doing research. Back in the day at university, most of my tutors had just a master’s degree.
It really is qualification inflation.
I’m so glad that in France the PhD is only 3 years and I could go straight to it after the engineering school… in my home country (Brazil) I would have needed to do a 2 years masters and a 4 years PhD
Why can't someone get a PhD in something not very niche? In a topic which people care about like astrophysics instead of quantum effects in high-energy ray propagation through intergalactic magnetic fields.
We’ve made so much progress in science that you cannot be a generalist anymore if you wanna contribute to some research field. If you do a PhD on astrophysics , you’ll still have to work on some tiny niche subfield of astrophysics. That is, unless you somehow discover a new theory of everything, but that’s unlikely
I don't quite understand what you are asking. Are you asking why you can't do a broader, more generalist phd? That's because a PhD addresses a specific research question you try to figure out. Or are you actually asking why you can't do a phd in astrophysics? Of course you can do a PhD in astrophysics, you still have to try to answer a specific question in astrophysics. A PhD is a research endeavor.
PHD or no PHD, you're looking pretty jacked Sammy - great vid 👍
In the end of the day, being jacked is all that matters, right? :)
Disclaimer; I’ve not earned a Ph.D. I’ve known many PH.Ds, each have their own reason for pursuing the degree, but the common thread is that they have a passion for the subject. Earning a Ph.D does not guarantee knowledge in any other area. Many Ph.Ds I know wear slip on shoes for a reason.
One good thing about science or tech PhD programs is that they are often very low tuition versus a master's program. You are often doing lab work and research that is funded by a grant and that covers all course and research material costs and pays you a small salary. One I am familiar with paid students around $40K/year back in the 2010s.
You should be doing your PhD because you love and are passionate about your topic. Don't do it because you think having a PhD would look great on your resume or you like the idea of having a PhD.
That is definitely fair. If you wanna do a PhD mainly for fun and you’re fully aware that this may slow down your career (particularly from a financial standpoint) and you can afford that, then doing a PhD is a very conscious fun thing you do, which is ok
My dream: work as a AI researcher at OpenAI, Antrophic, Google, Meta, etc… The problem: I am from Brazil, I study in PUCRS, a university no one knows outside of Brazil. My only shot on landing a job like that, is to go through a PHD a get a publication at a high level AI conference. There aren’t many options for me, except the PHD (I already work as a ML Engineer, but that won’t get me anywhere).
Well then, your decision is easy... go for the PhD !!
There is literally no way for me to be paid to do the kind of work that I want to do outside of becoming an academic researcher.
I agree with a lot of this video, a PhD is certainly not for everyone. But I would argue that a PhD definitely develops your soft skills and in many ways develops them better than industry. I give presentations about once a month where I needed learned to present complicated topics to people that aren't familiar with the field. I learned to answer difficult questions and deal with professors asking really dumb questions. I learned how to work with other students and post docs in my group, which in my experience is more difficult than an industry setting as everyone has their own goals that don't necessarily align with other peoples. I have undergrads which I manage. and learned how to keep them engaged and make meaningful contributions.
I think it was a fine decision. Maybe I could be a level 6-7 now (am a senior data scientist aka 4) but I get paid well, am respected by colleagues for the research I do, and I don’t really need to let go of doing research (don’t want to). Those higher levels that you could have achieved right now are essentially are career in politics which is definitely not for everyone. It’s all about science at the end of the day!
Nice. Was it a phd in data science? What uni?
interesting. I think a PhD is not for everyone. However, I highly doubt you would have got $3M in startup funding if you didn't have "MIT PhD" next to your name. Having a PhD simply opens doors like that
Actually, I don't have an MIT PhD hahahahah I left before graduating, and only have a master's degree ahhaha But I agree, having a PhD is surely helpful. The question is just if it is more helpful than having spent the same amount of time in industry. Either might be better depending on the specific circumstances
@@SamuelBoschMIT yes, I'm aware. I mean the association as a MIT PhD (as it says on your linkedin, etc.). They've actually proven this in VC funding, it's all about signalling. Being able to signal that you got into MIT/Harvard etc. is helpful in convincing people they should trust you and invest in you. But agree totally, industry experience is very helpful! Some folks hit a ceiling without a PhD, especially in the medical field where others will have MD or PhD and advancing without a terminal degree is hard.
Thank you for posting this interesting video
Youre a Pretty huge Dude already.
💪
thanks for talking me out of doing a PhD at MIT and Harvard
In my experience, all of this information is honest and accurate.
Knowledge is more important than money.
I used my PhD time to build a deep learning architecture which I hold an international patent and that, after its implementation, paid me a nice flat and a nice car. Meanwhile, I published my thesis. So, bottom line, PhD gave me the time to create wealth in my private life. The most comic part is that, 10 years after completing it, I am AP and do it for fun.
As much as some points are true some big points are missing … if you are working alone .. this comes down to the lab you are working for .. if you are highly technical and looking for challenges PhD such as PhD in robotics does help you .. A masters degree is simply not enough, because you don’t get enough exposure to what’s need in building robots and especially if you want to be in the edge of technological innovation. And taking the responsibility of your project comes a long way. This builds the quality of manager as well. Technology also keeps changing whether you are in the industry or in the academia so everything changes.
As you work in the industry while waiting to get back in academia, you also need to maintain good relationships with your profs. You need those recommendation letters.
1. PHD is waste of Time.
2. It Will take 7-10 Years to Complete.
3. You Will be Earning Bare minimum (Scholarships).
4. You Will become OLD and no one Will give you Employment.
5. What is the Use of a Degree which Doesnt help you in earning More Money ?
6. You Spend the same 7 Years in Top Companies you will be Earning and Saving Money.
7. Finally, in doing PHD you will become OLD and SADDIST like your Professor.
8. DONT DO PHD. Working in a Tea Shop is far better than Doing PHD.
what's are those biceps about, doctor? 😂
💪💪💪
That is the problem when means become ends in themselves. The commodification of every aspect of human endeavor leads us to absurd situations such as the fact that the most skilled people in the world have to subordinate all their life's work to the need of some chubby investor who only cares about his profits today. That only generates the consequences that the whole world in every human endeavour is experiencing today.
What do you think about short (3 Year) PhDs in Industry like its usually the case here in Germany for example. Dont they just neutralize most of your arguments. Especially if you consider that you need them to climb the coorporate ladder here in germany (most higher ups in big companies do have PhDs). If you then compete against anyone who has a PhD you are usually doomed because they will choose the PhD any day. Feels like what you are saying is mostly for america
Most countries have an produce more PhDs than they need to fill the open university faculty spots, but to some extend that is necessary.
We need a filtering mechanism to allow universities to hire the best brains. The rest can work in industry or work as high school teachers.
Samuel you missed one thing: research in industry. My dream job is to become a research scientist. This requires a PhD.