[sremani]

I really do not understand the cynical posts here, but given the path for Ph.D.s trying to get tenure is getting more difficult. Deep Science ventures are providing a path ahead. I understand the writer is vested in his venture. I was watching the ultra-endurance documentary the one in Tennesse, he was telling its usually people with Masters or PhDs who excel at this because they are used to planning and preparation.

A Ph.D means you have higher than average IQ and you have grit, honestly, without will-power no body completes Ph.D. which have great correlation of success.

You can learn marketing (which is very important), improve you EQ with seminars but Depth of Ph.D. and grit to the finish line is not easy to get.

Its not automatic, but I agree with the essence of the article.

edit: I am not a Ph.D.

[notahacker]

The alternative to getting on the tenure track is usually getting a commercial role, probably a relatively well paid one. There is literally no worse reason to start a startup than "trying to get tenure is getting more difficult". Because if your end goal is to study phenomenon that particularly fascinate you at your own pace in a collegiate environment, then starting a startup is a big step in the opposite direction. And if it's the difficulty or possibility of failure that's putting you off pursuing a career in academia...

Sure, many PhDs are eminently capable of starting a startup and some will be wildly successful. But that's more likely to be because they have a burning desire to commercialise their research or a great founding team sees their skillset as the missing link than because they couldn't find an alternative

[jomamaxx]

I would argue most PhD students don't have the right kind of hustle to be entrepreneurs.

Yes - the IQ, work ethic is there. But they are differential.

All the succesfull business people I know have been 'hustlers' since grade 1.

Look at the early emails between Zuck and others at Harvard. Age 19 that kid was already a baby shark. Very cynical, competitive (granted, it might be an ivy league thing).

Successful entrepreneurs I find are more like Trump than not.

And I don't think that Google and a few others are good examples. Aside from the 'top 10' big companies, you'll find that most are classical alpha dudes, really hustling hard, trying to make $$$ any way they can, focusing on those outcomes.

PhD's tend to be very deferential to authority, they believe in 'true outcomes' (i.e. some kind of real progress) etc. when often Entrepreneurs don't care that much: have produce, hype it up, make money.

Steve Jobs was a hustler, not a scientist. Taking credit for others work, massively leveraging over his own staff (taking their equity etc.). Gates, Ellison, Benioff, same deal. Travis K of Uber I think is much the same, and in many ways I think Zuck as well. Bezos. Even a lot of the 'shy' type CEO's, I think, are still inner hustlers.

Obviously these are huge generalizations.

[sidlls]

That "grit" is entirely within an academic context and does not necessarily translate outside of that context. It's also debatable whether a PhD absolutely implies an above average IQ (or even whether that is a meaningful trait).

As for correlation with success, I wonder if you could elaborate? What measures "success"? What studies are you referring to? What confounding issues (if any) are accounted for?

[throwaway729]

> That "grit" is entirely within an academic context and does not necessarily translate outside of that context

Do you have any particular reason for stating this? Having been in both environments, I actually think that academic grit translates outside of academia more fluidly than the other way around.

Conjectured reason: most academic projects have a horizon of 5-20 years to market and require large amounts of very mundane and uninspiring work. There are infinite distractions within academia. A successful academic project isn't going to make anyone rich, and even if it does, that person probably won't be you. Also, the pay is terrible.

Startup and even corporate life are very different in almost all of those dimensions. Projects succeed or fail fast. There are few distractions, especially for individual contributors. There's still routine work, but usually routine in the sure-to-succeed way rather than the sure-to-fail-and-be-repeated-10x-times way. A successful project can easily make you a valuable person -- either on the job market or in terms of actual net worth. And even if everything hits the fan, you're receiving a reasonable salary and building your career.

> It's also debatable whether a PhD absolutely implies an above average IQ

That is certainly true.

[sidlls]

I have nothing other than my personal experience and observations of fellow degree holders. I mostly agree with respect to the fluidity argument, but I think that's different from my point. I've seen PhD holders lack the grit to see a project filled with non-academic tedium through, for example. I've been there myself, even.

[mordocai]

As another not a Ph.D. i'm not convinced from what I know about Ph.D's that a higher than average IQ is actually required.

However, I do agree that "grit"/"will-power" is definitely required.