[hodgehog11]

I won't try and argue the merits of Bachelor's and Masters. But if you honestly believe that you can pick up the same experience from PhD on the job, then is seems like you learned little from that PhD that you were supposed to and your supervisor failed you. PhD is not about learning content. It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique. It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind, an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard. Maybe you did get that but you aren't using it in your job; if so, then maybe you didn't need that PhD, but that's hardly the fault of the degree.

[bonoboTP]

PhD experiences vary much much more than bachelor's and master's programs that cover a fairly standard set of topics worldwide. PhD depends a lot on your specific topic, the specific supervisor, their other time commitments, their funding situation, how similar the other PhD students' topics are to yours, how hot the topic is or how the hotness changes over your PhD duration, how much teaching you have to do, how hands off the supervisor is (it is extremely common to have extremely disengaged supervisors, even famous ones, likely engagement and fame are anticorrelated), the expected publication venue tiers etc.

In most of Europe, the PhD contains no formal training. It's just what you informally pick up while working with other PhD students, if you do collaborations (depends on whether the supervisor likes that), or from postdocs (if there are postdocs), or from your rare meetings with the supervisor (which are often about updating the supervisor on new developments, not getting much actionable insight from them), but many many are simply left to their own devices and just do stuff and cope with the inevitable rejections, etc. At other places the supervisor organizes things like retreats, internal poster sessions, lots of internal presentations, discussions among the group etc. While in other places there is none of that, in some places many PhD students simply work from home and don't even meet much.

The winning strategy for prolific professors is to get a good early-career reputation, then hire really smart and conscientious applicants (proven through already published papers) and let them carry out the research. It's nothing about training them in any practical way. There are some who do that but it doesn't scale. You have to hire 20 PhD students and they will deliver enough papers for you to preserve your status and be able to hire the smartest applicants again and again.

But again, there's huge variation. Even at good universities.

[mathisfun123]

do you have a phd? did you get it in the last 10 years? because i have one as well and 100% agree with op - it was worthless. and i got mine from a "world class" school too (US T10).

> It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique.

lolol maybe in the days of yore. today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference.

> It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind

are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference.

> an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard

there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable.

in summary: this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling"

[hodgehog11]

Yes, I did get it within the last ten years (with an excellent supervisor fortunately), and I take part in student supervision. I get to talk with the students and determine what is most valuable for them in the long-term. Considering where those students have ended up, and that we still keep in contact, I'd say I've done alright so far.

> today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference.

That's called a garbage supervisor. I'm sorry that was your experience, nobody deserves that. There has been only one student I have personally experienced where I felt some of the papers were questionable, but they were not strong, and should not have done the degree in the first place (unfortunately, I have no choice in the matter and just need to get them through).

> it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging

Immense challenge is suffering because you encounter failure over and over and over again. Eventually success will come, but the interim is tough on the mental state. No human likes to fail repeatedly, but it is important to experience that at least once in a research career. It only needs to happen for one project; afterwards, the student tends to develop an incredible autonomy because they've been through the worst of it. But of course, this is where the supervisor is supposed to be responsible to find the right balance, since the difficulty of the task needs to be judged to ensure the student can finish it, while being as ambitious as possible within reason. It's pretty difficult to get right, and many supervisors don't even bother, choosing instead to push their own career. To any PhD student out there experiencing that, find another PhD supervisor please, before it is too late.

> there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable.

No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time. You have a handful of years to impress people, so they have to count.

> this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling"

Honestly, it just sounds like you were unfortunate enough to have been in a supervisory relationship where you were used as part of a paper mill. I'm really sorry to hear that; it isn't uncommon, but it isn't what the degree is supposed to be, and it seems you did not experience what you should have. The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose, and it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.

[mathisfun123]

> That's called a garbage supervisor.

yes my advisor was garbage but also

1) my advisor is literally in the top 500 most cited researchers in the world

2) every single other student in systems had the exact same experience

in summary: your "no true scotsman" doesn't work here because by all measures all of these people are the scotsmen.

> Immense challenge is suffering

this is facile - torture is suffering, deprivation is suffering, prison is suffering. immense challenge is ... challenge. stop with the exaggerated language please. stop writing these paeans for research. it's not some ethereal pursuit. for a select few it's a calling. for most it's just a shitty job.

> find another PhD supervisor please, before it is too late.

bro you are so out of touch it's laughable. there are departments full of your so-called "not true advisors". what do you recommend to the students in these departments who are post-quals and are just now discovering the truth? you recommend to them they what? transfer schools? drop out after 2-3 years of reduced earnings? will you compensate them?

> No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time.

again my guy: take a look at literally any top conference and tell me how many papers do truly novel work? as i commented below: i grew up in math where novel work meant a truly original theorem. that kind of quality is 1/1000 in neurips.

> you were used as part of a paper mill

did you catch the part where i attend a US T10? how do you square your assessment with that?

> isn't what the degree is supposed to be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

stupid is as stupid does

> The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose

there is literally no program. you're completely full of shit. there is no "standardized phd". every single department around the world completely makes it up to be whatever they want.

> it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.

have you looked at the mirror recently? the frustration comes not from the craven/mercenary individuals who admit their cravenness - it comes from gaslighters like you who claim there's some idealized version of it that exists that everyone supposedly falls short of (hint hint: have you ever heard of this convenient concept of original sin?).

EDIT:

> it seems you did not experience what you should have

i got exactly the experience i needed to disabuse me of the illusion that academia was a priesthood in pursuit of truth/knowledge/beauty/whatever. so that was perfect (i will never step foot on another academic campus again and i will warn everyone else off from it too). in addition i got a job in FAANG so that was a nice consolation prize :)

[hodgehog11]

I don't agree that my argument was a "No true Scotsman", since the argument made above (as far as I read it) was that "all PhDs are a waste of time". My counterargument was that the PhD, if done right according to its purpose, is not a waste of time. That is not the same as asserting that all PhDs are going to be good, and then refining the definition.

> i grew up in math where novel work meant a truly original theorem

I am in the math department and work with geometric analysts and combinatorialists, but mostly with CS researchers. I work with math and CS students. My entire education was analysis, then pure probability theory. Just for some context. And while CS has a lot of problems, math does too, unfortunately. A theorem may be original, but that doesn't make the work good.

> bro you are so out of touch it's laughable. there are departments full of your so-called "not true advisors".

Your experience, not mine. Regarding "out of touch": I've supervised across five different universities, all (apparently) in the top 100 worldwide. There has been a quality supervisor in each department I have come across. They may be in the minority, but they exist. They tend to not have many students, because it is virtually impossible to give adequate supervision to more than ~5 students at any one time.

> you recommend to them they what? transfer schools?

I now live in a country where that is easy to do, so yes I do, and yes I have. I have had friends that were "forced" to grind in a bad supervisory relationship for a while until they found another better supervisor and then had a good experience. I understand it is more difficult in a country where you cannot easily transfer. In those cases, I would 100% suggest dropping the degree early before wasting time and money on it, but naturally it depends a lot on their situation. A bad PhD can be a lot worse than no PhD.

> that kind of quality is 1/1000 in neurips.

I've found the proportion is more like 1/100 in the theory domain, but yes, there is a lot of rubbish in NeurIPS. There is a lot of rubbish in every venue.

> attend a US T10

I did a lengthy postdoc at one of these. They are largely paper mills by construction. A top 500 most cited researcher got that way because they run a paper mill. I did not associate with the students there very much, and I doubt that they thrived there either, other than getting a nice item on their CV. On the other hand, that institution benefited me at the time. I'm glad I did my education somewhere else.

> there is literally no program. you're completely full of shit. there is no "standardized phd". every single department around the world completely makes it up to be whatever they want.

Yes, which is why your experience is not necessarily indicative of that of others. That's a good thing.

> the illusion that academia was a priesthood in pursuit of truth/knowledge/beauty/whatever

I won't disagree that academia is a cesspit and I would exit if I felt I had the opportunity to do good elsewhere. I actively do not recommend it to anybody that feels they could do anything else. But there certainly are people that benefit from the PhD, so calling it useless is a bit much.

> have you looked at the mirror recently? the frustration comes not from the craven/mercenary individuals who admit their cravenness - it comes from gaslighters like you who claim there's some idealized version of it that exists that everyone supposedly falls short of (hint hint: have you ever heard of this convenient concept of original sin?).

I love the insinuation that I must be an evil prick. This is tantamount to hearing from a victim that all X are evil. I respect your position and your experiences, but also recognize you do not speak for the entire world in this matter. The bad supervisors tend to excel in their metrics nowadays (including how many students they have), so their perceived presence is disproportional.

> in addition i got a job in FAANG so that was a nice consolation prize

Good for you! If that was always an option, I would question the PhD too. Telling others your own experiences to warn those away from academia is perfectly fine, unless having that degree did help get you to that point. If you honestly know that having the PhD on your CV did nothing at all for you, and did not positively influence your chances, then this is fair, and I would recommend teaching others how they can avoid doing the PhD to get into those roles. Yes, people get FAANG jobs without doing higher education, but was everyone going to take that route? Otherwise, you are in the ivory tower telling others that they shouldn't come in.

[mathisfun123]

> I love the insinuation that I must be an evil prick.

the insinuation is that there is deep, rich, delicious, irony in someone writing this

> The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose, and it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.

after giving everyone reading a false impression of what a PhD is worth. ie you sound extremely selfish yourself when you use phrases like

"Maybe you did get that but you aren't using it in your job; if so, then maybe you didn't need that PhD, but that's hardly the fault of the degree."

and

"PhD is not about learning content. It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique."

and

"No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time. You have a handful of years to impress people, so they have to count."

ie ludicrous absolutist terms.

> Otherwise, you are in the ivory tower telling others that they shouldn't come in.

...are you a native english speaker? the ivory tower is academia. i am emphatically (as i've been emphasizing for 2 hours now) not in the ivory tower and i advocate for everyone to avoid the god forsaken place no matter what.

> Yes, people get FAANG jobs without doing higher education

the vast vast majority of my coworkers have BS/MS. the two best engineers i know (extremely successful ICs) have only a BS. the other PhDs i meet in industry are generally worthless "architects" who can't hack their way out of a paper bag.

EDIT:

it's amazing to me that the conflict of interest here isn't front and center: you're still in academia recruiting students! of course it's critical for you that the dream of academia lives on! if you had any integrity you would have disclaimed your conflict of interest at the outset.

[sno129]

I do have a PhD and agree much more with the parent comment than yours. Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different. For instance:

> there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable.

There's a difference between problems that are intractable and problems that require "grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard". Maybe the problems in CS are easier. In math, many of the problems are very much of this flavor, and the point often isn't to solve the original problem but rather to use your investigation into that problem to discover new techniques or more tractable problems that you can solve. Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems.

On the other hand, I do mostly agree with this:

> are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference.

Agreed, there should be a difference. Unfortunately, in many modern PhD programs I'm not sure there is much of one....

[mathisfun123]

> Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different

my BS and MS were in (pure) math (my MS thesis is on convergence of the ito integral...) and my PhD is in CS systems. CS outside of theory is worse than an empirical discipline - it's a "throw spaghetti, lasagna, burgers, caesar salad at the wall and see what sticks" discipline. it bears literally no resemblance to math (pure or applied).

> Maybe the problems in CS are easier... Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems.

yes and that should tell you everything you need to know - there are kids in my department graduating with 5 first author conference papers (i had "only" 3). how much of those papers do you think is original work really?