[drobilla]

Someone needs to write a "why getting a job in industry is a waste of time" rebuttal to this tired argument to illustrate how ridiculous it is to evaluate everything with a single (and shallow) goal structure. After all, it typically doesn't contribute anything new or meaningful to scientific knowledge, therefore it is a waste of time (...).

I guess I shouldn't expect any better from The Economist, but not everyone in the world just does whatever they can to make the most money possible, ignoring all other considerations.

Assuming I'm making enough money to survive comfortably (which is essentially guaranteed with computer anything, including grad school itself), I don't care. What I get to work on, and what environment I get to work on it in, is far, far, more important. Overridingly important.

This mentality (though usually not so extreme) is pretty common among math and computing people, which is probably why industry is finally starting to notice that workplace perks are very important. There are plenty of extremely talented people who'd gladly take a 50% pay cut to work in a less shitty environment...

[anxx]

I am planning on doing a PhD because of financial benefits in the long run. Here's why:

- Immediate respect. It is harder to question the authority of a (technical) PhD. This is much more pronounced in 3rd world economies. Also Germany. Basically anywhere besides the non-super-meritocratic US. This is a huge benefit: my opinions are more likely to be listened to, my consulting fees are likely to be higher and be more credible, career breaks (maternity) will not set me back by much, because a PhD proves technical mastery of an area as well as tenacity, responsibility, and independence - all of which non-PhDs will continously try to prove to new coworkers and new management.

- Universities are forever open, but not so with Masters. That gives immense job security as a private university lecturer for the rest of your life, in any country (flexibility to travel and find a job even in countries you don't speak the language of). Private universities in rich countries pay a lot to be able to say they have a, say, MIT-PhD on their faculty. I knew a person who had a data-entry job and saw the faculty salaries in Saudi Arabia. The profs were making 396$k/year, housing and living costs fully compensated by the university.

- Flexibility to find jobs forever (especially because of the university thing). Normally I imagine it would be harder to be a salaried employee after 65 years of age. Nobody will hire you because it is so weird to have an employee your dad's age. Ageism is real. But because you can always lecture, you are pretty much unretirable.

The 4-5 year salary cut is nothing compared to a lifetime of these benefits and zero anxiety about job prospects after 50. I personally want to work and earn money in a respectable job well into my 80s.

[crpatino]

You have a very hard awakening in queue. Of course I can only speak of my direct experience, in Mexico, but here it goes:

1. Business people tend to mistrust highly educated people with no at least as impressive industry credentials. The meme of the crazy scientist with the head on the moon an no concern to real concerns runs deep and wide. Once you have both the schooling and the provable hands on experience it starts to pay off, but getting there is not trivial. Also, to make it pay it off you must go into consulting, since no employer will think they can afford you full time past some point. And to make it as consultant you need to pick an specialty that provides hard qualitatively measurable value.

2. Scratch that immense job security in the private university. As a matter of fact, they tend to hire a lot of adjunct professors and post-doc lecturers in order to avoid giving the sinecure for full professors. Public universities and research centers are still ok, but you will have a hard time in any education center whose bottom line depends on undergrad tuition.

3. Don't count on the flexibility thing either. University may be happy to hire part time lecturers with lots of industry experience, but not the other way around. I had a very hard time crawling out of this particular hole and have know others that never were able to make it back after a "short stint as a teacher".

4. Jobs prospect after 50 might be right, but you have to know how to play your cards really well. It is not a given, and in any case you are probably better off knowing your way in industry than relying on academia.

[vlasev]

What you are talking about when you talk about those large salaries is something of a pipe dream for most people pursuing degrees. I too was lured into more education with high prospects but the truth is that it's really difficult to get in on the awesomeness. If you want to make a statement about long-term benefits you better talk about the average situation. Some PhD's do provide quite a bit more money on average, but a lot of PhD's (math, for example) provide only a marginal benefit over a Master's degree. I don't have the data in front of me but when I checked the situation for math, the difference in the mean was about 2-3 thousand dollars per year. If you take into account the financial opportunity costs of doing a PhD (things like low wages, tuition, loans), it will take you about 40-50 years AFTER finishing your degree to be on par, on average.

[feral]

Secure tenured positions are very competitive globally. There are only sufficient such jobs for a small percentage of PhD graduates.

Further, the university sector may be on the verge of massive disruption - look at startups such as Coursera and Udacity. Its difficult to be sure it'll provide reliable employment by the time you reach 65.

I've just finished a PhD program in an Irish university, which I got a lot out of; but I wouldn't do it for job security, or earning power.

But maybe you are talking about doing a PhD in a best-in-world institution; if so, maybe the picture is different.

[rdfi]

Even if you have a PhD it isn't necessarily easily to find a job as a lecturer in an university. Often the criteria for hiring a lecturer is their publication record, and if you leave academia for the industry you probably won't be writing any papers. Without publications getting a lecturer position probably won't happen. This is the case in most European universities that I know. Also, the average time a student takes to complete a PhD, especially if you are planning to work while you do it, is well over 5 years.

[mathattack]

Very true.

Most programmers in NYC could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it because they don't like the abuse.

Most Physics professors could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it for a variety of reasons.

It's about more than money.

But... The core of the story is true. There's a systemic problem with the Phd market. Every school and professor has an incentive to churn out more than the market needs. Like any career choice, people need to go into this with open eyes.

[michaelochurch]

Most programmers in NYC could get a raise going to Wall Street. They don't do it because they don't like the abuse.

Wall Street is, on the whole, less abusive these days than VC-istan. However, it is more selective. Also, the chances for rapid career progress aren't there. You can make as much money, but you certainly won't be leading a team at 27 in a hedge fund; whereas if you are 27 and not at least a "tech lead" in VC-istan, you've lost.

Don't rule out finance based on its reputation, because it's not as bad as it's made out to be, especially relative to the other high-paying options. I've seen both and engineers are treated worse, on average, in the VC-funded world than in the hedge funds.

[Adrock]

There are programmer jobs in finance that don't entail abuse.

[mathattack]

Finance yes. Finance that are close enough to the trading to warrant good money - less so.

[dcalacci]

Totally on point. I don't think it's useful to compare the value of a successful PhD experience to some amount of money. This is especially true for the people who would be considering a PhD in the first place.

I agree that people value the environment they work in, but I think that to the people you outline, working in a culture that values original ideas and open discourse is more important than having workplace perks like free sodas.

[lucisferre]

Did you really just shit on the Economist on the whole?