"Don't Become a Scientist"

Graduate School
141

<p>
[quote]
Here's a good find. This guy talks about how, econimically, getting a phD is not worth it:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north427.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north427.html&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am aware of this column, and I don't find it to be a good column at all, at least, not for the purposes of this thread.. Specifically, his analysis rests on the following false assumptions</p>

<ul>
<li>That people actually pay for the Phd. In fact, as long as we're talking about full-time PhD programs, this almost never happens in the sciences, which is what we've been talking about in this thread, and is uncommon even in the humanities, and if we are talking about getting a part-time PhD, then can be making a full-time paycheck by working (in addition to possibly getting your employer to foot part of your tuition). The only people I have ever heard of that have actually paid for a full-time PhD program were people who were so rich that they didn't care. For example, I know of one guy who made enough money on Wall Street to retire but decided he wanted to get his PhD for his own intellectual satisfaction, but he didn't want to put up with any funding requirements like teaching, so he decided to pay for it. But he was making far more off the interest of the money he made than he needed to support himself and pay for his program.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>However, the vast majority of full-time PhD students will are funded. Hence, that turns the entire economics of the PhD around, because it is one of the degrees that you get while being paid to do it. Granted, it's not much pay, but at least it's pay. In fact, getting a PhD may be one of the most cost-effective ways to get an elite degree. It is said that the Ivy League schools don't give out merit scholarships, but actually they do - as their PhD students are all effectively on 'merit scholarships' in the form of funding. So if you couldn't afford to go to a top-notch private school as an undergrad, getting a PhD at one is your most cost-effective bet to go to one. </p>

<p>Let's also keep in mind that a lot of undergrad degrees don't exactly pay that well, such that by going for a PhD, you aren't really giving up very much pay relative to what you could make at a regular job. For example, molliebatmit has stated that her PhD stipend in her bio PhD program is something like $27-28k. Hey, for a bio grad, that's pretty good money. Yet, according to the Berkeley career data, the average Berkeley Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) grad who took an industry job in 2005 made a median salary of only 32k. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let's also keep in mind that being a graduate student provides a lot of fringe benefits - i.e free access to the university gym, discounts to a wide range of stuff, access to campus housing that is usually cheaper than what you can get in the private market, free access to computer labs, discounted health-care, etc. Many companies don't give you comparable benefits. Plus let's also keep in mind that a company can get rid of you at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all. You never know when you might get laid off. You can be doing a fantastic job, and still get laid off anyway, as the company might decide one day that your whole division is to be eliminated, which means that your job is gone, no matter how well you were doing your job. In contrast, as a graduate student, your "financial security" is far more stable because unless you flunk your classes, flunk your general exams, or can't find a prof to support you on your research, you will be allowed to stay. You therefore have far more control over your finances. You just don't have to worry about the possibility about doing a fantastic job, yet getting laid off anyway. </p>

<p>So really, when you look at it that way, many people frankly aren't giving up very much, financially, to get a PhD. Heck, some people (particularly those on major scholarships like NSF or NIH scholarships) might actually be making MORE as graduate students than they would in private industry, because you can't get any scholarship money if you're not in school. I can think of several PhD students who have lined up scholarship after scholarship and are probably making close to 6 figures, just from their scholarship funding. They wouldn't get any of that if they weren't students. </p>

<p>*The article also presumes that everybody who is getting a PhD is gunning to become a professor. However, as I have discussed here on this thread numerous times, you don't have to do that. There are numerous career paths available to you. If you're a science PhD, you can go to industry. You can go to consulting or investment banking, especialy if you come from a name- brand school. You can become a high school teacher (note, I strongly dispute that guy's contention that it is difficult to become a high school teacher with a PhD). If your research is commercializable, you can take it and use it to start your own company. I have read of many bio PhD's who develop something in the lab and then use it to start their own company. Or you can just use your PhD funding as a cost-effective way to get a master's degree, and then leave. There are many things beyond being a prof that you can do with a PhD.</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
But one more general question. How does going to one of the top schools affect your postdoc opportunitties? I'm planning on going to MIT or Caltech (already accepted), but I also have a full ride to Nebraska open. Thanks </p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm confused. You seem to be just talking about undergrad. Well, whatever school you were at in undergrad clearly has little to do with how good your postdoc will be, as that will have been a long time ago.</p>

<p>What will affect your postdoc is how strong your PhD program was and how good your research is, something that both MIT and Caltech undergrad can affect strongly, because of their excellent undergraduate research opportunities and their ability to get undergrads into top graduate schools.</p>

143

<p>
[quote]

While it is true that many bio/chem grads end up in post-docs, I wouldn't characterize it as being 'stuck' there. They are doing it by choice. </p>

<p>Look, post-docs are really only appropriate for people who really want to become professors. If you can't get a job in industry as a scientist with a bio/chem Phd, then maybe you should seriously consider going into investment banking or consulting instead (especially the latter). Or, in the worst case scenario, you can just become a high school science teacher. What's wrong with that? Yeah, the pay isn't that high, but it's a highly stable job and you get the whole summer off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>first, having a phd degree does not automatically give anyone the right to join investment banks or consulting firms. whether one can get into such companies depend highly, if not absolutely, on the transferable skills and knowledge one possesses. judging from your previous posts, i am sure you agree with this.
second, one problem with getting a phd in chem/bio sciences is that there are few transferable skills that you can learn even from the top programs. goldman sachs does not care whether you know how to run ELISA or determine the DNA sequence of a particular receptor gene. in the pharma/biotech industry, investors want to know which drugs/therapies are most likely to win FDA approval. drugs before phase II/III clinical trials are most likely to fail, so investors usually do not care as much about early stage development as clinical stage development. in such cases, medical doctors' expertise in interpeting clincial data becomes much more valuable than a bio phd's knowledge in basic science and skills in experiment design. and indeed, there are plenty medical doctors who are from top medical schools and choose to work for consulting firms. alternatively, bio phds are competing against each other AND medical doctors in landing consultant positions. like it or not, medical doctors are more likely to get one
i am not saying that a bio/chem phd can never get into investment banks or consulting firms. but the truth is, unless you develop specific skills (i.e. quantitative, networking, bargaining skills) or happen to specialize in a field that consulting firms are interested in, the chances are quite low. the funny thing is, as you pointed out, one doesn't even need to get a phd to develop these skills.
i agree completely with you that getting a phd is not the worst choice of all, and can potentially open doors to many fields. the whole point of my argument is not to disappoint anyone who is trying to pursue a phd, but people who are interested in a stable and lucrative career should consider other faster career tracks that require less time commitment.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
My second response is simple: who says that you need to work for McKinsey? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of consulting firms out there. Obviously most of them are no-name consulting firms. I'm sure that even if you graduate with a PhD from Michigan State, you can find some no-name consulting firms to hire you. After all, even undergrads from low-ranked schools can sometimes get into consulting (usually at the no-name consulting firms). Yet you will actually have a PhD, so you can actually make a legitimate claim to being an expert at a particular topic - something that undergrads cannot say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many strong boutique firms I've seen are essentially formed by former big 3 partners. Many of them still have the same pedigree mindset when employing although they maybe more receptive to non target schools.</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
first, having a phd degree does not automatically give anyone the right to join investment banks or consulting firms. whether one can get into such companies depend highly, if not absolutely, on the transferable skills and knowledge one possesses. judging from your previous posts, i am sure you agree with this.
second, one problem with getting a phd in chem/bio sciences is that there are few transferable skills that you can learn even from the top programs. goldman sachs does not care whether you know how to run ELISA or determine the DNA sequence of a particular receptor gene. in the pharma/biotech industry, investors want to know which drugs/therapies are most likely to win FDA approval. drugs before phase II/III clinical trials are most likely to fail, so investors usually do not care as much about early stage development as clinical stage development. in such cases, medical doctors' expertise in interpeting clincial data becomes much more valuable than a bio phd's knowledge in basic science and skills in experiment design. and indeed, there are plenty medical doctors who are from top medical schools and choose to work for consulting firms. alterntively, bio phds are competing against each other AND medical doctors in landing consultant positions. and more likely medical doctors will gain a better shot.
i am not saying that a bio/chem phd can never get into investment banks or consulting firms. but the truth is, unless you develop specific skills (i.e. quantitative, networking, bargaining skills) or happen to specialize in a field that consulting firms are interested in, the chances are quite low.
i agree completely with you that getting a phd is not the worst choice of all, and can potentially open doors to many fields. the whole point of my argument is not to disappoint anyone who is trying to pursue a phd, but people who are interested in a stable and lucrative career should consider other faster career tracks that require less time commitment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These ph.d are not useful for biotech that is healthcare related but for companies such as Invitrogen and Affymetrix which are more technical, there expertise would be greatly valued.</p>

146

<p>
[quote]

These ph.d are not useful for biotech that is healthcare related but for companies such as Invitrogen and Affymetrix which are more technical, there expertise would be greatly valued.

[/quote]

definitely, there are firms that look for life scientists who specialize in basic science research. but you need to look at the number of bio PhDs produced and the positions that are available.</p>

147

<p>
[quote]
Getting a PhD from Michigan State is worse for your career prospects than dropping out of high school! Nothing but a a PhD from the TOP Ivy league schools will land you a half-way decent job!</p>

<p>Signed,</p>

<p>Posters of College Confidential

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I thought this was a great thread given the insightful and civilized discussions. Perhaps I misunderstand the OP. But, I find this particular statement disrespectful (to put it mildly) and certainly do not reflect my view. OP should retract it with an apology.</p>

<p>I googled on how PhD graduates from Michigan State do at three places that I am most familiar with. Here is a brief summary:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.genetics.wisc.edu/faculty/profile.php?id=147%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.genetics.wisc.edu/faculty/profile.php?id=147&lt;/a>
<a href="http://socwork.wisc.edu/facstaff/facultypgs.php?facstaffID=207%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://socwork.wisc.edu/facstaff/facultypgs.php?facstaffID=207&lt;/a>
<a href="http://cellbio.med.harvard.edu/faculty/blenis/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cellbio.med.harvard.edu/faculty/blenis/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/Directory/Faculty_Info/Zitter.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/Directory/Faculty_Info/Zitter.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://hive.bee.cornell.edu/WalkerLab/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://hive.bee.cornell.edu/WalkerLab/index.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/Directory/Faculty_Info/Martin.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/Directory/Faculty_Info/Martin.html&lt;/a>
... (I am sure others can supply a lot more references to show MSU Ph.D. graduates with a "half-way decent job".)</p>

148

<p>You know I think he was poking fun at the other people posting in the thread, not the school.</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
first, having a phd degree does not automatically give anyone the right to join investment banks or consulting firms. whether one can get into such companies depend highly, if not absolutely, on the transferable skills and knowledge one possesses. judging from your previous posts, i am sure you agree with this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. But my point is, an MBA (or any other degree) also does not automatically give anybody the 'right' to join an investment bank of consulting firm, especially the top ones. For example, every year, some MBA students at Harvard Business School aim to get into McKinsey or Goldman Sachs or Carlyle, and don't get an offer. </p>

<p>My point is simply that getting a paid-for PhD (and almost all science PhD's are paid for) and then running off to consulting/banking is actually a BETTER financial deal than getting an MBA in order to get to consulting/banking. You paid no tuition, and you also got a stipend. The MBA students had to sign up for a world of debt. Now, I agree that the odds are higher to get into consulting/banking if you're an MBA student than if you're a Phd student. But if you can make it in anyway, you hit the jackpot. And at any of the name-brand schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc., a sgnificant percentage of new Phd's do make it in. </p>

<p>{Now, of course, one might ask what happens if you can't get into a PhD program at a top school like Harvard or MIT. What if you can only get into a low-ranked PhD program? Well, my response to that is what I said before is that if that's really the best you can do, then, frankly, you probably weren't going to get into a top professional grad program anyway, so you're not giving up much by getting your PhD. You can't cry over choices that you never had. } </p>

<p>
[quote]
second, one problem with getting a phd in chem/bio sciences is that there are few transferable skills that you can learn even from the top programs. goldman sachs does not care whether you know how to run ELISA or determine the DNA sequence of a particular receptor gene. in the pharma/biotech industry, investors want to know which drugs/therapies are most likely to win FDA approval. drugs before phase II/III clinical trials are most likely to fail, so investors usually do not care as much about early stage development as clinical stage development. in such cases, medical doctors' expertise in interpeting clincial data becomes much more valuable than a bio phd's knowledge in basic science and skills in experiment design. and indeed, there are plenty medical doctors who are from top medical schools and choose to work for consulting firms. alternatively, bio phds are competing against each other AND medical doctors in landing consultant positions. like it or not, medical doctors are more likely to get one

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I think you've misunderstood what exactly it is that consulting firms are looking for. The truth is, they're not looking for actual * skils * as much as they are looking for raw talent. After all, why do consulting firms hire humanities majors? One could argue that their skills aren't exactly transferrable to consulting firms either. Yet I know a good number of humanities graduates who have gone to consulting. </p>

<p>As a case in point, look at who McKinsey is touting as one of their 'featured consultants'. He got a PhD in philosophy/cognitive science from UCSD before going to McKinsey. It's not clear to me what exactly philosopy/cognitive science have to do with consulting. But McKinsey hired him anyway. </p>

<p><a href="http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's a woman who got her PhD in neurosciences also from UCSD. Her area of research in neural consciousness and schizophrenia. It's not clear to me what the connection to that is to business consulting. But McKinsey hired her anyway.</p>

<p><a href="http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, granted, I'm sure these aren't 'typical' McKinsey consultants. But like I said, you don't HAVE to work at McKinsey. There are a LOT of consulting firms and investment banks out there. </p>

<p>But the point is, these firms are not really hiring you for your specific skills, otherwise they would never hire those people showcased above. They are hiring you for your talent and your work ethic. Anybody who can complete a PhD obviously has the mental capacity and work ethic to pick up new things very quickly. And that's what consulting firms and investment banks like to see. Of course they still have to check to see if you have the right temperament and the right social skills for the job. But your mental ability is unquestioned. </p>

<p>Secondly, I am not sure whether it's really true that M.D.s have a better chance of entering consulting than PhD's do. Like I said, they're not really hiring you for your specific skils anyway (otherwise, why do these firms go around hiring history and art majors?). But even if what you are saying is true, again, do the financial calculation. An M.D. has to pay for 4 years of med-school tuition and living costs. A PhD student GETS PAID to go to school. So let's say both of them end up as consultants. Which one is financially better off? </p>

<p>
[quote]
i am not saying that a bio/chem phd can never get into investment banks or consulting firms. but the truth is, unless you develop specific skills (i.e. quantitative, networking, bargaining skills) or happen to specialize in a field that consulting firms are interested in, the chances are quite low.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Why have I see art and music undergrads get hired into consulting and banking then? Exactly what skills do they bring to the table? </p>

<p>Or, as a case in point, consider the employers of MIT PhD grads in 2005, on page 11 of the following pdf. Notice how somebody got a PhD in bio and then ran off to the Boston Consulting Group. Another got a PhD in chemistry and ran off to McKinsey. I'm quite sure that many more could have done so if they wanted, but they chose to either take academic positions or post-docs. But that was * their choice *. </p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation05.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation05.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
i agree completely with you that getting a phd is not the worst choice of all, and can potentially open doors to many fields. the whole point of my argument is not to disappoint anyone who is trying to pursue a phd, but people who are interested in a stable and lucrative career should consider other faster career tracks that require less time commitment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have always said that if you wanted something safe and secure, then, for undergrad, get an engineering degree, or perhaps a nursing or accounting degree. Then, if you can, go to medical school. I do agree that being a physician is probably the most risk-averse career choice you can probably make. If you can't get into medical school, then just take your engineering/nursing/accounting bachelor's and start your career. Or if you want to get a Phd, but you want it to be safe, then get a PhD in business. Having a PhD in business is a near-guaranteed road to becoming a consultant, or into investment banking if your specialty is finance. Furthermore, business schools, unlike most other faculties, really is hiring because B-schools are expanding. I am convinced that any new PhD in business from a respectable program can get a tenure-track assistant prof position at at least a no-name B-school, and rarely with need of a post-doc. {Now, becoming a professor at Harvard Business School or Wharton or Stanford is obviously extremely difficult, and that may require a post-doc, but getting a position at a no-name business school is not that hard.} </p>

<p>But we agree that getting a science PhD is not that bad. Again, I would reiterate, there are far worse things you could be doing.</p>

150

<p>-Although Sakky has said multiple times that the real problem with many Phds is lack of awareness of opportunities, subsequent replies seem to unfortunately support his statement of some "not wanting" to be more aware. Very odd.</p>

<p>-Phd programs develop the mind in both wisdom and intelligence. One of you posted a link to Paul Graham's website, where 1 of his essays talk about intelligence as a developable skill. I completely agree with that; the IQ test can be studied for. Therefore, the Phd is a "disadvantage" only if you choose so. A phd high school teacher has more potential than his peers to rise to superintendent, or the secretary of education, if s/he wants that. Phds can expect to make creative contributions to his/her profession. Earning power depends as much on market forces and needs as it does on creativity.</p>

<p>-It's a sufficient simplification to call the USSR's failure as the failure of a communistic economy. "It's the economy, stupid!" :) Look at China since the late 70's, still an authoritative gov't, different economy, different results. People in VC, consulting, finance, banking try to maximize the productivity of other people, including scientists. In this manner, they are very much like science itself.
Jake, improving the capabilities of a society involve so much more than the brilliant discoveries made by science. No matter what anyone thinks about the relative prestige of any one aspect of the process over another, the fact of the matter is that all are necessary. Which is more important to a body? The heart, the lungs, the brain?</p>

<p>-Not to rag on American achievement but if you want to compare Cold War technology, you're really comparing the Soviets (Russia plus their conquered satellites) and a consortium of Europe's best. In military and space tech, the Soviets did have the lead for quite a while.</p>

<p>-The Japanese may have a lot of patents (I'll take your word for it) but the patent world is different today. I'm a graduate engineering student who had the opportunity to work with a professor and a lawyer on a big patent case recently. I am appalled at the trivial developments that are patented. It literally must have taken over 1000x more time to write and file for the patents I examined than it took to create the evolutionary/incremental ideas. Japan's successes in the auto and consumer electronics industries are mainly due to their emphasis on quality with an occasional evolutinary technical improvement. And that is for better and for worse; their workers are more robotic from anecdotes I hear. Come to think of it, they've always been borrowers historically, starting with their written language. I believe any human is just as capable as his neighbor; it's just the way Japan's history has consistently played out. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that trend changes in the future.</p>

<p>-Which leads to more opportunities for professors: consulting (which is really a broad term), writing $100/pop textbooks, and a slew of other random opportunities that you can ask a professor about. All in all, many professors chose their path for the relative freedom and variety of work. It can get as lucrative as anything else out there.</p>

<p>-Jake, I enjoyed your posts in general but I don't understant how you thought a 50k salary, which was likely a number of years ago, was a hardship? You might not be able to send multiple children to the most expensive of schools in cash but IMO your kids would be better off anyway taking care of that on their own.</p>

151

<p>
[quote]
-Although Sakky has said multiple times that the real problem with many Phds is lack of awareness of opportunities, subsequent replies seem to unfortunately support his statement of some "not wanting" to be more aware. Very odd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I don't find it odd at all. In fact, I find them completely linked. The reason why PhD students aren't aware of the opportunities is because they don't want to be aware of them. I have talked to many, and a lot of them just don't seem to want to know about the non-academic jobs that are out there. The opportunities are right there, they just don't want to know about them. I would call it something that sounds like an Oprah episide: "When smart people make dumb choices". </p>

<p>However, to some extent, I can understand it. When you're a PhD student, you're immersed in a culture where your bosses and your peers think that the only thing that is important is academia. So it's very easy for you to lose perspective. After all, everybody wants to earn the respect of their peers. As a PhD student, the way to earn respect is to run a beeline to the academic world. Letting out that you intend to become a consultant, investment banker, or even high school teacher won't earn you any academic respect, even if that might be the best thing for you to do career-wise. So in that sense, the culture of academia teaches you to ignore the opportunities that are out there. And that's a problem. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Jake, improving the capabilities of a society involve so much more than the brilliant discoveries made by science. No matter what anyone thinks about the relative prestige of any one aspect of the process over another, the fact of the matter is that all are necessary. Which is more important to a body? The heart, the lungs, the brain?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even if we were to buy the notion that scientists are the primary source of value-creation in society (a notion that I do not buy, but let's presume it is true here), that is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. This thread is about whether science is a good career choice for an individual making a choice about what to do, and therefore, by extension, the thread is about how well do scientists get paid. Simple strategic economics teaches you that, from an individualistic standpoint, it doesn't matter how much value you can * create *, it only matters how much value you can * capture *. You can create all the value in the world, but if you can't capture any of it, then you will be reduced to being a simple commodity producer getting paid a commodity wage. </p>

<p>One possible analogy would be the website YouTube. Consider the YouTube business model. YouTube does none of the creative work. All of the videos on YouTube are created by individual tinkerers and aspiring artists who are getting * paid nothing * for their work. Not only do you get paid nothing, but you also sign away all the monetary rights to your work if you post it on YouTube (read the fineprint of the YouTube user agreement - that is what it says). So the owners of YouTube basically got thousands of artists to work for it * for free *. Now, granted, YouTube did have to create a scalable website with industrial grade network/server infrastructure, and that's a lot of work. But YouTube did * none * of the creative work. Nevertheless, they captured * all * of the value. YouTube got sold to Google for $1.65 billion, and each of the 3 cofounders received split $600 million of it (with the rest going to the VC backers). But note how the individual artists - the people who created the content that drew in viewers that made YouTube such a hot property in the first place - * they got nothing *. </p>

<p><a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1356193.ece%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1356193.ece&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The same thing could be said for MySpace, Facebook, SecondLife, Xanga, and all of these social networking sites. The users of the sites do all of the creative work. The owners of the sites reap all of the financial benefits. The reason this happens is simple - the owners control the strategic market power. Hence, they are able to extract all of the value from the markets they have created. </p>

<p>To a great extent, I believe that science and technology has a similar problem. Not because it is a social-network like the websites above, but rather because scientific advancement is what economists call a public good, which means that, unlike other economic goods, the consumption of a public good by one person does not prevent others from consuming it. That means it's difficult to charge the full market value for a scientific advance. Intellectual property laws are a method to alleviate this problem by creating a defined and 'chargeable' boundary around your invention, but as I explained above, IP laws, the way they are currently implemented, are a very thin and porous protection. The protection that IP laws afford you nowadays is a strong function of how capable your lawyers are, and the biggest companies can always afford the best lawyers. Furthermore, there are plenty of countries out there, like China, that still pay little more than lip service to IP laws, especially foreign IP. </p>

<p>The upshot is that while scientists may create a lot of value, they can't capture it. The value therefore accrues to others in the value chain. That may not be the way it should be, but that's the way it is, like it or not.</p>

<p>Note, to people like jake who don't like it, keep in mind that I am just telling you how the system works. But I did not create the system. So if you don't like it, it's pointless to take it up with me. You should be taking it up with the people who are actually responsible for creating the system. Or you should be working to change the system. But attacking me gets you nowhere because all I am doing is just pointing out problems. I did not create the problems. Even if I said nothing, the problems would still exist.</p>

152

<p>Lol, I found it odd because things are probably slightly different in engineering. There exist some folks here who have the same impression of academia as some posters here had for high school teaching, even tho professors here make over 6 figures their first year without having to do post-docs.</p>

<p>Hopefully, there was no misunderstanding but I was not promoting science as a "primary source". It's kind of irrelevant to me because all the steps from theory to application are necessary.</p>

<p>The reference to Youtube is an interesting example of the "new economy". Science & technology formed the basic infrastructure that allowed Youtube to exist; the internet certainly brought on some new arenas of opportunity. Just like TVs lead to the film profession and it's highly paid jobs. So, come to think of it, science & tech are, to a certain extent, primary sources of value creation. The actual compensation and rewards, of course, are left to the spontaneous whims of the host economic system. Science started as hobbies of the curious. The "system" does reflect the spirit of science through the ages: to discover knowledge to share with fellow men & women. Today's societies recognize the investment value of science and pour money into something that gives no short-term return. The "system" just tries to keep a society balanced, much like an ecosystem.</p>

<p>The heart of the problem is a disparity between expectations and reality. Katz mentioned that circumstances have changed dramatically in the past few decades. Well, now we know, and we shouldn't expect people to predict the future. The rosier paths back then attracted a glut, especially those from foreign countries. Globalization does this for the greater long term good. Fortunately, for the science student who was not exclusively motivated by the pursuit science, I think it's an awesome consolation that a science background is an excellent foundation for most other jobs that might interest you.</p>

<p>Anyway, hope everyone had a nice & safe weekend. Some frustrations were vented here but I don't think they were meant as personal attacks on anyone else.</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
Many strong boutique firms I've seen are essentially formed by former big 3 partners.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first off, why does it necessarily have to be a 'strong' boutique? For the purposes of this thread, it is sufficient just to find a consulting firm that pays you decently, regardless of whether it is a strong firm or not. Given the proliferation of consulting firms out there, there is a good chance that at least one of them out there will pay you decently, regardless of whether it is a strong or weak firm. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Many of them still have the same pedigree mindset when employing although they maybe more receptive to non target schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above for my exposition on what is meant by 'pedigree'. Pedigree, when it comes to consulting, is not always the same as an academic pedigree. For example, a computer science PhD from Harvard almost certainly carries a far greater consulting pedigree than a CS PhD from Carnegie-Mellon, although the reverse would be true for an academic pedigree.</p>

154

<p>
[quote]
It's not clear to me what exactly philosopy/cognitive science have to do with consulting. But McKinsey hired him anyway. </p>

<p><a href="http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=8&lt;/a>

[/quote]

Hey Sakky, he talks about that in the link. :)</p>

155

<p>Some problems it seems:</p>

<p>It appears that there are no many opening in faculty position at universities. Faculty already tenured don’t want to retire and as one getting older it may also harder to stay current and get research funding and tend to complain about science as a career. Young Ph.D. waiting in vain doesn’t want to teach at high school as they are current and they also want to do research. Meanwhile, our K-12 could use really scientist to help, although school culture may not be warm to scientist’s influx.</p>

<p>My suggestion:</p>

<p>Lobby congress to give NSF and DOEdu jointly $1 B per year to provide faculty no longer wish to pursue research or retire a $20,000 grant per year to teach two courses at secondary school. This would infuse 100,000 courses into school system which shall overtime impact student learning. It could relieve faculty complaint about no funding available to them. The money also goes to university which indirectly would open up position for adding new faculty. Through NSF/DOEdu, it removes the stigma of teaching at high school and appears to be a grant to help country move forward. It may also helps out the placement/acceptance issue at school site.</p>

<p>Please feel free to improve or critique.</p>

156

<p>I think the point that some of you miss, with all of your economic analysis, is that the bottom line isn't the only thing that counts in life. I agree that it's silly to get a Ph.D if all you care about is money. I do, however, plan on getting one and eventually trying to become a professor. Why? Because I have a burning desire to be an expert in a field, to have a complete understanding of it and to advance the state of human knowledge. It sounds corny, but it's true.</p>

<p>It's not just an empty maxim that one should "do what one enjoys": it is what makes true economic sense, when we take the basic value to be "enjoyment of life" and not "number of dollars", which is as it should be as the latter serves the former and not the other way around. After taking into account sleep and other banal tasks, the amount of time you spend every day at your job (enjoying it if you enjoy it, hating it if you don't) is probably more than the amount of time you spend with whatever your money buys (enjoying it if you have a lot of money, living comfortably but less lavishly if you don't). This is even more true for fields like investment banking, medicine, and law, which are high-paying but require an enourmous time investment. If you love one of those fields, great, but if not, wouldn't it make more sense to do what you do love, thus being happier for more hours of the day and, in general, having more happiness in your life?</p>

<p>Simple money-based analysis of doctoral degrees make them look almost worthless, and indeed they are from a monetary standpoint. But this is silly as it takes money as the principal value on which life decisions should be made.</p>

157

<p>why can't you people summarize what you are trying to say in few words? some of you are repetitive,</p>

158

<p>ONE OF THE BEST DISCUSSIONS ON CC. Very infomative.</p>

159

<p>I second RHSstudent07, some of us younger CCer's don't have as much time and patience as the more experienced (Euphemism! :P) CCer's. So someone wanna summarize?</p>

160

<p>Here's a summary:</p>

<p>1)If the only thing you care about is money, then don't get a PhD, whether it's in science or any other subject. Instead just make a beeline to a top finance job - i.e. investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, etc. </p>

<p>2) Having said that, getting a PhD and becoming a scientist is still a pretty good lifestyle. You will be better off than the vast majority of other Americans out there. Keep in mind that only 27% of all Americans age 25+ even have a bachelor's degree, and the median household income of Americans (household meaning the income of an * entire family *) is only 46k. Certainly, as a scientist, you can do better than that. Furthermore, while a scientist's job, particularly an academic fighting for tenure, may not be entirely stable, may not provide great fringe benefits, and in short may not be the best job in the world, frankly, the same is true of most other Americans. Most Americans don't have stable jobs. Most Americans don't get great benefits. </p>

<p><a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/highschool.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/highschool.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://critcrim.org/summarizing_the_new_us_census_bureau_report_on_income_and_poverty_the_rich_continue_to_get_richer%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://critcrim.org/summarizing_the_new_us_census_bureau_report_on_income_and_poverty_the_rich_continue_to_get_richer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>3) I and others personally think that most of the problem is self-generated; that it stems from the fact that many people getting Phd's just don't want to know what their other career options are. For example, the worst thing that can happen to you is that you end up taking a teacher training course to become a high school science teacher, which is not a bad lifestyle. You get the summers off. Many school districts offer tenure which makes you effectively unfireable after a few years. Another possibility, if you go to one of the elite PhD schools, is to become an investment banker or management consultant. Yet another possibility is to just take a regular job in business - i.e. become a researcher, a sales rep, etc. for a private company. </p>

<p>To some extent, I can understand the myopia. Academia is an environment where people talk all day and all night about getting placed into a high academic position in order to become a tenured professor. If that's the only thing that people around you are talking about and seem to care about, then it's easy for you to lose perspective. That's why I advocate that you have to be mentally strong. You have to constantly remind yourself that there are other career options out there. Plenty of other Americans retrain themselves for new careers. For example, I know a software engineer who retrained himself to become a real estate agent, and ended up making far more money than he was making in software. So why can't a scientist similarly retrain himself for another career? You have a PhD, so that means that you're smart and disciplined.</p>