<p>Wow! How insane, the link you posted actually contained the name of the guy who taught the first course in our grad algebraic topology sequence - Zickert. Very awesome fellow. Never knew he came from Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And how exactly do all these high school graduates (or guys still in high school) manage to get all these IT jobs? Exactly what professional experience were they able to show? Probably none. Yet all I know is that they're clearly making more money than they would at McDonald's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You make it seem as if it's a common experience for high schoolers to get well-paying IT jobs. It's not. The very very few who are able to do this are, in a sense, like the "superstar academics" who get tenure-track positions at top schools after finishing their PhDs. Most people have to go through a fair amount of education, whether it is from an accredited degree program, vocational school, certification program, or something else. Then they have to take low-level IT jobs which don't pay much better than fast-food or retail jobs.</p>
<p>I can imagine that some of these people who decide to work in fast food or retail after finishing their PhDs have good reasons for doing so, such as needing to support their families, or pay off their student loans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to your point regarding professional experience, my advice is simple: get some. It's not that hard to get, especially if you're willing to work for free.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. Not everyone is in a position to work for free. Some people have bills to pay. Another thing to consider is that there's much less training required for a person to work in an entry-level fast-food or retail job than an IT job. The recent PhD grad (except for people in tech-related degree programs) is in a much better position to work in fast-food or retail. In order to qualify for an IT job, the recent PhD grad would have had to start the preparation earlier, which would have taken away from the time spent on acquiring the degree.</p>
<p>Which brings me to a couple of general remarks. One, the purpose of a PhD program is to do original, substantive, groundbreaking research. It's not a place to figure out if that's what you want to do, while pursuing some sideline (such as IT) as a hedge against not getting a tenure-track position after finishing the degree. It does not make sense for graduate departments to prepare its students for other careers. Now, in the case of 6.171, which is an undergraduate lab in a CS program, that makes complete sense. But it doesn't make sense, for example, for a math department to offer software lab classes so that its students can have something to fall back on. Now I'm not saying PhD students shouldn't take such classes in another department, but it's not the fault of the department for not offering such classes in their department or setting up some joint program. There's too much else that needs to be done. The focus must be on getting original, substantive, groundbreaking research done.</p>
<p>The other is that there is no shame in doing postdocs, visiting scientistships, assistant professorships, etc. on the way to getting a tenure-track position. Lots of PhD graduates do this. It's not obvious that someone who is not an "academic superstar" upon graduation will never do groundbreaking research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You make it seem as if it's a common experience for high schoolers to get well-paying IT jobs. It's not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is obviously not a 'common experience' in that most high school kids clearly have no interest in learning IT skills at all. They don't know and they don't care. </p>
<p>But for the ones that do care, like I said, it's not that hard for them to get a few books, get some cheap gear if necessary, and play around. Then they get a volunteer job if necessary. From there, it's not that hard to find low-end, part-time IT jobs, and so it starts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can imagine that some of these people who decide to work in fast food or retail after finishing their PhDs have good reasons for doing so, such as needing to support their families, or pay off their student loans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure they have their reasons for taking these jobs. My point is, they could have probably prepared better by developing marketable skills beforehand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
See above. Not everyone is in a position to work for free. Some people have bills to pay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you do it on the weekends. That's what the guys who built the entire IT system for their church did. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In order to qualify for an IT job, the recent PhD grad would have had to start the preparation earlier, which would have taken away from the time spent on acquiring the degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's my point: you have to start preparing early. </p>
<p>I agree: it would have taken time away from your degree. But so what? There are some things that you have to make time for. Like I said, you know if you're an academic star or not. You know beforehand that you're not going to get a good placement. You generally know that your research project didn't progress well. You know it. That's when you need to start building marketable skills on the side in preparation for a career outside academia. </p>
<p>Note that marketable skills are not only IT. I am simply using that as an example. There are many things you can do to increase your marketability. For example, during recruiting season, numerous Harvard PhD students from 'across the river' will hang around Harvard Business School, building their networking and talking to companies. Technically speaking, they're not really supposed to be there, because these recruiting sessions are supposed to be available only to the business students. But nobody is going to stop them. Many of them will find jobs that way - and often times lucrative ones at that. Sure, it takes time. You have to put on your best clothes, go to the B-school, spend time, do the meet-and-greet, hand your resume out. But I would argue that that is time very well spent. Frankly, from a career perspective, it is probably the most efficient use of time they could have spent at Harvard - certainly more efficient than if they spent that time on their research. </p>
<p>Again, if you're a star grad student, you probably should spend all your time on your research. But what if you're not a star? Then you have to start thinking about what you're going to do outside of academia. </p>
<p>
[quote]
One, the purpose of a PhD program is to do original, substantive, groundbreaking research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the fact is, most newly minted PhD's will not get academic jobs, especially in fields such as the humanities. It is a running controversy that PhD programs produce far more graduates than the academic community really needs, and many calls have been made for programs to greatly reduce their admissions. {I don't necessarily agree with that, for I think people should be allowed to pursue degrees if there is space for them, but at the same time, those people should also be provided with methods to develop marketable skills.} </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not a place to figure out if that's what you want to do, while pursuing some sideline (such as IT) as a hedge against not getting a tenure-track position after finishing the degree. It does not make sense for graduate departments to prepare its students for other careers. Now, in the case of 6.171, which is an undergraduate lab in a CS program, that makes complete sense. But it doesn't make sense, for example, for a math department to offer software lab classes so that its students can have something to fall back on. Now I'm not saying PhD students shouldn't take such classes in another department, but it's not the fault of the department for not offering such classes in their department or setting up some joint program. There's too much else that needs to be done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never said that those particular departments need to offer marketable coursework. </p>
<p>What I have said is that the university at large should be providing more support for its grad students. Again, not every grad student is going to get an academic job, nor do they all want one. Hence, it is imperative that the university as a whole provide means for these students to achieve their career goals. I never said it was necessarily the responsibility of the department to do so, although it would be helpful if they did. That's precisely what the MIT Chemical Engineering department did by offering a combined PhD program that is merged with the first year of the Sloan MBA. But my point is, if the individual departments are not able to provide this support, then the greater university administration should. </p>
<p>My other point is that it is also up to the individual students themselves to take responsibility for their own careers. It's your life, and you're the one that has to live it. You have to remember that your advisors and your department are not necessarily your friends. They do not necessarily have your best interests in mind. What they want is for you to spend all your time producing research, and if that ultimately means that you end up having to work at McDonald's because you don't have any marketable skills, then that's your problem, not theirs. You're the one who is going to have to look out for yourself and your own career, because nobody else is going to do that for you. Hence, it's your responsibility to make time to find career opportunities. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The other is that there is no shame in doing postdocs, visiting scientistships, assistant professorships, etc. on the way to getting a tenure-track position. Lots of PhD graduates do this. It's not obvious that someone who is not an "academic superstar" upon graduation will never do groundbreaking research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, first of all, assistant professorships are tenure-track positions.</p>
<p>Secondly, I never said that there was anything at all shameful with doing post-docs or, as you put it, 'visiting scientistships'. Many of them are indeed plum academic postings and are key steps along the way to a prime academic career. For example, in the natural sciences, it is widely understood that very few assistant professorship positions are available immediately upon graduation, and even the stars will be heading to post-docs (and hence, the stars will be fighting over the 'best' post-doc positions). More to the point, all of these positions are obviously far better than working at McDonald's.</p>
<p>However, the students who are not stars are probably going to end up with mediocre post-docs, or even no post-doc at all. Many humanities PhD graduates will end up with nothing, not even a post-doc, which are quite rare in the humanities disciplines. That's when you have to start thinking about other career paths, otherwise they end up at McDonald's.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that PhD students ought to develop more career foresight (and universities should be helping those students develop that foresight). Nobody with a PhD should have to be relegated to work at McDonald's. If you can tell that you probably aren't going to get an academic placement - and I don't think it's that hard to figure that out because you know how well your own research is going - then it is time to start looking for other opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like I said, you know if you're an academic star or not. You know beforehand that you're not going to get a good placement. You generally know that your research project didn't progress well. You know it. That's when you need to start building marketable skills on the side in preparation for a career outside academia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am getting the feeling that this is one of the key factors being considered. How early does someone know where the research is going to go? The following excerpt from the Harvard mathematics department page might be of interest:</p>
<p>"It is important to keep in mind that no technique has been or ever will be discovered for teaching students to have ideas. All that the faculty can do is to provide an ambiance in which one's nascent abilities and insights can blossom. Moreover, Ph.D. Theses vary enormously in quality, from hard exercises to highly original advances. Finally, many very good research mathematicians begin very slowly, and their theses and first few papers could be of minor interest. On the whole, we feel that the ideal attitude is: (1) a love of the subject for its own sake, accompanied by inquisitiveness about things which aren't known; and (2) a somewhat fatalistic attitude concerning "creative ability", and recognition that hard work is, in the end, much more important."</p>
<p>I.e., if you are at an insanely good school already, I think it might be a good idea to hang around and try to give it a shot. I think it's pretty subtle a thing to decide whether or not one's research is going to be groundbreaking. Now, I think quite a few people could have an idea that they're not really cut out for the academic world -- the key being there are ones who realize they are not cut out for it. I mean, if someone's going to a mediocre school, finding oneself at the bottom of the class there, perhaps research work is not what he/she wants to be doing all of life. </p>
<p>I'd conjecture that when you start convincing yourself you're not going to do research forever, naturally you'll slink away from research career possibilities. </p>
<p>Either way, I think the points made here are valid, and the only thing to be really wary of is when one does (or doesn't!) make the decision to start looking at other options.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree: it would have taken time away from your degree. But so what? There are some things that you have to make time for. Like I said, you know if you're an academic star or not. You know beforehand that you're not going to get a good placement. You generally know that your research project didn't progress well. You know it. That's when you need to start building marketable skills on the side in preparation for a career outside academia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I know plenty of people who were not academic stars, but managed to get tenure after a series of research fellowships, postdocs, etc. A "bad placement" does not imply the person will never do groundbreaking research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I have said is that the university at large should be providing more support for its grad students. Again, not every grad student is going to get an academic job, nor do they all want one. Hence, it is imperative that the university as a whole provide means for these students to achieve their career goals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Subject to space availability, grad students can take classes in other departments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, first of all, assistant professorships are tenure-track positions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough. At some schools, people hold the title of assistant professor, but it is a temporary assignment (see Wikipedia for more info).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I know plenty of people who were not academic stars, but managed to get tenure after a series of research fellowships, postdocs, etc. A "bad placement" does not imply the person will never do groundbreaking research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference is that at least they got research fellowships and/or postdocs. Let's face it. A lot of newly minted PhD's, especially in certain disciplines (again, the humanities) can't get even that. And they probably know it. Again, as a grad student, it behooves you to know the opportunities in your field, and if you can tell that you probably aren't going to get even a research fellowship or postdoc, perhaps because few of them exist in your field, then it is time to look for something else. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Subject to space availability, grad students can take classes in other departments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And these courses don't even necessarily have to be in other departments. You can choose to learn on your own time. </p>
<p>That's precisely my point: sometimes you have to make time for other endeavors. It is like making time for your family. If you're married, with kids, you should make time for them. Your advisor and your department will obviously want you to spend every single minute of the day on your research, even if that means that your spouse divorces you and you never see your kids. That's why you have to learn to say "no". You have to learn to make time for the things that are going to be important for you, not necessarily for your advisor. </p>
<p>Again, your advisor does not necessarily have your best interests in mind. It's your life, and you're the one that is going to have to live it. If you finish your PhD, but with nothing else (i.e. marketable skills, a shambles of a personal life) you're going to have to live with the consequences. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Fair enough. At some schools, people hold the title of assistant professor, but it is a temporary assignment (see Wikipedia for more info).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, all assistant professorships are by definition 'temporary', in the sense that many of them (probably most at the top universities) won't actually get tenure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am getting the feeling that this is one of the key factors being considered. How early does someone know where the research is going to go? The following excerpt from the Harvard mathematics department page might be of interest:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's not so much about knowing where your research is going, but rather where your own passion is going. For example, if you're constantly finding yourself not really caring about your research and are instead spending your waking hours doing other things - as I have seen many graduate students do - then you're clearly not cut out for the profession. You may still be good enough to finish the PhD, but you're not going to have a solid academic career. In fact, you're probably not even going to place anywhere at all, and even if you did, you'd probably lose the position rather quickly. This is where I garner is the reason for all the 'perpetually unhappy' graduate students that was discussed before: they're no longer really interested in the work. </p>
<p>Now, granted, I agree that as long as you are constantly excited by what you're doing, then you should keep doing it as long you are able. But if you're not enjoying it anymore, then it's probably time to start looking at other options.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's not so much about knowing where your research is going, but rather where your own passion is going. For example, if you're constantly finding yourself not really caring about your research and are instead spending your waking hours doing other things - as I have seen many graduate students do - then you're clearly not cut out for the profession.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, this seems very reasonable. It might even be what I had in mind when I referred to where "research is going." In fact, it makes a lot of sense to consider this viewpoint too, because I get the feeling that while one's research potential may come out only later, I think one can gauge pretty early if the profession is flat out not interesting. And then, surely it's a good idea to use (the plenty of time one has, upon realizing one's preferences early) the time wisely developing the right skills.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's precisely my point: sometimes you have to make time for other endeavors. It is like making time for your family. If you're married, with kids, you should make time for them. Your advisor and your department will obviously want you to spend every single minute of the day on your research, even if that means that your spouse divorces you and you never see your kids. That's why you have to learn to say "no". You have to learn to make time for the things that are going to be important for you, not necessarily for your advisor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, that's not necessarily true. Some advisors do not expect their students to be chained to their desks, labs, etc. Some advisors respect a balanced life. They want a commitment; they do not want a slave. This is why it's important for those interested in PhDs to take many factors into account when applying to doctoral programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, that's not necessarily true. Some advisors do not expect their students to be chained to their desks, labs, etc. Some advisors respect a balanced life. They want a commitment; they do not want a slave.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Or put another way, your goals and your advisor's goals are not necessarily congruent. In particular, your advisor absorbs none of the downside. Your advisor doesn't really care if you don't graduate with backup marketable skills in case you can't get an academic placement because he's not going to be the one who may be stuck working at McDonalds. That's your problem, not his. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why it's important for those interested in PhDs to take many factors into account when applying to doctoral programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, and one of them is career flexibility. That's why I strongly recommend schools with strong general brand names, because if you end up with nothing else, you can at least market the brand. I also recommend schools that have are known as highly active recruiting hubs where the top employers who hire from multiple disciplines - i.e. the consulting firms and investment banks (although perhaps not now with the banks) - can be found. This often times means a university with a top-ranked business school, although there are some exceptions such as Princeton who doesn't have a B-school at all yet still draws a large concentration of top employers. </p>
<p>The point is to simply note that not every grad student will obtain an academic placement, either because they're not good enough, or because they don't want it.</p>
<p>The topic of this thread is how much fun graduate school is at <em>MIT.</em> Just to put things in perspective IMO: </p>
<p>This is MIT we're talking about. Sakky keeps referring to humanities PhD's not being able to find academic positions after graduation. Trust me, the humanities PhD's don't dominate the institutes concerns (or even come close to doing so) at MIT. The Science/Engineering/Mathematics PhD programs are or primary concern. </p>
<p>If you are admitted to the Mathematics PhD program at MIT/Harvard/Princeton/etc, there is a very high probability that you are among the best mathematics grad students in the country, and that if you work hard for the next several years you will produce work that will get you into a good academic track. Most of these students have enough exposure to high level mathematics that they already know that they are going to become professional mathematicians (or in some case switch into similar academic fields).</p>
<p>Engineering is a little bit less definitive, as I've seen at MIT so far, but in general you can tell rather quickly (after 3-4 years) the absolutely brilliant grad students who will become professors and the ones who are going to go into industry, etc. Most of the students who are going to go into industry generally work on research projects that involves learning lots of skills useful in industry.</p>
<p>Science I think MollieB is way more qualified to talk about. However I imagine that many of the students coming to MIT for a PhD in science really know their stuff, and if they work hard they will succeed. </p>
<p>Finally I really don't think it's the institvte's job to worry about saving the bottom 5% of students who get screwed over because they weren't smart enough for academia but didn't have the sense to learn other useful skills. I think if you're planning to come to MIT for a PhD, you should at some point see warning signs that say "this is not the most secure job setup in the world!!!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is MIT we're talking about. Sakky keeps referring to humanities PhD's not being able to find academic positions after graduation. Trust me, the humanities PhD's don't dominate the institutes concerns (or even come close to doing so) at MIT. The Science/Engineering/Mathematics PhD programs are or primary concern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The discussion diverged in post #25 when JHS brought up a story about unhappy English grad students. I simply responded to JHS's post, and others then replied to me. But if you want to blame somebody for diverting the thread, take it up with him. I wasn't the one who brought up the humanities first. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of these students have enough exposure to high level mathematics that they already know that they are going to become professional mathematicians (or in some case switch into similar academic fields).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, the majority probably do. However, according to the 2008 career data, a 1/4 of MIT's reported math PhD's did not take academic jobs, but rather went into industry (in their case, investment banking). That only serves to reinforce my central point that, even at arguably the best math program in the world, a significant fraction of the grad students will not stay in academia, either because they find that academia is not for them, or (less hopefully) because they couldn't land an academic placement. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally I really don't think it's the institvte's job to worry about saving the bottom 5% of students who get screwed over because they weren't smart enough for academia but didn't have the sense to learn other useful skills. I think if you're planning to come to MIT for a PhD, you should at some point see warning signs that say "this is not the most secure job setup in the world!!!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's where I think we have to disagree, if slightly. I can agree that it is not solely the job of MIT, or any other school, to care for its lowest-performing grad students, for I have always said that the students themselves have to take some responsibility for themselves. As I have said through the thread, the students need to assess where they stand relative to the other students and to the job market as a whole, and if they can deduce that they may not even land an academic position at all, then they have to proactively build marketable skills.</p>
<p>But the school bears responsibility too. After all, the school did admit them, so it behooves the school to help them find decent jobs. Both sides are otherwise at fault. If the school didn't want to take any responsibility at all for the outcomes of those students, then the school shouldn't have admitted them in the first place. Besides, the school can view the situation from a purely practical standpoint. The better off that the bottom x% of the students do, the more attractive the school becomes, as prospective candidates that even the worst students still get good jobs and solid careers. Those 'worst' students may even become so successful as to eventually be able to donate millions back to the school. Nobody wins when a grad student ends up working at McDonald's. That's a lose-lose situation all the way around. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. By no means am I singling out MIT. In fact, I would say that MIT does one of the best jobs of all of the schools out there in ensuring that even its worst grad students nonetheless still enjoy prime career prospects, relative to what happens at other schools. Nonetheless, I think that all schools - MIT included - should provide more career support for its lagging grad students. If they don't want to do that, then they just shouldn't admit those students at all.</p>
<p>Sakky,
I can't tell you about the quality of MIT's career services, but I've received ad after ad for post-graduate school career advice/training/workshops/how to apply, etc. Being a first year grad student, I junk them all. I can't imagine that any student here is ignorant of the fact that support is out there.</p>
<p>"But the school bears responsibility too. After all, the school did admit them, so it behooves the school to help them find decent jobs. Both sides are otherwise at fault. If the school didn't want to take any responsibility at all for the outcomes of those students, then the school shouldn't have admitted them in the first place. Besides, the school can view the situation from a purely practical standpoint. The better off that the bottom x% of the students do, the more attractive the school becomes, as prospective candidates that even the worst students still get good jobs and solid careers."</p>
<p>From what I understand, graduate school is suppose to be considered a job more so than a schooling. (I know the name graduate school would imply otherwise) When MIT admits you to graduate school, it's basically saying, wow we think you're pretty cool so we're going to let you hang out with us an work here. They aren't saying "hey man we're best buddies now so if you go down I'm gonna come save you and we're brothers forever." Furthermore, I strongly doubt that the type of students MIT is admitting its graduate schools have the mindset that they are worried about being in the bottom 5% of their class. That's not a healthy attitude to have at the beginning of grad school. So I'm not sure having tons of support for the bottom 5% will make the school more attractive. (In fact, it might be in MIT's advantage to let these bottom 5% of grad students silently leave MIT without making a big commotion and drawing attention to themselves)</p>
<p>Actually, there's nothing wrong with being in the bottom 5% of an elite group. Now if the job market for PhDs in that field can't support the bottom 5%, that's unfortunate, but I don't believe the PhD granting institution is at fault here. The goal of the institution is to produce functional researchers, first and foremost. More on this later when I have more time ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
They aren't saying "hey man we're best buddies now so if you go down I'm gonna come save you and we're brothers forever."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I think they should be saying and doing that. More on this below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I strongly doubt that the type of students MIT is admitting its graduate schools have the mindset that they are worried about being in the bottom 5% of their class. That's not a healthy attitude to have at the beginning of grad school. So I'm not sure having tons of support for the bottom 5% will make the school more attractive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this is precisely where the disagreement lies.</p>
<p>The fact is, everybody who has been admitted to MIT for grad school has clearly been highly successful. They have never tasted failure. These are precisely the kinds of people who are most susceptible to being overconfident, a notion that has been substantiated in much of the academic psychology literature. You are absolutely correct in saying that nobody goes to MIT thinking that they are going to do poorly, yet the fact remains that, simply by definition, 5% of them must end up in the bottom 5% of their class. By not providing support to whoever ends up in that bottom 5%, MIT (and every other school) is basically taking advantage of people's overconfidence. That's harsh. </p>
<p><a href="In%20fact,%20it%20might%20be%20in%20MIT's%20advantage%20to%20let%20these%20bottom%205%%20of%20grad%20students%20silently%20leave%20MIT%20without%20making%20a%20big%20commotion%20and%20drawing%20attention%20to%20themselves">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet the fact is, that never happens. These students don't leave quietly. Many of them leave loudly - in fact so much so that they become a running drag on the reputation of MIT. I have met quite a few of these people who waste no opportunity to drag their alma mater's name through the mud. {However, to be fair, I know other alumni of other schools who do the same thing.} Now, granted, it may indeed be partly their own fault that they have not succeeded professionally, but the fact is, people will tend to blame outside parties for their own failures and the fact that those guys did indeed attend MIT provide credibility to their criticism of the school. </p>
<p>Yet even if they did try to leave quietly, the fact is, they probably wouldn't be allowed to do so. Other people, such as their family and friends, would know that they went to MIT. They will inevitably talk. And when they see that the final career outcome is subpar, they are likely to blame the school, fairly or not. Those who are not family members or friends are then likely to hear the stories about the mediocre career that the subject in question obtained and then remark with incredulity: "He went to School X? I thought that X was supposed to be a good school.", a notion that I have now heard on more than one occasion. It makes the whole school look bad. </p>
<p>I agree with you: the optimal solution really is encourage these lower-performing students to leave quietly. *But, by far, the best way to do that really is to make sure that they get good jobs. * By doing that, most of those students really would leave without complaining. Even regarding the ones that do still complain, nobody would really believe them, because the results would be self-evident: whatever problems they may have had, the end-result is that they got great jobs, such that those listeners themselves wouldn't mind going to MIT and failing. </p>
<p>For example, Mark Warner was a self-admittedly mediocre performer while at Harvard Law School who even once said "I was the only guy I knew who didn't get law-firm offers after summer internships" and whose greatest 'claim' to fame while at HLS was his founding of the 'Somerville Bar Review', which was really just an excuse for him and his buddies to drink at different bars in Somerville and Cambridge. Now he's former Governor and current Senator from Virginia with a 2006 net worth of $200 million. Harvard Law School therefore now has two pre-eminent examples with which it can showcase: that while somebody who performed well may become President, even somebody who performed relatively poorly can nevertheless become a millionaire Senator, which is still pretty darn good. Heck, I wouldn't mind being Mark Warner. Not one bit. </p>
<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Warner: ?I?m Not the Anti-Anyone?</p>
<p>Now, obviously, Warner is an extreme case. Not every mediocre student at Harvard Law will have a net worth of 9 figures like Warner, nor would I expect them to. But what I can expect from a top grad program is that even your worst students will still end up with jobs that are better than McDonald's or the Gap. Like I said before, that's a pretty low bar. I don't think that that's hard to achieve. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, MIT is going to be forever linked to those students who perform poorly. Those students are going to carry forth the MIT brand name for the rest of their lives. Hence, the best thing for everybody, including MIT, is to help them do well in their careers. If they're stuck in jejune, ignoble jobs, that will inevitably sully the brand name of the school. Like it or not, people are going to see that and they will then remark: "I thought MIT was supposed to be a good school."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't tell you about the quality of MIT's career services, but I've received ad after ad for post-graduate school career advice/training/workshops/how to apply, etc. Being a first year grad student, I junk them all. I can't imagine that any student here is ignorant of the fact that support is out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I am not trying to single out MIT here. In fact, I have even said that I think MIT is probably one of the very best schools out there in terms of taking care of all of its students, including the ones who perform (relatively) poorly. </p>
<p>I am making a general statement that all universities, especially the top-ranked ones, need to take better care of their graduate students. Every grad student at a top school, even the poorest performers, should have the career resources and opportunities to build marketable skills in order to find something far better than working at McDonalds. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, there's nothing wrong with being in the bottom 5% of an elite group
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is exactly my point: there is indeed nothing wrong at all with being in the bottom 5% of an elite group, and this bottom 5% should nonetheless still be able to find good jobs, or at least, something better than McDonalds, which is a job that even high school kids can get. Put another way, if you are able to get into a top grad school and then you end up having to work at McDonalds, then frankly, there is something very wrong with that grad school's career support services. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but I don't believe the PhD granting institution is at fault here. The goal of the institution is to produce functional researchers, first and foremost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, we have a fundamental disagreement here. I think the true first and foremost goal should be to help the students find success in their future careers, whatever that may happen to be. Now, granted, for many (perhaps most) grad students, that may indeed mean becoming a functional researcher. But not for all. Not everybody really wants to become a functional researcher, not even the PhD students at MIT. Some of them would rather do other things. As I pointed out before, a full 25% of the newly minted math PhD's from MIT in 2008 took jobs in investment banking. I also see some MIT science or engineering PhD graduates taking jobs at management consulting firms such as McKinsey, BCG, Oliver Wyman, or Booz Allen Hamilton or venture capital firms such as General Catalyst. Hence, given the fact that a not insignificant percentage of the PhD students apparently don't really want to become researchers, every school should be providing resources to help those students succeed in whatever it is that they do want. </p>
<p>Or else, just don't admit those students in the first place. Once you've admitted them, then it's your responsibility to help them, because like I said, they are going to be linked to your school forever. If they end up unhappy in low-end jobs, your school's reputation will inevitably suffer.</p>
<p>Let me ask one question -- so I'm going to be bold, or not so bold, and assume that a Ph.D. in any kind of engineering discipline from MIT doesn't really have to worry about job prospects, because engineering is by nature not an impractical thing. Even someone doing computer science can LIKELY say the same, even if into CS theory or something like that, given they've likely done a good bit of practical stuff in their undergrad years. If not, we'll count them as a complete exception, say.</p>
<p>Now, my question is: which (let's for the time-being exclude humanities and social sciences from consideration so people don't bicker about it being off topic ;)) disciplines coming out of MIT may need to worry about this issue we're talking about? Let's say pure math, physics...what else? And, to what extent are graduates of each such department in danger of not going forward with an academic position, say assuming they want to? Any way to quantify that? I'm keeping it to MIT, given it's an ESPECIALLY super-selective program.</p>
<p>I'm interested in mathboy's question too, since I'm hoping to get a PhD in mathematics.</p>
<p>Is there something wrong with industry/other options that still utilize research & the PhD? It seems most if not all of the conversation here says the only choice besides academia is to learn a completely separate "useful" skill and use that instead.</p>