The question raised by the article is, can real-world experience make up for a lack of PhD?

A balance of both is perhaps best, which is what industry PhD holders have.

Corollary being: can a PhD make up for lack of real world experience?

I think it depends on the PHD and the real world experience.

There's a quote I kinda forgot, but it goes something like:

"Did you experience the same thing 10 times, or did you experience 10 years worth?"

And I think this is true for a lot of real world experience, you don't necessarily have 10 year of it even though you've worked 10 years, you have 10 times the same experience.

Could you please not post flamebait to HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Political science isn't, at all, mindless, and there are focus areas within it that are extremely rigorous either elitist or analytically or both.

OTOH, there's not a lot of places where a PoliSci Ph.D. would substitute for industry experience (or, for that matter, vice versa.) If you want to substitute an academic degree in that general space for “industry” experience, you go for public policy and/or public administration (or, arguably, law), not political science.

Yes, all PhDs are equal. But some are more equal than others.

Which is funny, because the lack of government <-> academic information transfer is so small that any PoliSci PhD has an immediate competitive advantage in almost any bureaucratic setting (this is true at the federal and local levels).

A PhD in government pretty much guarantees that you'll be retiring after a thirty year career as a GS-15 or SES. A 150k salary plus benefits may not be high for some STEM fields, but it's definitely not something to look down on.

I've often struggled with what "real world experience" is and how a PhD isn't that. A PhD in science is dominated by doing research every day. PhDs often go into industry positions post phd because of their research experience. I think real world experience ends up just meaning "experience with our specific hardware/software/stack/whatever" and that isn't really anything special at that point.

It depends on what you want to do. A phd gives you a certain set of skills, and the same time spent working gives you another.

Agreed - I was specifically responding to the concern of gaining experience to solve global problems.

A PhD doesn't make up for lack of real-world experience, but it sure does augment it dramatically.

I've wondered if working for 10 or so years and then getting a PhD could be a good strategy.

I've been in the industry for 12 years and I've been deeply considering going back to school for a PhD. I love working on fundamental CS and I'd greatly enjoy the sort of work that I'd have access to during and after a PhD. The challenge is that, for folks who haven't won the equity lottery or racked up FAANG RSUs, it's a huge financial challenge to consider going from an engineering salary to PhD stipend. Considering I still have student loans from my BS, and a spouse who doesn't work that is also being supported on my salary, it's almost impossible to figure out the logistics of working on a PhD full time.

I've found a few programs that are open to considering part-time candidates, but they are few and far between, and most of the ones who consider it still strongly recommend against it.

Have you heard of http://www.mrmoneymustache.com ? If you still have student loans after 12 years in the industry, you might want to re-examine your spending/saving patterns

Just discovered this website, this philosophy looks really interesting! The ultimate goal of early retirement is appealing, so the discipline has a purpose. This might get me somewhere, instead of saving for the sake of getting richer. Thank you for this discovery!

It’s not the easiest decision. Regarding loans, repayment should stop once you go back. Regarding income, it’s hard at first. You might have to downsize, but also research cost of living. Depending on where you go to, it’s doable. Some universities have housing for people doing their PhDs and for families which is cheaper.

Went (going?) through it. My wife is doing her PhD. From 2 really good incomes to one stipend. We don’t live in campus housing so it’s more expensive (savings helped here initially), but we do know of others there with their spouses and some even with kids that are doing good. I found a job after getting here which helped.

Yeah this is the problem it’s way to hard to make ends meet later on in life. I wish I’d understood this earlier. Youth is wasted on the young.

I'm trying it out now, I guess meet you back at this thread in another 10 years?

FYI for others wondering about the same, I wouldn't wait the full 10 years unless you are going to study something very industry adjacent like software engineering methodology. I've had to spend a lot of time relearning anything theoretical.

I bet the sweet spot is 2-5 years.

Not to be argumentative, but there is very little research that I've found on software engineering methodology that is in any way convincing. If you've got a good source, I would be incredibly grateful if you shared it! This is one of those areas where I wonder if a PhD is in any way useful. One the one hand in industry you have a complete lack of rigorous controls to measure your effectiveness and on the other hand in academia there is no way to fund the kind of project that would give you decent data (if you could somehow even figure out a way to introduce rigorous controls). I've thought about this quite a bit, and I think you're better off on the industry side if you are really interested in pursuing that kind of thing. Would love to be proven wrong, though.

I don't think you're wrong, I've seen a few interesting papers that nibble around the edges, usually examining how bugs get introduced and when they are fixed. I mentioned the field as an example of where someone coming from industry would not have to catch up to someone whose knowledge of Turing machines was still very fresh.

You're right, no trials on methodology that resemble something like clinical trials. And of course the reason for that is it would be incredibly expensive to even run a reasonable pilot (two small teams head to head implementing a realistic system), and if any organization has actually gathered data, it would be the crown jewel of proprietary knowledge. Not something you would ever open source.

The only thing I can say is that an immature field is one with opportunities left. If you can figure out how to jump the hurdles you can make a huge impact.

PS, an example of a bug study like I mentioned (this isn't even that great but just goes to show how hard any sort of software study is): https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.acolyer.org/2018/06/28/how...

There are several PhD programs in the public health sphere that require work experience for admission.

Yes, but real world problems are in the ocean, with sharks, currents, icebergs, etc. Enjoy your pools.