I spent seven years doing a PhD in Computer Science. It was an unpleasant experience from about year three or four on and I would have gotten the masters' and left before finishing if I knew then what I know now, and probably a) not gone through a suicidally depressive period b) have done more interesting work c) traveled more since I could afford it and d) also been paid more.

The educational aspects of a PhD, at least in my program, were essentially equivalent to the educational aspects of getting a masters degree in the same subject area. The difference between them was after you finished the educational aspects you were now expected to produce between 3 to 6 papers a year corresponding roughly to the important conferences in your field and get most of them published. Speaking personally it takes me about three to four weeks to write a good research paper assuming I already have the results, so I worked out at one point that I had about two weeks to generate meaningful work to write about if I was to publish to that schedule. It is impossible to do anything more than the famous Least Publishable Increment of Work in that environment, and as a result most papers in Computer Science aren't especially compelling. A healthier field (say, chemistry, physics, mathematics) has you write perhaps one or two a year, with actual data.

The requirement to constantly be publishing is ridiculous, no wonder there are cases like the one reported in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e...) where in 56 paper only 6 had results that were successfully reproduced :( And this is cancer research...

Reminds me of 'The illustrated guide to a Ph.D' - http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

What a perfectly delightful piece of academic propaganda.

I'm sure that I am overreacting, but the suggestion that a PhD is the first and only time that you will experience original knowledge in your life seems quite smug.

Matt is making an "A implies B" argument: PhD's by definition must contribute original knowledge. He didn't address the converse (that non-PhD's don't or can't).

A PhD is definitely not the only time that a person can delve into original research or knowledge, you're right.

But I don't see any place where Dr. Might suggests that it's the _only_ experience that can lead to original research.

I think a PhD is definitely one of the only experiences where upon completion you are required to have contributed to the world of original and new knowledge in some way, though.

I'm pretty far from an academic, but I do believe you are overreacting a bit. It would be absurd to even imply that a PhD was the only route to original knowledge (insert patent clerk anecdote here).

However, original knowledge is one of the core tenets of an academic doctorate after all, and it's certainly one legitimate avenue towards original research and knowledge.

I don't know where the "Einstein had little formal education in physics" meme originated, but I'd like to kill it. Einstein was awarded a PhD before the publication of any of his seminal 1905 papers.

You used the wrong syllogism.

I saw Matt Might give this talk (or: a talk with this topic) this year -- my god, what a gifted speaker!

>>It takes a certain poverty of mind to quantify the value of an education in terms of earnings.

I don't know... If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction.

A fantastic job with good living arrangements do not require a Ph.D.

> If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction.

I respect your desire for more money in exchange for more commitment, but we should also recognize that money is but one of many motivators, all of which are ultimately in the service of increasing personal satisfaction.

Perhaps this is a cultural difference. I am not American, and therefore I don't really subscribe to the individualist perspective that everything ultimately serves the purpose of increasing personal satisfaction.

> I don't know... If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off to become one of the foremost experts in a specialized field, then it better have more benefits than just personal satisfaction.

The only kind of benefits any job can have is subjective "personal satisfaction". The degree to which any particular objective result of employment (e.g., material gain) is an important factor in producing personal satisfaction, of course, varies from person to person.

Personal satisfaction is one of the best outcomes I can imagine. What's more important than personal satisfaction?

Health and safety of your kids and spouse?

I could have gone academic, in fact I could toss it all away and go academic right now. However ... I would never voluntarily make my wife and kids suffer like that. Maybe after I retire it would be safe to go academic.

It boils down to you might be able to fire me up enough to eat ramen and live in a cardboard box because of topic X, but I'd have a hard time looking my kids in the eye and telling them they'll never eat anything better than ramen because dad likes topic X more than them.

That's the screwed up nature of the system. "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to advance science". Oh really, and why is that? Why isn't it "Everyone knows you HAVE to take a vow of poverty and give up your private life to stamp license plates, but if you wanna be rich go into academia..."

I think the parent's point was all of this is subsumed by "personal satisfaction".

Well, no point in word games but obviously I read "personal satisfaction" and hear "me" as in personal, and you don't. That's OK, but without a common definition there's going to be confusion.

i know plenty of academics with healthy, safe, spouses and children. they eat just fine.

Can't have it both ways. The article says they're not doing as well financially compared to the non-academic path. Well, if you really loved science you'd do it anyway, and its not all about the money, and scientists are supposed to be poor because thats how its always been. OK whatever I'm not doing that to my kids. Oh OK well it turns out that despite the article, the ones I know are doing great. Um nope, its one or the other.

You might have selection bias. All the pro athletes I know of, appear to be financially healthy. That doesn't mean pro basketball is a great plan for kids, given the evidence that 99.99% of kids who want to be pro basketball players end up doing something else, something much less profitable than NBA star... I would theorize this is directly analogous to going into academics.

The winners win. Turns out that winning is, in fact, pretty fun. The losers, well..., that's most of the them, but we're not going to talk about them.

or maybe the problem is that "not doing as well financially" is not identical to "starving to death in poverty"?

Going into a Ph.D for the money is a bit like going into a sport for the laughs. You might well find some, but it's not the point.

Is this a hypothetical or have you actually done a PhD? For people considering a PhD, personal satisfaction had better be enough. If it's not, don't don't don't go to grad school.

>> If I spend up to 7 years of my life studying and researching my ass off

Where did you get the magic number 7 from?

> have more benefits than just personal satisfaction.

It is possible that others have different considerations?

Well said. Why is it even a relevant question as to whether PhDs in math/computing earn more/less than their counterparts with masters' degrees? Equating a degree with a level of economic productivity is illogical.