Over the past year, I've come to the conclusion that PhD programs are basically bullshit. I've come to the conclusion that universities are exploiting young people into working for low wages under the guise of "training and education".
>inb4 everybody already knew this,
yeah yeah, let me finish and then you can tell me to fuck off.
Through a unique opportunity, I am able to work in a university environment while being paid as a salaried worker for a start-up company. Basically, the university works cooperatively with a start-up company. On paper, I work for the start-up company at an engineer's salary -- physically, I work at university facilities and conduct "PhD-eque" research. This is a tech-field job (hardware). I work directly with university students but I am employed by a non-university company. I also have a Master's degree paid for by the company, but this is mostly irrelevant. I am 22 years old with a Bachelor's degree in STEM.
Here's why the system is bullshit.
>I do the exact same work as another PhD student
In fact, I was trained by a PhD student. The PhD student is 3 years into his degree. We now do the same work.
>I am making substantially more money than the PhD student
Typical PhD stipend is in the $25K -$35K range. I was making $55K from day one. I was making about $20K more money than my PhD conterpart WHILE HE TRAINED ME
>I am not bound to my professor/advisor for 5 years
The PhD has to have the consent of the advisor to graduate. The advisor more or less can block the PhD student from leaving the group. If the PhD student decides to leave without graduating, he has a massive black hole on his resume. He is SOL. If I decide to leave, I can spin it to look like solid industry experience. The only thing keeping me at work is next week's pay (and, to some extent, my previous student loans)
1/2
>>7873407
2/2
>If you become a post-doc, you continue to make shit money
Median post-doc pay is maybe $40K - $50K
The university system has indoctrinated an entire generation of young people into indentured servitude. The university would have you believe you are getting tuition waived, gifted a generous stipend, and setting you up for exclusive job opportunities. The truth is, they are paying $20K below market value and putting you into a position where you cannot stop working. What's more, they are attracting some of the best and brightest to their dooms.
Anybody have any input on this? Am I missing something? Just 2 years ago, I had my heart set on getting a PhD. Now I can't help but think the universities are just running a racket.
>I have no idea how academia works. Let me tell you why I'm so butthurt about it.
/sci/- Science & Math
>>7873407
All university courses are a racket, what makes you think PhDs are so special?
All universities are nothing more than indoctrination programs senpai, from undergraduate all the way to PhD.
>>7873423
>open the floor to debate
>get dismissed with no rebuttal
>am told I don't understand academia
why do I even try?
It's definitely not a path to choose for money. You should do a PhD only if you know you want to work in a certain discipline at a high level that requires that level of education. The focus of education in a PhD will become extremely specialized which can provide a foundation for a valuable and unique expertise at the expense of employability.
Janitors can work all over the country but you don't hear physicists complaining that they should've picked up a mop instead of going to college. Lesser versions of these trade-offs apply for all levels of education/specialization
>I'm doing the same work as a PhD student
Perhaps but in certain professions the academic experience of a PhD is necessary and helpful. A person with a master's will generally not be trusted to lead large research projects that require arranging for funding, managing experiments, and the publication/patenting/development/general PR of the project.
A problem with PhDs in America is that in general students start with no fucking direction or experience and so the learning process is very inefficient. The UK/EU way of doing it is arguably better, as you can apply for specific PhD-earning projects just like a job as opposed to hunting down a professor and then trying to feel out a body of work for a dissertation.
I'm starting a PhD in a few months at the age of 26, independently funded by a national lab getting 55k a year so I'm not tied to a prof. I've worked since I was 22. I have 5 publications 2 conference presentations, and 2 patents. I literally had my pick of schools and I knew exactly where I was going and exactly who I was working with, and they knew me 2 years ago. Now that I'm officially on the list of incoming students profs are sending me emails and throwing themselves at me. This is because I'm a refreshing change from the "I got a 4.0 in my undergrad and I've never been in a lab, give me some money and a reference I'm your biggest fan"
>>7873550
also you're right about post-docs OP. They are an extra-high bullshit hurdle for becoming a professor. Anybody who goes into post-doc work better be damn sure that they love the discipline they're researching
>"but post-docs teach you how to write grant proposals!"
lol okay I've been working at a lab where PhDs with no post-doc work apply for funding from military agencies and routinely get 2-4 year programs funded at million dollar levels. good luck with your tiny NSF grants that have hundreds of applicants
>"but muh freedom to research anything that my autistic heart desires!"
literally does not exist in any practical science
PhD: "I research what my prof tells me to"
Post-doc: "I research what my group acquires funding for"
Prof: "I research what I agreed to research for my grant-funding organization"
and all of them are constantly telling themselves it's exactly what they want. A better mindset to enter academia with would be "I'm going to become an expert in a very specialized discipline that I am very passionate about in general and then research a variety of topics within this discipline as they are deemed enlightening/profitable"
Also any eurofag who thinks a habilitation is relevant to modern science can fuck all the way off
>>7873550
What field, and how did you come about doing this?
>>7873407
Do you have PhD research training that would support your research conclusions?
>>7873592
what?
>>7873601
oh ok.
I might argue this depends wildly on the field. I talk to my chem. friends at MIT and it sounds like they're grunts doing the PI's bidding in lab 14 hours a day (even weekends). I'm in a CMT group at Illinois and find my life is pretty flexible. I don't make lots of money, this much is definitely true.
I'll say, though, I have access to ridiculous amounts of resources--libraries, several highlight colloquia a week from any department, invited talks separate from that, open-doors to faculty leading research in my area, a large pool of smart graduate students to bounce ideas around with--the list keeps going, really.
I'm single, the area is very affordable on the stipend given, I actually take classes and so the tuition waiver is useful, and I get the chance to research what I'm interested in without worrying about funding.
I think if you go into grad school thinking it's a sick way to spend a few years and you don't care about science, then it's obviously not gonna appeal to you and will seem tiresome. I like what I'm doing, the people I'm surrounded by, and how much I see myself growing academically/as a researcher these past couple years.
>>7873587
Optics/Photonics. I've posted here before but I'm not going to say what university anymore
>got physics bachelors in US with marginal grades
>didn't know shit about fuck
>got photonics master's in UK on a lucky scholarship that had no other applicants that year
>was about to start a standard "don't know shit" PhD in UK but at least knew what field I would go into at 22
>had a breakdown after seeing miserable PhD students and 35 year old post-docs
>quit, left the UK in a panic
>prof who was going to supervise me was literally calling up profs from my master's program to tell them not to give me references or any help
>6 months unemployed at home
>got bullshit job at defense contractor
>after 8 months got dream job at big lab with well-known scientists
>on publications within 6 months
>on patent application in less than a year
>presenting at major conference within 1.5 years
>found my niche and a great group of researchers
>get scholarship through lab to get 70% of my salary while getting PhD
>owe the lab 1 year of work for every year of PhD on the back end
>>7873611
oh I forgot to add
>was on 3 publications before any of the students from my MSc who started PhDs got a publication
>>7873611
>Optics/Photonics.
Hey, that's where I'm at as well. Any insight into the future of photonics? Where's the money heading?
I read the VCSEL market alone is growing to $2 Billion within the next five years. Everyone needs high-bandwidth interconnects.
>>7873550
>This is because I'm a refreshing change from the "I got a 4.0 in my undergrad and I've never been in a lab, give me some money and a reference I'm your biggest fan"
You really are naive.
>>7873584
>PhD: "I research what my prof tells me to"
>Post-doc: "I research what my group acquires funding for"
>Prof: "I research what I agreed to research for my grant-funding organization"
This definitely is not true for me and a lot of other mathematicians I know. We chose our universities and advisors based on what we wanted to do research in, and most of us had a lot of flexibility even on the problems we worked on under our advisor. Moreover, in math you don't even need to pick an advisor right away, so we really got to do what we liked (and few grad students are going to go into an area so new that literally no prof can help them. If that is the case and they are so smart that they can pave their own way like that, they CAN find an accomodating advisor for sure).
>>7873444
Welcome to 4chan
PROTIP: No matter what you post, you're wrong.
>>7873629
>where's the money heading?
It's in a lot of places. I'm not to concerned with what the big markets are going to be b/c I'm not using my work to chase money. I have a vague idea of what technologies will have long lifetimes and have a lot of potential uses to be researched and that's what I'm more interested in
>>7873665
Thanks for the enlightening counterpoint with a great explanation
>>7873665
FFS LOL did you even bother to read his post?
>I'm starting a PhD in a few months at the age of 26, independently funded by a national lab getting 55k a year so I'm not tied to a prof. I've worked since I was 22. I have 5 publications 2 conference presentations, and 2 patents. I literally had my pick of schools and I knew exactly where I was going and exactly who I was working with, and they knew me 2 years ago.
>>7873672
Maybe in math the capital requirements are not the same
In my field research work is predominantly experimental. The experiments are not cheap and therefore very dependent on funding, so relationships with funding agencies are very important.
>>7873407
Oh, it's another bait topic on /sci/
Great stuff
>>7873417
>>7873407
I agree OP, the bottom-tier of academia i.e PhDs and post-docs get cucked hard and as you said it's not like in industry where you're a junior but you get paid, in academia it's "shut up and accept it because we give you free meals" You're literally a slave. Industry is usually seen as soulless and academia "fun and free" but it's the complete opposite, industry will actually invest in you and get you involved from day one, academia will give you peanuts and keep you as a servant
Don't expect /sci/ to understand, they worship academia too much and will happily suck their professor's dick (some really do) just to be given time with a mass spectrometer.
>>7873407
Not even PHDs. My friend was in his final year of a bachelor's level IT degree and had to do some kind of project. The stuff he created was taken and used by a company, and he got nothing out of it. He had to do the project or he wouldn't pass his degree.
PhD's in our times suck, wasting 4 years of your time doing research on a subject you may not even be able to choose. 50 years ago you could get your PhD in a few months (like Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD) Today its exploition and just a system to create high efficient slaves.
>>7873407
you fail to understand that PhD is for doing research, not for working for the start-up company. you would have known this, if you had a PhD.
overall, you are a little butthurt.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
>>7873407
PhD students make less money, but the important thing for them is to get the reputation of the university into their CV. I mean in Stanford or so, you probably make 24-35k as a PhD student, but good reputation. In Switzerland you make around 65k, and still good reputation. So maybe it's just a matter of country?
I don't have any advanced degree experience yet but I am fresh out of undergrad and I just wanna say congrats OP, it seems like you really got yourself in a nice spot. Transcending the system.
>>7873407
problem is you get a master degree paid for.
what kind of shit is this honestly?
>>7874025
Companies will invest in a Masters for you depending on the company and line of work.
If you are going for the phd it's not about the money or the working experience. In my country phds make less than $10000 usd a year and I am still wanting to get to it even if I could get a job in comp science
>inb4 3rd world country
Yeah I know
>>7873407
>I have come to the conclusion the entire system is flawed
>through a unique opportunity I am able to get my masters while being paid more
you are acting like your good fortune is a cut and dry way of doing higher education "the right way". In reality, the program's you are currently in are far and few between. People don't have the money to go to a masters with no intent of doing a PhD. They don't want to -maybe- get a job in their field, they want to ensure it. They don't want to be stuck in a lab tech position, they want to be qualified to do the science they were taught.
The job market is flooded with undergraduate degrees. Doing a PhD means applying to programs offering ~$30k who have a better chance of hiring than any employer + the benefit of getting a higher degree. These are just the pragmatic reasons. People do PhDs because they like research, and if they have a shot at an R&D position this way, they will take it. It gives you the opportunity to move somewhere new while you are young, and gives you the chance at the prestige of holding a PhD.
I'll look past the difference in our field, as I hear physics is right along with chem in the "grad school or die" category, but the opportunity you have been given, as you said, is unique. If I knew I could go get a chem job right now and get my education paid for, I would do it in a heartbeat. I've tried and I can't. No one is hiring undergrad chemists in the Midwest, and of the past three summers and 100+ internship applications, I have gotten 5 call back All ending in nothing. Aside from all of this, you will continue to defend your good luck though, because most of us are familiar with the meme
>He ACTUALLY thinks a PhD is more valuable than a masters in 2016!!1!1!1!1
>>7873611
>>prof who was going to supervise me was literally calling up profs from my master's program to tell them not to give me references or any help
Sounds like a cunt
>>7873407
>write a massive wall of text about something which everyone already knows about
>claim you have something new and original to add to the discussion
>don't
Now fuck off
>>7874150
>Chemistry
Found your problem
>>7873675
You're wrong, and you know that I'm right!
>>7873748
You can get your PhD as quickly as you want if you can pass quals and write a dissertation in a few months.
Did a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences / Physics, job offers are plenty, I can basically move to any country I feel like; research away from universities is alive and well-funded, there is a MetOffice in every country; I do the work of a post-doc while earning like in industry.
It's your own fault if you don't make use of your qualifications. The options are there.
>>7873407
>2016
>still not understanding why people make sacrifices to have a chance at getting a career in advanced academia
This is /sci/ in a nutshell. Threads based on people's opinions and frustration.
Before I even read through the entirety of this thread, I want to add my two cents.
In industry, masters plus work experience is where the most respect is. Amongst the hundreds of other people I am working with that make six figs and people high up in the company, none of them are Phd holders. The cream of the crop in industry are wicked bright, but they honestly don't have more than a masters.
Its preferable to get two masters degrees over a single doctorate. Masters are geared towards industry readiness. Phd's are geared towards unappreciated technical journal writing. Phd is basically scientific journalism (with poverty wages and no labor laws limiting your work hours); which is why most of the phd candidates in America these days are a bunch of nonwestern third-world nonwhites. No body else is dumb enough to do it.
2 cents
>>7874651
>No body else is dumb enough to do it.
correction
[del] dumb enough [/del]
[ins] desperate enough [/ins]
>>7874592
uh no.
Mandatory number of lecture hours to take bud
Dissertation schedule and content has to be approved by faculty. Usually mandatory 2 years of research or so.
>lol ima just walk in and take a shortcut cuz im so clever. lol phd in under ayear.
>>7873407
I only know 3 people with Phd's. Their respective Phd's (psychology, microbiology, and chemistry) have been extremely useful for them.
>>7874537
>if you dont study pure math or physics then you are worthless
just dont.
>>7874815
No, it's more like
>The job market for Chemistry is uniquely awful even in the already awful STEM job market
>>7874815
Who said I'd include physics?
>doing phd for the money
why do you retards never understand? of course there are hundreds of better ways to make more money under less time with less effort. phd was never supposed to be about money. academia was never supposed to be about money. is it really that hard to understand?
>>7874651
That's a nice garden
>>7873407
>Typical PhD stipend is in the $25K -$35K range. I was making $55K from day one. I was making about $20K more money than my PhD conterpart WHILE HE TRAINED ME
on average, doctoral degrees come with a higher end-of-career salary and more total money earned
your pay started out higher but caps lower
>>7874150
>People don't have the money to go to a masters with no intent of doing a PhD.
>going into a discipline that doesn't offer straight-out-of-undergrad doctoral programs with full stipends
>>7875290
Even if you ignore the money, I am disputing the usefulness of the experience.
After one year of work, I am doing the exact same tasks as a PhD student 3 years into his degree. His name and my name are both included on published papers.
On top of all of this, I have the added flexibility of being a "normal" salaried worker. My worst case scenario is that I walk away from the job -- I haven't invested any time into a PhD. In fact, I can chalk the whole thing off as "professional experience". I can renegotiate my wages.
Additionally, I can escape the indentured-servant mentality. My PhD coworker will always be an apprentice to our boss, the master. Meanwhile, I am an employee being compensated for my services. It's a subtle but important difference. A student is always going to be looked down upon by a professor, but a boss has to at least occasionally cede to his employees.
>>7875314
A PhD gives you prestige and respect - You have neither
>>7875314
>>7875314
Says a lot about your research that an uneducated worker like you can perform the same tasks as a PhD candidate.
That could never happen in my field of research. Coming up with new methods, formulating novel scientific questions and approaches - that tends to take years of study to get to that point.
If a run-of-the mill technician can do the same as a grad/postgrad, chances are that you're working in some shitty tech-factory, and not in a scientific institution.
>>7875323
>>7875336
>m-m-muh prestige
All jokes aside, could you please elaborate on what a "real" PhD student does that no one else can do? I am genuinely opening the floor up to debate. I'm open to all opportunities to success.
What field of research do you do, and what does your day by day schedule look like? What questions do you answer, and how do you approach them? Do you lead a team, or work with a team, or independently? As an individual, what results do you bring to table? How do you specifically fit in with the goals of the group? And could you please vaguely describe these goals?
Are you theoretical, experimental, computational, other?
>>7874819
>>7874819
Ah, yes. So we should just disregard the fact that OP is in an extremely unique situation because
>chemistry has no jobs
Physics has the same problem. Math has no field other than academia and applied areas like finance. I'm sure other fields face the same problems, I do not know what they are.
Bottom line, if you aren't good at what you do then you will not be hired. That standard coupled with BS chemists not having the knowledge or resume to assume a research role right out of college is why I am advocating PhDing up. It is different for my field, but I drew a parallel with physics because this is what I understand to be true of physics as a field. To reiterate OPs question, "why would I go to grad school and get paid less when I can do the same thing and get paid more?", I agree. I'm arguing that you will be hard pressed to find an arrangement like that. If you think you can, then good luck.
>>7875346
Oh boy - this is going to be a long one.
>All jokes aside, could you please elaborate on what a "real" PhD student does that no one else can do?
People in industry do not have the luxury to study a topic properly in-depth, I do have that luxury. You can rarely convince your boss at a company to let you go to the library for a couple of weeks because you have an idea about X which possibly improves Y. At least not without a proper business plan and name a number of hours needed to be allocated to a certain project budget.
>What field of research do you do, and what does your day by day schedule look like?
Atmospheric science; I study the measurement of trace gases, surface properties and aerosols using satellite-based spectrometry.
I go into the office in the morning. Leave in the evening. I write code in various programming languages, since most of the computing is done using .. computers.
>Do you lead a team, or work with a team, or independently?
I work in a team (more teams actually) obviously (7 in our tight research group, around 35 in a broader sense). We do contract work for other meteorological offices, every one of us has usually a second side-project overseas.
>As an individual, what results do you bring to table?
Most of my work is related to our retrieval framework that our group extensively uses, but also others within the department. I give advice to colleagues at JPL/Eumetsat/JAXA, who tend to incorporate my updates to the code as well as new implementations altogether; it raises the profile of our group. I contribute the odd proposal for national calls, every now and again for international ones.
>How do you specifically fit in with the goals of the group?
See above.
>And could you please vaguely describe these goals?
We raise and answer questions related to Earth Science using air- and spaceborne measurement systems. Keywords: Carbon Cycle, Air Quality, Remote Sensing.
Experimental/Compuational
>>7875346
I'm starting a PhD in organic chem next year.
Year one is a series of cumulative exams testing inorganic, organic, analytical, and physical. Failure to pass and you're out.
This is followed by advanced level courses in your field assuming you passed the qualifiers. Some schools make you retake the tests over and over but I don't think mine requires that. Drop below a certain gpa and lose your stipend? That's the same thing as "you're out".
Next you apply to begin your research. You give an oral presentation, take exams, and apply with a research proposal. If any of this is not accepted, you're out.
Now you do your research for 3-4 years. You solve problems no one has done before. You work many hours a day to publish papers and demonstrate you are capable of being an independent researcher. You try to avoid being scooped. If you successfully defend your work you become a PhD. People see you as someone who doesn't need handholding in your field.
>>7875396
How do you not crack under all that pressure?
I'd like to read a version of this thread with all the need for ego boosting of the OP removed. The topic is a relevant one.
