One problem I saw with PhDs is that they have been trained to find a unique solution that they can associate with their name, not the best solution from price/performance viewpoint.
Yes, I agree with that assessment. That's how one builds a name in academic research, but it is not what brings value in the private sector. Results are what matters, and cost and performance are key elements of successful results.
most phds I met don't care about name or publications, they are just curious how to solve something if it doesn't exist yet. almost all phds I met want to only work in industry yet are treated like their priorities are same as professors they never wanted to be. especially engineering phds are quite used to practical correlation/estimation solutions rather than deriving something from fundamental principals with countless insignificant parts. doesn't matter really there are no such thing as getting an interview anymore with 10k applications for every thing
@@im7254 Yes, the online application game is a loosing game. I equate it to playing the lottery - somebody will win, but it's not likely to be you. The right way to get a job is by reaching out to people in your target area. But that's a whole other topic. Check out this video: ruclips.net/video/7SP5iCEenwM/видео.html
@@heliumfrancium8403 I don't think the 'unique' vs 'optimized' solution is such an important distinction. What your manager will want is that you can quickly and efficiently get to a solution that meets the specifications and/or constraints and then move on. The big problem is when PhDs can't finish one project and move on to another. We have a tendency to be 'constantly questioning and revising everything' - that's an exact quote.
@@heliumfrancium8403 Applied researchers may have more of a pragmatic mindset. Theoretical researchers are sometimes liable to come into industry and say it's self-evident that the C++ should be ported to Haskell. It's not unique to PhDs but it is related to narrow focus.
This is just a way of saying "Get used to the low standards if you want to earn some money." I'm not a PhD but I studied my undergraduates in a top university in engineering. Then I went to business. Let me tell you that the reason this video tells you to be "more agreeable rather than critic" is that the most people in business are very underqualified that when their ideas are challanged, they get defensive and perceive this as a personal insult. Yes, PhD's better find ways to correct wrong methods, or false decision making rather than directly saying it if they want to make it in business. But not because it is false, just because I'm sorry to say that but most managers and employees in business are not that bright. Industry needs solutions, and solutions require hard work, right methodology, and experimentation. But people in the industry want to make wonders without much effort. And that is just not realistic. And because of that most of the time they simply can't.
@Aleosha Rojdestvenski I think you have a point that scientific method and free-trade success are different than each other. But to my experience, if you need to re-design a service, innovate your existing workflow, to sum up, most acts that bring competitive advantage requires detailed and methodological work. For instance, you need to prepare process flow schemas and think through them, train others through them, and make conclusions about having alternative choices in order to bring success on the table like "Can we automate this part of the work with acceptable cost so that we will provide speedy service to customer?". Most people in business doesn't have mental skills to think things in this way, even executives. They want to rule everything with savage, shallow qualitative interpretations. Experimentation, changing certain variables of job to see if improvements will follow... They are not equipped with these skills. And I defend that they are essential for market success.
@@ergolibersum Industry needs VIABLE solutions. Financial and human resources are scarce and costly. You may argue as much as you want but this is basic economic logic.
@@seekknowledge8034 Look, the mentality of free market relies basically on competition induced progress. Because financial and human resources are scarce just like you said, you need to solve complex problems of consumers to come up with viable solutions so that you gain competitive advantage and become more profitable and so on. Do you think electric cars is a viable solution? I think so. Creation of viable solutions require people who can work with complexity, detailed thinking, experimentation mentality and so on. What I defend is most business people are not capable of undertaking complexity to create something competitive, which is most of the way the only way of making it. They want to achieve things with simple thinking and simple operations. Most of the time they only achieve their survival.
From my experience, you'll get better results from the young guy out of school who's hungry, wants the work, and wants to prove himself. You'll have to watch them a little closer and check their work more carefully but the old Ph.D. is not usually the guy that you want. He's been a member of the big-boys club for 20 years, thinks most tasks are beneath him, and his first question to any task that comes down is, "What's in it for me?" In most vocations, a Ph.D. is a license to make a bunch of money to sit around, tell other people what to do, and make excuses to not work. Hell yes I've seen it in engineering.
This is good advice. (Industry manager here) When I work with highly educated my main goal is to teach them how to be action-oriented. Knowing a lot is useless if you don't DO something.
😂 Too much of anything is bad. You can be handicapped by knowing too much. When I knew little, I was much more economically successful than when I obtained advanced specialized knowledge. You can get stuck and fail to realize that life is moving very fast
@@TurningScienceVideo In industry. Academia IS knowledge for knowledge sake. Industry is knowledge for profits sake. Seems like the PhD just needs to realize the values paradigm is different.
I’ve been successful at work, I’m 51 and not far off the C-suite now. I did a masters after my bachelors, it’s helped, it gave me work ethic, thought clarity and writing skills. I put people at work into one of three categories, Workhorse (most people), Problem makers (like your Naysayers) and Problem solvers. Only problem solvers get above manager. The quicker you work closely with problem solvers, the quicker you gain that experience, the faster you can progress. I’ve seen people move ahead of me, and it’s because they learned that sooner. The people I’ve left behind are mostly now naysayers. I agree that academia is different, it’s about challenging ideas. Success in business is about fixing things and searching for solutions that bring competitive advantage, it’s not about looking for flaws.
200% agree! PhDs are meant for people staying in academia and research. Industry dynamics requires some experience gained and actual people management skill (which academia doesn't dig into a practical level)
The problem with going straight to the solution is that you miss the opportunity to find a solution which is way better that what you initially planned. What I generally do is starting small workshops and concept meetings already 6 - 12 months before we plan to implement something. This way, the concept has time to mature, i.e. engineers have enough time to think about it. When we go towards the actual start date of the project, I increase the frequency of these meetings, so that we have a reasonably solid concept when the first line of code is being written or the first line of schematic is drawn. So far, this works pretty good. It's definitely better than being more or less done with a project and already knowing that this will be a thing which you later will have to explain with "legacy code", "historic reasons", or "technical debt"...
Sometimes you need to push a solution because waiting can cause more prejudice. Sometimes you can iterate and push a next-gen solution based on improvements and learned lessons from the first iteration. Sometimes you can take your sweet time. It all depends on the bigger picture.
@@cacildeasa If I really have to do it, then I go for a quick & dirty solution. There is no point in investing more time than necessary into a project which is outdated even before it arrives at the customer.
"he problem with going straight to the solution is that you miss the opportunity to find a solution which is way better that what you initially planned. " Thsi is only happening when you are inventing being unprepared for the job. This means undereducated in given circumstances. The largest achievements are not made like that. Hoover Dam, Pyramids, Moon Landing. You live in a world of lesser rascals that didnt learned before, are learning slow, and want to get the credits for learning.
@@krzysztofbosak7027 As someone who leads an engineering team, I can assure you that this is not how it works. Experience (not knowledge alone) makes results of quick solutions better. However, in most cases the best result is being achieved if the idea has matured properly.
I knew a guy with a Ph.D and he told me he had to lie to get a job. He said the moment "Ph.D" is on the application, they are rejected. It's called being "overqualified".
I've heard a lot of that from job seekers. People who hear that are usually looking at jobs that they are overqualified for. Or, they display the stereotypical behavior I describe in the video, and 'overqualified' is just the easiest way for the hiring manager to tell the PhD that they don't get it.
@@TurningScienceVideoIt's true they apply for yes-man grunt positions and don't get it's a yes-man grunt position. It's probably better to drop the PhD from the resume because from the outset the hiring managers will feel belittled by it. Even if you were to get hired and humble yourself, it's still walking on egg shells if they know this.
I have "just" a master's degree in mathematics, and even I got told repeatedly at the IT company I was working for that they were nervous that I'd get bored / would leave and find another job.
Lots of truth here. Corporate culture is about teamwork to an extent yes also strong individual performance. Assignments often seem rushed in the construction world where I'm in now. To management its all about schedules dates deadlines and minimizing hours to get job done to have higher profit margin. Speed seems more highly valued versus 90%+ accuracy. Get it done now or yesterday seems like the mantra they like to push.
Too much speed however will lead to lawsuits that may cost more money than the labour you put in. Analysis and using that data to put's checks and balance on speed are equally importance as speed without control can be a legal catastrophe. Furthermore, long term thinkers can if pointed in the right direction or of their own violition can figure out ways to make things either cheaper of quicker without compromising on quality which means an gradual increase in profit margins over time will less cause for legal viability. A PHD student essentially is someone who is trained to look at a problem, tackle it and work out a way to innovate, well from stem PHDs anyway not too sure about those of the softer subjects. But those softer subjects may have different elements of that.
I've seen a good many examples of cutting corners in order to meet schedules and increase profit. There have been many times when engineers and geologists I know have refused to use their PE/PG seals on rushed projects for fear of accepting liability for substandard work overlooked by project managers and company managers. And there were several times during my career when I turned down offers to work on projects because of concern about liability. I've also told attorneys that I would refuse to testify in a contested case hearing or in court if I were not granted the latitude to conduct a proper assessment of a matter that would likely end up in litigation. I concluded long ago that obsession with the bottom line has wrecked the ethical standards of much of American corporate culture, especially among environmental consulting firms.
True most PhDs might not survive in a competitive high intensity market. But also people need to recognize that many people do their PhDs exactly to avoid high intensity employments. I teach casual hours at universities, make a lot of money for few hours work a week. I don't aspire to work 9-5 in a high pressure environment to get the same pay I'm already getting.
As a PhD find a company that requires PhDs for tough problems and where leadership understands the value you add. Thinking a little bit longer can save a lot of time and effort and a PhD could solve an otherwise intractable problem. edits: typos
Thank you for your input. Many of the problems that PhDs face in finding a good job is that they are looking below their capabilities. If you just search online, you are much more likely to find the lower level jobs. Good managers look in their network for people to fill the challenging jobs.
PhDs are not required to solve specific problems. That is ego. If an idea is the best for the business, the PhD should be able to argue that without appeal to self-authority. The solution does not need to be perfect and should not be motivated by a need to be the first name on a publication or patent.
Sorry mate! Most of the PhDs has an over the top estimate of their skills and ability to tackle "tough" problems, when in practice they usually lack the breadth AND depth needed to even understand the problem, let alone solve it! Unlike the academics, the smart battle hardened industry managers read them instantly! [Yes, there is exceptions! The top 1 - 2% of PhDs do bring in the value in proper context]. One of the root cause is that, the whole academic system has become a training ground for the PhDs to play loose with basic integrity and intellectual honesty in pursuit of individual benefits like publication!
Agreed. I have many (non PhD) engineers with 5+ years experience who see a problem and the first thing they want to do is solve it by brute force trial and error approaches. It generates a ton of graphs which they can show, but rarely does that method discover an actual root cause and direct fix. Sometimes I want to say "you guys spent 4-5 years in school, you took hard classes that taught you how to think critically, how to approach difficult problems and solve them intelligently. Why the hell are you throwing that all out the window to do trial and error crap? Use the scientific method, think about the problem, come up with a logical hypothesis based on your expertise, test it out, and go from there". On the other side, the PhD engineers can get stuck in "analysis paralysis", but I have found it is easy to break that cycle by just telling them something else is higher priority
Let me suggest a different title for your video although it will not be a click bait like what you have now: "For low-level industry, Ph.D.'s are overqualified" because if you want to make a faulty product fast and sell it with max profit while not paying enough to your employees, you want somebody who is not meticulous yet obedient who ignores the faults and is happy with a lower salary. If a Ph.D. makes a video and call it "90% of non-Ph.D. engineers are useless" , how would you feel?! I have seen a bunch of students in my classes going to industry and they can barely do any proper algebra or write a few lines of code, yet you think they are better than those who tried to teach them everything?! For any proper R&D, graduate education is needed.
My first job out of the US Navy was as an electronic technician using my knowledge gained in the Navy. I only had a GED. I quickly became a lead technician as other technicians left, mostly due to the lateness of the swing shift we worked. I had one guy who was a PhD candidate in Electrical Engineering who seemed to be incredibly bad at basic math, as I continually had to correct his work. I once asked him he could be so lacking in basic math skills. His response floored me, “I don’t need to know everything I do. I can just look it up in a book when necessary.” On the other hand I worked with some PhD’s at Sperry Univac who were phenomenal. Not only did they know what they were doing they could make other people understand what they were trying to accomplish, and the limitations under which they worked. A good example of this was TV’s. This was in the mid 1970’s when all computer terminals were TV’s displaying text. There were a few work stations like Tektronix was building. This PhD I was working with showed my group a work station that projected computer generated color graphics on a wall screen big enough to be shown in a small auditorium. Hot Dog! This was exactly what my team was looking for. The PhD went on to explain to our group why his machine was ahead of its time. All the electrical boards and chips used were a one off build. You see in the 1970’s there no PC’s then, so the computer monitor/screen was no where to be seen. All the off the shelf components were for TV’s. TV’s had a hardwired 525x525 resolution on a square screen. What we saw was 640x400 that was for the time very crisp graphics. The point is this was a PhD that could make a product, and then explain to engineers (I had a degree by then) what its limitations were in a production environment. It took the Apple Lisa and later the PC/Macintosh to see our project be done in the market place ten years after was shelved- cheap workstations engineers could use.
@@mogbp7775 sounds like somebody who has bad experiences with Ph.D.'s. I know some Ph.D.'s might fit what was said in the original comment, but generalizing it to all of them is the actual arrogance and rudeness.
Yeah, this is more how to act like a yes-man grunt in a yes-man grunt position. If that is the case, drop the PhD. They will think you're overqualified. They want a drone. Not a thinker.
I’ll provide an observation. People have a self-selecting bias. Most people do not have PhDs in industry and those people tend to select people like themselves. People only with a Bachelor’s; however, this works the other way too. When PhDs get into positions where they can decide who to hire, they also want to select for people like themselves. PhDs don’t think others without PhDs have the ability to handle Research topics, which I do not believe to be true. It becomes hard to enter certain domains when you have PhDs who won’t consider people who didn’t make/have the choice to endure a PhD and therefore gatekeep that domain to people only like themselves.
Thank you for sharing your great observation. I agree that some of the best teams are those that have a wide range of skill sets and education levels, and everyone respects the experience and strengths of the other team members.
Getting a Ph.D. is hard and economically doesn't worth it, but for Ph.D's, not everything is about money. The best thing about it and working in Academia to me is the freedom you get and the fact that your job security isn't affected by your boss if you disagree with him. Industry managers want obedient employees and so Ph.D.'s are not a good fit there.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. But your experience in industry sounds very different than mine. I've never had a manager that wanted obedient employees, and I've felt like I was a great fit in all four of the companies I've worked with.
I dunno. Your security is in fact dicated by both the subject matter of your inquiry, the department you're in, and the admnistration, all of which, except for econ compsci and physics are highly politicized. With the best universities the most politicized. I couldn't put a dissertation committee together for my cross disciplinary work, nor could I take as long as I have with my efforts, nor if I published would I be able to maintain employment. And I work largely in epistemology, economics, and law, and particularly in fraud deception and lying - and more specifically in sex and political bias differences in lying. And the results are far more unpleasant for democratic polities than darwin was for the church.
@@heliumfrancium8403 I've worked at 4 different companies over about 25 years. There are several reasons I decided to change, but in two of those moves, the group I was working in was closed down.
"your job security isn't affected by your boss if you disagree with him". Haha! Try saying there are two genders or trans women aren't women and see how long your job lasts.
Some of the PhDs I’ve worked with have a lot of horsepower when it comes to problem solving but many of them make terrible decisions, have quirks or ideological ways of thinking which make collaboration or practical criticism of their ideas very difficult. Oftentimes their personal lives aren’t that great either, which makes me think they might be better trained than they are smart.
A PhD requires a lot of time and effort to achieve. That sacrifice comes at a cost at other things such as a personal life. It's present in those who commits too much of their time to anything whether it is to a degree, or career. They are going to end up struggling in their personal lives.
A PhD doesn’t mean the person knows how to solve industrial problems. I’ve spent my entire career learning new subject matter, new ways of doing things. In technical fields, progressively challenging technical work is more valuable than an academic degree.
Agreed that the degree doesn’t necessarily teach you to solve practical problems. But it does give you a valuable depth of understanding that you can’t get in a job where you have to focus on fast results. It also develops patters of critical analysis and thinking that you don’t tend to develop in an applied environment.
@@TurningScienceVideo It depends on what kind of work you do. I probably have the equivalent of a couple of dozen PhD’s …I review and routinely find errors in analytical work of PhD’s. A PhD tends to pigeonhole you into a narrow field of practice.
I work in a very successful company. We are successful because we hire the right people. The only criterion for hiring is the skills you bring with you. Of course someone has to have the education, but whether someone has a PhD or not doesn't matter. Everyone is hired at the same salary at the beginning, and the salary then increases with the personally generated turnover. One third has a PhD (myself too). I think evaluating candidates with prejudices is the completely wrong approach. I have been to so many interviews that for me the title is not a reason for hiring. The person has to fit the company. The most important thing is motivation. That includes first of all motivation for the tasks in the job profile and to develop professionally.
Think of a Ph.D. as an apprenticeship in academic research in a particular field. If someone did an apprenticeship in carpentry, then wanted to work in a job that didn't involve woodwork, then their apprenticeship would count for little.
I know a Sociology phD (whose specialization was East Asian business related) who failed to get a tenure track job. She ended up pivoting into UX research and is now at a big FAANG company. She seems to be doing pretty well there.
Good advice for anyone working in a team environment. I've been fortunate to have worked to have worked in industry with some very good PhD's over the years; however, many complain that they spend too many years in academy and should have stopped with an MS.
The statistic is probably not too far from the truth, but speaking as a successful PhD myself, 95% of all managers I have ever dealt with are worthless as well, for several reasons. First, they think they are smarter than the staff who work for them. Second, they will never make a decision unless they have top cover from their boss, and third, they always want more data and want to continue to analyze decisions to the point where they are overtaken by events. But the worst part of management and managers is that their overriding concern is moving up, rather than getting anything done. What we really need in industry are innovative leaders. Note the word leader and not the word manager. Leaders are hard to find and innovative leaders are even more rare, yet status quo managers will not hire them because they are maverics.
I'm not sure if I've just been really lucky, or if people have unrealistic expectations of managers (and fail to take into account that middle management has to push people to hit deadlines that people at the top set). Every single manager I've had was okay to genuinely very good -- I've never had a worthless manager.
90% in industry and 100% in the academy. Becoming a Ph.D. long ago ceased to be about doing original work, or even just mastery of a subject matter. It is all about pleasing the current academic authorities in order to become part of the club.
This is a problem of universities' false advertisement. Higher education is never about getting higher payroll. It's about fulfulling YOUR intellectual needs, and being a decent colleague YOURSELF, to create a better work experience for EVERYONE.
None of those three bad features are exclusive to PhDs, though. Heck, my father-in-law displays two of them constantly and he didn't even finish high school. Managers who univocally link those three behaviors to PhDs are reinforcing a stereotype. I do appreciate the three pieces of advice given at the end of the video, but they apply equally to PhDs, MBAs and people with a BA in English Literature.
@@the_expidition427 I can easily see phD training encouraging people to be in the "find faults" or "be perfectionist" mindset more than the "find solutions" or "be decisive" mindsets. phD candidates who try to act in a decisive, "good enough" manner will probably get reprimanded. But even if you're right, even then it's still rational for managers to be wary about hiring phDs.
Phd holders tend to value themselves more. So what the industry leaders are really saying is, "your knowledge and experience frightens my sense of control and power, so I'm not going to pay your salary."
0:30 look as someone who hires people to work on his project; I have so far hired people who never went to a university/ had a PhD; they cost more, want more pay and I just like working with the people who have more hands on experience from artist to writers. I look at the past works NOT if you went to school or not. I have hired High School drop outs for my project as well, not as employees but for paying them in exchange of services for my project. If it's a field/ study where I can see the person is knowledgable and not that they're a PhD but rather what they had done for past works being important to me.
90% of statistics are plucked out of thin air. Stereotyping is the issue here. People with doctorates are not a separate species but have strengths and weaknesses like everyone else.
I was quite surprised by this video because at my company, we have people from many different backgrounds and I've never seen any issues with PhD holders. (I am one myself!) No one is arrogant or "not a team player". We just understand that we have different experiences and excel in different ways. We do take a balanced approach to hiring both in terms of experience and culture "fit" though. So I am grateful for that. My thoughts about the PhD: My PhD advisor always told me that getting a PhD is not about specializing in a narrow field. It's about learning how to teach yourself anything! For me, I find my PhD training helps me to adapt quickly to different situations. I've been put onto a number of challenging projects where I've had to both learn new things and produce solutions quickly (but still with enough rigor). It's about understanding the context of what you are trying to do and being able to adapt.
Thanks for your great input! It sounds like you work at a great company that has developed excellent team dynamics. And your comments about your PhD training are spot on. Those are the strengths that I teach PhDs to focus on when they look for a job. Unfortunately we tend to leave grad school thinking that our specialization is our key strength, but that's not true.
@@antobot2 I work with a lot of people with PhDs as well and its overall a nice experience. I dont hold a PhD and I work in an industry that I am not that knowledgeable about. The thing is that we are complement each other’s skills. They are really good at doing the mathematical side of things and I have the expertise in computer science to know what is possible and how we can achieve this in reality. And at the end we both learn from each other in the process. However I can see how things can go wrong. I saw a few arrogant people with PhD that thinks that they are better in every way. The other issue can be communication which is the most important thing when it comes to team work.
@@collan580 I’m glad to hear that you’ve had an overall good experience. It’s the same for me. Indeed, communication is key. Showing empathy, understanding where people are coming from, and their motivations also helps a lot! And I’ve also encountered arrogance before but thankfully only once when I worked in academia.
That’s been my experience as well. The 10% are usually exceptional. Too many PhDs think getting their PhD was there life accomplishment and just want to get paid to do nothing after that.
I like to think of it as a bell curve, where ~ the top 10% get it on their own, and the bottom 10% will never get it. The middle 80% just needs some guidance.
I worked in the industry for 5 yrs (including running a successful business of my own for 3 yrs which I sold). I'm now currently doing my PhD in Neuroscience to pursue my intellectual curiosity, because I've already 'made it' financially. And I have to say, the people I encountered in academia will be chewed up and thrown away in the industry for their attitude and lack of action. It's a different world out here.
Agreed - definitely a different world. I tell PhD candidates that they need to treat it like a game, not a formula, where you look for the 'right answer.' Thanks for your input.
You’re welcome! I still struggle with these habits. Not sure if it is our training or something in our personalities that may have led us to science in the first place.
This notion that PH.Ds cannot enter the industry is flawed and highly generalized. NOT all Ph.Ds are the same. For managers to think that, it is wrong and bias. Good managers screen candidates based on professionalism, work ethic, integrity, etc. and not on University degrees.
You're engaging in the NAXALT fallacy. Just because not all are like that doesn't mean that we can't identify a common trend across the entire set of people. We can. We have.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitutewhere did OP say we can't identify said trend? Or are you engaging in the strawman fallacy? Wasn't OP's actual point about how no matter how pervasive said trend is, the exceptions need a case by case professional examination, and aren't worth missing out? Notice the difference between "because not all PhDs are like that, therefore professional character screening is needed" vs "because not all PhDs are like that, therefore managers can't find a trend"?
This is a great example of the academic vs practical / industry mindset. From an academic mindset, just some anecdotes don't prove that phDs are problematic and should maybe not be hired. But from a practical / industry mindset, some anecdotes may be enough for that.
Academia is mostly a huge dick measuring contest to qualify for jobs and not job training. They don't care what you know, but that your scores prove you're at least disciplined or smart enough to qualify for a job.
I was an Engineering & Maintenance Manager for 40 + years and I never hired a PhD. Phd's are a research degree, attained after many years in academia. We were working in Industry, very fast paced and required Critical Thinking at a prodigious rate (which a doctorate has) on a broad base of Engineering (which they don't). Without doubt, they know a great deal about something and relatively little about the broader issues (such as people skills, the interaction with highly skilled staff of multiple disciplined trades and the absolute necessity of resolving to Root Cause quickly and moving on). If I wanted a specialised Engineer or Physicist, I'd rent one.
Interesting advice. On the other hand, I also see experienced people with less theoretical education who have more trouble identifying inefficiencies, or looking beyond the first visible solution... it's frustrating when you know your team could be 4-5 times more efficient, but isn't willing to commit the resources to improve practices, esp. when it's well-documented (though I've seen PhDs fall in this pitfall as well).
1:01 yeah pretty much why I stop working with certain people because of this as well; don't even get me started on the game designers with PhDs but little to no actual hands on work.
A problem I noticed is that Industry also rarely hires PhDs fresh out of University with no work experience as they often expect salaries higher than those who spent the time in working, where we find that the actual work experience is far more valuable than a PhD in the same time frame. Valuable PhDs are usually those that work 20 years and then do PhDs, as actual experience just cannot be replaced by theoretical knowledge and classroom discussions
Yes, what you are saying is valid. For my first job I found a company that was heavily into developing cutting edge technology, so they needed lots of PhDs to work in the lab. That was my way in and from there I had to get the practical experience needed to move effectively into other roles.
"by theoretical knowledge and classroom discussions" This is not a PhD.... A PhD is (should be) generally a lot of practical work on an industrial problem.
@@Tommybotham I am getting the impression from a lot of these comments that people are just annoyed at someone having higher qualifications than them. All of the complaints are of weird straw man descriptions of phds and what they entail.:.
@@tainicon4639 Not all qualifications are created equal. And no in the last 5-10 years most PhD apllicant's thesis have been entirely theoretical. I'm not going to Dox myself but I can tell you on good authority that PhDs have become extremely easy to obtain, mostly because government and other grants directly benefit institutions the more PhDs they produce (in my Locale at least). If you think you are now an expert because you wrote a thesis on 12-pin power connectors with complex calculations, I have a bridge to sell you. We always hire those with experience above fresh out of University PhDs
As a manager with a couple of PhD's I haven't encountered any "I'm smarter than you", but I do find that I have to spend so much more time with them explaining the problem to be solved as they cannot take a small thing and build from there, they have to have every bit of nuance or ambiguity removed before they can proceed. Once going they are excellent, but If I have to define the problem to that extent, I have probably solved it before they get started.
Thanks for the input. I've seen some of that in my own management experience. To me it seemed that they were afraid of getting it wrong, which is another thing we PhDs tend to learn.
@@Gnrnrvids That "small bit" might make your application completely useless. To get detailed feedback on what's required and asking sooner rather than later are good things. I'm with those phds.
@@MrCmon113 You've clearly never worked in actual industry then. An 80% solution now is often better than a 95% solution next year. Forget a 100% solution. When defining those small bits is part of the assignment I'm not interested in having to try an explain it as to get the info, I might as well do it myself and at that point you are useless to me. The PhD's are more useless than an engineer without the PhD as they tend to be more practical and can handle the ambiguity and will go find a solution.
This is a good video. I did a PhD, then 5 years postdoc, then 30 years in industry. The PhD was worse than useless, it makes you think you are special, and it gets you used to being in control of a project. In industry you are often one small part, you are not expected to think too much, and pointing out that things could be done better (more efficient, less problems) annoys people. Being good at your job is often irrelevant, what matters is the opinion of the manager(s) who often don’t know what each person does. In that case brownnosing and giving the impression of being effective matter far more. I was let go from several companies when they had troubles, and the managers subsequently discovered that the chap they kept was not as capable as they thought. And I’ve seen many times excellent people lose their jobs, whilst the lazy useless people are kept on because they know how to impress.
@@jeffreykalb9752 The difference is that in industry you learn useful skills. Most people tend to stay in a job for no more than three years, you learn skills, then move on. In academia most people I knew who went on to become professors (a senior role in the UK) were extremely capable. The problem is that a PhD does not teach useful skills for the outside world. Would you hire someone for a technical job because they were very good at football, or chess?
I think you oversimplified this issue, and ironically may not have made a good case for the usefulness of a PhD degree. I think that the heart of the issue is the question of how education translate's into solid character,and if PhD holders don't know how to refine their characters they'll merely magnify whatever personality defects that are latent in them,which i've noticed happens to people who 'ingest' more knowledge than they can absorb(i.e comprehend). Managers in industry have to deal with a multi-dimensional world,and while it's beyond doubt that there can be mediocre managers & executives,anyone with a one-dimensional perspective or who's 'overspecialized'(like some PhD holders might be) could clumsily do more harm than good in the 'real world'. Academia & industry should be compatible,but anyone with an 'excessively' academic mindset and an underdeveloped character would unwittingly be a liability in any industry.
In the US most PhD scientists get their tuition paid, and also get a stipend for teaching or doing research. It's not a lot of money, but at least you aren't paying out of your pocket.
depends, if you are doing medical research, great, if trying to make money, its worlds apart, ( I realise medical research is often money driven, but not the same urgency, )
Thank you for the feedback. So sorry about your manager. A bad manager can really leave a dark cloud hanging over us. I hope you are able to move beyond that experience.
The people who become management are rarely the high performer, they're the social people. Teamwork was invaluable for them. Even if they believe you that you could do better alone, they still won't risk your lazy or incompetent coworkers making them look bad.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. However, as we invest less and less in actual research, our need for PhDs is dwindling. I worked as a scientist in a research lab (of the military-industrial complex) during the cold war days. There were PhDs all around us, and while many did display the characteristics you mentioned, they did work in a research environment where those attributes were not so detrimental. If you are not going to work in a research environment, then a PhD is not necessary and nowadays we are doing a lot less real research. BTW naysaying is a habit common to all engineers, not just PhDs. Part of the problem is the management is always pushing us to do too much too soon, so the reaction always is to point out why that is not possible.
It's a great point you make that perhaps we are making more PhDs than we need. However, I'm also of the view that a science PhD teaches you a lot of skills that are valuable outside of a research lab. The critical thinking and problem solving skills and the habit of questioning assumptions that I learned as a PhD physicist have been valuable to me in both product development and business development environments. And I also agree that engineers have a tendency to find fault as well. For some reason, I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about them as the PhDs. Go figure...
@@TurningScienceVideo I only know about the aerospace/defense and telecommunications sectors, so my answer is limited to those areas. But I have seen PhDs of two types: First is the type that have very deep expertise in some technical area and spend much of their life doing research in that area. Such people are often very unidimensional in terms of their expertise, thinking, aptitudes, attitudes, etc. Second is exceptionally bright people (with PhDs) who are asked to solve intractable problems in any and every area. I have met a few such people in Silicon Valley startups. These are just phenomenal people in every respect. Nathan Myhrvold is a great example of this very rare breed.
In my experience you can do very well in industry with a masters degree in a technical field like data analytics or engineering. I think a PHD may be overkill if you want to climb the corporate ladder since many CEOs dont even have one. Avoid the MBA though those are going out of fashion in favor of technical degrees.
Yes, I have worked with many successful people who got a masters degree and focused on leadership roles rather than highly technical roles. I was slower to learn the game of business, so my PhD allowed me to get into to a tech company that was developing cutting edge laser technology, and from that position I was able to learn enough about the game to move into many different positions of influence.
I think that should depend on your ability and whether you have the desire to do some extended research project. If you're good and have a topic you're really into, you should stay for the PhD.
Academia is where people that produce nothing of value end up at. PhDs are for people that want to stay in academia, while the industry wants people with practical experience in solving problems, not bringing problems for every solution
'Bringing problems for every solution.' That's a great way to describe what too many PhDs do when they work in a company. And that's definitely not what companies need. Thank you for your input.
I have a PhD and my stint in academia was extremely short compared to my decades of reasonably successful experience in the private sector. Moreover, implying that academia produces nothing of value is utterly ridiculous.
@@Dan210871 ridiculous is the idea that publishing useless papers has any value. Or do tell how many products have been created, manufactured, put to market and competed against alternatives to bring solutions to people’s lives by academia
@@Dan210871 Well, of course getting a phD is better than spending 4 years in suspended animation. But for most positions, a person would be better off getting four years of industry experience than getting a phD.
@@lightworker2956 You're making up an irrelevant comparison out of thin air, given that pretty much nobody spends 4 years in suspended animation. I bypassed more than 4 years of industry experience because I could prove my PhD had clear and advantageous practical applications.
A friend of mine has a family member working in the hiring dept at intel and and he told me they often don't hire bachelor graduates and above. The reasons being is that in the past they have found they often demand more pay for the same work as honours graduates, they see themselves as overqualified for work and often have an entitled attitudes refusing to do work they see as beneath them, even when just starting out and with zero previous work experience.
It's very unfortunate ( Exceptional Few) those are best ranked in high school, colleges, universities then PhD have thought that they accomplished their best/ targets of life. Actually they are the best in that Age Group . Professional Career life span is from mid twenties to Sixties. This is around 35- 45 years period. All of them forgot it. Those who work hard and learn on job ,they end up at a successful level. Qualifications are wild card for entry but not Guarantee. It's a Psychological issue. Street smart children are more successful Career than Qualified Professionals.
My humble take on your pointers: 1. Don't be the expert. The very reason a PhD is hired is because of his/her expertise. I guess the point here is that an in-depth solution is not always needed. 2. Don't be the naysayer. One has to be a naysayer, and not submit to the pressure of the sales team. They don't like no for an answer, even if it means that the solution is just not feasible. The sales' team take on this is: the liability resulting from an inferior performance has been accounted in the contract. 3. Make a decision and move on. In Industry, and in Academia, this is given. Not sure who does this. My humble take on your guidelines: 1. Be effective, not just smart. Can't do one without the other, most of the time, I think. 2. Find solutions, not faults. Agree 100 %. In fact if one does not know the solution, then one needs to take the help of the team, and not just be stuck. That's what teams are for. 3. Be decisive, not perfect. No solution is perfect; not even the decisively take ones.
Thanks for your input. I like your final point best. If we can agree that no solution is perfect, I think that helps people stop searching for perfection.
1:07 PhD are NOT valued for technical skills. They usually have very limited skills. They have an in-depth knowledge of a selected problem which usually has no direct application the industry.
This is kind of one-sided though. What you just mentioned gives the impression that that teams in many industry companies are more dominated by managers instead of actual leaders. A leader has a vision of the projects goals and therefore gives clear directions for the team. They also know how to make use of the different sets of skills the employees have. In turn they have trust into the competence of their co-workers. They wouldn't feel personally insulted if one of their co-workers tell them an idea was wrong, instead they'd appreciate the thorough research. Managers usually tend to micromanage a lot of things. There is no room for the individual people to actually add some new ideas. And if they do, they might end up getting a reputation of being smart-asses (like you mentioned in the video). Why is that so? I guess many managers actually feel threatened by that because they know how brutal the private sector can be. If you work in a competitive environment and there is someone who can replace you, you will be replaced sooner or later.
My father has a PhD in Business Management, teaching in Acedemia, and also worked as logistics manager in a mining company. He got his PhD while working, said he was the only person in Peru to do both academic work and industry work when he got his degree (dunno if that is true). By his own admission, both sides of the equation dislike him. The academics think of him as too rough and ready to jump to conclusions, more interested in teaching set solutions; his fellow managers think he is too analytical, searching for the root of the problem far more than they, and being too self-assured The asshole also thinks he is smarter than both groups, so it is reciprocal.
That 'us vs them' mentality where both sides disrespect each other is unfortunate. Academia and industry both have great value, and both are needed for innovation. One of the scientists I interviewed in my first book (Turning Science into Things People Need) said he knew two brothers who got their PhDs at the same university. One went to industry and the other to academia, and both thought the other was not doing anything worthwhile. So unfortunate. Thanks for sharing!
It is a human failing that we correlate our level of education with our level of intelligence. More education only increases this likelihood. There are lots of reasons why very intelligent people do not pursue PhDs. In addition, the factors for success in academia are very different than the factors for success in private industry. What worked in one place may not work in the other. I have worked with several PhDs in my career in IT. Were they the smart? Yes. Were they the smartest guys in the room... the experts? Almost universally not; expertise in our field comes from practical application. In general, they worked at a slower pace than others, possibly because of some of the reasons mentioned in this video, but they were still valuable team members. Small sample size disclaimer (N=6), of course.
I just recently earned a Ph.D in Organizational Leadership of all things. Yes, it is a business discipline but I did it for personal enrichment and to be quite honest, I like the letters after my name, even if that sounds somewhat shallow. However, I am 63 years old and retired early, and have no intention, at least for now to return to corporate America. As much criticism that this video has against Ph.Ds, I have equal complaints about the office politics and pettiness of mid and upper management. I am completely honest to declare that unlike the stereotypes regularly adjudicated to Ph.Ds, I am not conceited enough to think that I am infallible or "know everything". Yes, I am humble in that regard. I have a friend or two that keep questioning me about what I am going to do with my degree and this got me thinking in that direction. I have actually considered perhaps to become a business leadership coach or consultant so that I retain my independence and in control of my time. Never again will I subject myself to the whims of some egomaniacal and dictatorial management who believe they have the right to tell the people working for them to jump hoops for their own gains. So this works both ways. What a concept right?
I've worked with a lot of Phds and they are some of the most impractical people ever. I find that they only want to focus on finding problems and rarely ever look at ROI or time/project management
Yes, we are trained to focus on certainty, so ROI is generally not a consideration. It took me a while to shift my thinking and appreciate how important ROI is.
My experience with a PhD in electrical engineering that I hired who was an expert in Robotic algorithms for ML, but when faces with trouble shooting a problem, he could not operate an oscilloscope nor analyze a PCB, and not even pick up a soldering iron. He had no experience doing any experimental or design work in hardware despite his own claims and knowledge. He would say such things are "trivial" and not worth his time. He would say he has a PhD to anyone that could hear him, but I viewed this as a sense of entitlement in image only. The team viewed him s a guru, but too toxic in attitude to help them get a problem solved.
Officers in the Marines learn to take action when you get to 80% confidence level. You’re going to be right most of the time. If not, you are then in a new situation with new info and can proceed once you get to 80% again. The only industry I see that emulates that is Software Engineering. They get a product out the door that’s “good enough”, and once it’s out there in the hands of customers, the amount of feedback on the product’s strengths & weakness comes in so fast it allows them to know exactly what to zero in on, way, way quicker than they would have been able to on their own.
I like that 80% model. Didn't Colin Powell have a 40%/70% model? Don't make a decision until you have 40% of the info, and don't go beyond 70% either. Seems like a great principle.
AFAIK that's pretty common to all industries. It's call MVP- minimally viable product. Similar to what Hyundai did in the 90's (?) with their crapbox cars. Each generation was improved upon until they reached rough parity with other offerings.
There's no hope for PhD's if it's not a company that puts a lot of efforts in R&D department. From where I am, if you are a PhD, you are instantly disqualified for being overqualified for any job other that being a professor at some college or university. And since it takes long to get a PhD, from my observation, the PhD candidates put too much time in academics rather than actual jobs, thus not getting the experience they should have when applying for jobs, disqualifying them for inexperience. Imagine you're 35 and applying for an entry level job.
In the IT industry, we rarely if ever hire PhDs as engineers, developers, or managers, heck even data scientists are not normally PhDs. But IT innovation relies heavily on the research carried out by PhD holders. Look at the explosion of GenAI or the mini-explosion of blockchain, all of which was founded in years of PhD research. I wager the same is true across other engineering oriented industries. Industry managers do not want researchers that may spend years and millions of dollars on dead ends that go no where other than advance the state of knowledge. Even those huge companies that do their own research, Google, big pharma, etc. often rely heavily on the research from academia.
Bold of you to assume I care what companies think of me. I only care about how I see myself. No one else is going to see the effort stress I go thru but me.
Managers don't like smart people! They can't fool them or get around them. They don't like people with more impressive titles or credentials then they have. They want to be able to talk down to the employee, not have to talk up to them. I frequently have this trouble with managers.
I'm sure this varies widely between industries. In software engineering for example, PhDs are very desirable for specialist roles that require deep expertise in something specific, but most PhDs wouldn't know how to write quality code if their lives depended on it. They care about different things, and the academic interests of PhDs is much different than the product interests of engineers.
Yep, PhDs writing code usually just a nightmare. It solves the issue, but after a year even they dont know what the actual code does. But cooperation between people can solve this issue. One person does not have to do it all, nor have to be an expert at everything.
It depends. Some companies put a lot of effort into highly specialized R&D. The type of R&D that involves a lot of scientific research. Your average company does not need and do that. So if a PhD comes along to such a company, all they see is a person with (probably >90% of the time) almost zero practical experience. If you put on top a person, who is the "So what? I have a PhD" type, you get a rather useless employee. Most companies look for applicable knowledge. Shooting particles and creating black holes is incredibly interesting, no doubt. But 99.9% of the companies out there are not really dealing with unraveling the fabric of the universe.
Yeah but rushing a solution will increase failure rate and often those consequences fall on the employees not employers. So no, I’d rather perfect a solution and keep my job than wager it on rushed guess work.
Significant improvement can be made over academic timelines and still produce excellent products and solutions. That's good product development, not rushing.
So we have learned again that 2+2 is four but some people want more. Academia is a different environment, based on hype, feudal relations ect. Industry, is something else, is a pulling a waggon with a squared wheels, faster, harder with more load and you are not allowed to change to round wheels. Because you will have to pause for 5 min and they cost $30 which is inacceptable cost for the management.
I feel you on that one. However, my point is that you shouldn't pretend to be an expert on everything. It's important to be an expert in some things, because that's why they want you on the team.
Yes, it certainly is. It’s actually part of the scientific method: someone proposes a hypothesis and everyone sets out to disprove it. So it’s understandable why we would have this tendency, but it is not well received by non-scientists.
it's works better to work with ppl on solutions rather than making it seem like you're "against" them or making them feel like they need to be defensive by only mentioning flaws. simply by asking them on what they think about a solution idea you have to a possible flaw, the conversation becomes more productive. it goes a step beyond and psychologically helps people change their mind and reach something productive
PHD is a test of working in isolation in a focused way and industry values team work and leadership skills as much as technical skills. Also those that are resilient and learn from failure have huge value.
Yes, this is one of the key points I make in my 'It's a Game...' book and my workshops. In academia, people tend to succeed with independence. But in industry, teamwork is critical to success.
@@TurningScienceVideo agree. I decided not to do post grad quals after my engineering degree and 40 years on, have several fellowships and having built a 25m t/o business, I would say the main skills for success after a strong technical education, are team work, leadership, communication, emotional IQ and most of all a really thick skin for the resilience of recovering from failure. None of which are taught at university.
I can't decide if I want to get a PhD or go to the industry. I feel like PhDs are for people who want to become teachers/professors, and I don't want to be involved in an academic environment. But I also want to develop/work with new technology, understand how it works the way it does, and own a business in my future. Any advice?
Historically the PhD degree has been to train people for academic careers, but this is now outdated. Today the vast majority of PhDs choose careers outside of academia. A PhD is a great degree for industry if you want to build your career around technical expertise, but it's important to understand that the industry environment is very different than academia, and your thinking and working habits need to be different. Industry is focused on solutions rather than creating knowledge. Quick decision making and teamwork are very important. If you decide to pursue a PhD, make sure you research what you need to perform well. Hopefully your university will hav resources to help, but most do not. My YT channel here has a lot of great info, and so does the book that I link to in the description. I wish you well!
I wonder what role neurodivergence plays in this. I don't have a PhD, just a BA, but one of my neurodivergent traits is I can't execute a plan or follow a workflow I don't understand a justification for. I will run a marathon for my employer if I understand why it's neccesary, but I wouldn't pick up a pencil off the floor for them if I didn't understand why it needed to be done.
I've literally been diagnosed as autistic by a psychologist. With that in mind: are you sure that's a neurodivergent trait and not just a changeable preference of yours? I'd prefer having a justification too, but after working in industry for five years as someone who is autistic, I've gotten over it and can now do things without fully understanding or agreeing with them.
I have a B.S. in electrical engineering. Shit-ton of math in that degree. Graduated in the tech bubble burst, so no jobs in my major emphasis world-wide. Became a statistician. As a side gig, have been tutoring calculus and higher math to engineering majors for over 20 years. Approached one of the colleges where I tutor students and offered to teach a calc-1 class for them (they were desperate for teachers). The turned their nose up at me because I didn't have a PhD. Fk-em! I already taught a dozen of their students each semester.
That’s unfortunate. Sorry you had to deal with that. One of the things I like about the private sector is that it’s much more about what you can do than what your qualifications are.
I did two Masters degrees - so tricky at job interviews. "You're over-educated." "Why would someone with your education want to work at this job / work for this salary".
"Why would someone with your education want to work here?" I have a passion for your company and the way it does things. (cite research here. Maybe dabble into why you being over qualified isn't a bad thing: you won't educate, you won't hijack control, you'll respect those above you, etc.) That's my best response, anyway.. Seems like they already made up their mind so there's no point trying to convince one person when the team behind them is already in agreement. ):
Let me translate that to plain English for all'y'all - it's not me telling you this, it's what the video tells you: 1) Even though you most likely ARE the expert in your field, corporate culture expects you to pretend you're not and everybody's opinion is equally valid even if some of your "teammates" say stuff so stupid that it isn't even wrong, just meaningless. The only socially acceptable way to present important insight is doing it in a way that will make your boss/teammates think it was THEIR idea. 2) "Managing" works on the principle of shouting at the tide - nobody gives any shits whatsoever about something being literally impossible once they decided it needs to happen; so since pointing out an insurmountable problem you can see but have no solution for would be "unacceptable", just shut up instead, proceed full tilt, and make sure you know who else to blame when the whole trainwreck inevitably hits the brick wall the "management" indignantly refuses to even hear about. 3) Those ideas about making decisions based on solid information and sound reasoning are cute, but wrong. Shit will inevitably hit the fan equally whether you started with an exquisitely justified choice or a completely baseless "gut instinct", so don't even bother; just do SOMETHING very confidently (which is what everybody else does) and make sure the "management" will have reasons to prefer to blame someone else not you if the permanent state of FUBAR grows out of hand.
I worked as a machinist, and when the foreman, or anyone else came to talk to me, I would show them that I knew more than them, or would out-think them. I would like to say that it wasn't on purpose, but realize that our true faults are the ones that we cannot see. So then a coworker came up to me, scolding me, saying, "You know, you have to learn something -- 'it pay's to be thick'. You don't have to show everyone how smart you are. Let them be the smart one for a change". Ahh, valuable advice. From then on when someone came to talk to me about something, I would act like their information was valuable to me. If I had a counterpoint, I would hold it back, then wait a half hour or so to give them the impression that I thought about what they said. I would approach them, "I was thinking about what you said. What do you think of such and such?" People feel better about you when they think their input is valuable to you. They will also value your intelligence, but they will still feel that they have something to contribute. Some will see the above as not worth their time. "To each their own", as they say.
This is behaviour typical of highly gifted people. But I don't think your approach is right. You really should let them finish, then agree if they're right and politely tell them why not otherwise. This is the most intellectually honest method and I think will leave you the happiest.
When I've had PhDs apply to join my unit, I've found them to be equipped to do academic research, writing and presentations, but not work with the breadth and flexibility of a business. IMO a PhD is an qualification for a career in academia. I'd look for a Master's with practical runs on the board over a PhD anytime. Except for specialist areas. I worked in industrial chemistry. I would hire PhDs in synthetic chemistry, but not if their work didn't touch the chemistry that we used.
David, to be fair, physicists play an immense role in our lives. The TV, radio, sending men to the moon and venturing far beyond the solar system would not have happened if not for physicists. I learnt all these from my idol Dr. Michio Kaku. However I'd like to point out that as an engineering company, we have no need for PhD holders or similar, for the same reason that you don't need a musician or a pilot in your company. However if one day you need to synthesize music, then and only then would you need to hire musicians to play various instruments so that the sounds and pitch can be sampled across the octaves and synthesized. In our company, we don't have nor do we need R&D. Not every industry do. Does a car repair shop need a PhD? However if one day I turn to manufacturing and need to innovate some high tech products, only then would I consider to hire a PhD. But for the time being, there is no requirement, though we do get applications from time to time. Normally we redirect them to academia or some R&D Institute. Best regards from Malaysia!!
Well getting a PhD is a research/R&D degree, you're building excellent technical and communication skills from training with an advisor in an apprenticeship dynamic, to eventually work in that area. A Master's is often treated as a source for further general training but also a salary booster. The degree types are pretty different and should be approached not with the same perspective. Aside: At least in the US, a PhD in physics is highly respected in the private sector but also government and academia. Perhaps it's different in other countries! (saying this as someone with a MS in physics but also accepted into a PhD program)
Mate almost none of that you mentioned came from "physicist" or "researchers"; but most of them were hard core engineers who were later "co-opted" to be "physicists" / "researchers" because they were really good!
To be fair to PhDs in science (including mathematics), there are jobs for which you absolutely need a PhD (or equivalent expertise), but these jobs are extremely competitive. The US job market in this area is open to the whole world, not just US PhDs. The PhDs industrial managers are able to hire are only the failures in this job market, unless the industrial job is so complex that it does require a PhD. PhDs in non-science areas are a completely different story.
My brother's girlfriend literally has a mathematics phD, and she's working in a job that she could have landed with a mathematics bachelor's degree. She probably would have been better off financial-wise and career-wise if she'd started to work in the industry 7ish years sooner than she did.
Undergrad and even some masters degrees have defined learning outcomes that correspond to required industry skills. Phds are very vague, have no well defined learning outcomes, and generally have no real world application. In addition, there is a hige amount of required knowledge and skills that are not taught by universities - in my field of engineering, thats interpretation and application of standards and legislation; people management; and lots of practical issues that are not addressed. The academic world also has massive cultural and corruption issues, with massive egos, that are extremely toxic in a team environment. A person who has gone straight through to Phd and has not worked a significant amount of time lacks these critical skills and knowledge. So, while they are worth consulting for their advice, they are not worth employing. At the end of the day, I hire for attitude and critical thinking, not what you already know. So while your extremely narrow specialist knowledge is impressive, it's not useful. You need to accept that you're going back to basics once you leave university, which is very difficult for most people who have been exclusively involved in the academic world to do.
my program required like 80 hour work weeks, unsure when I'd have time to work full time. getting a job is always the goal so I'd just work instead of I could. soon starting 11th year of job search with 0 interviews
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
One problem I saw with PhDs is that they have been trained to find a unique solution that they can associate with their name, not the best solution from price/performance viewpoint.
Yes, I agree with that assessment. That's how one builds a name in academic research, but it is not what brings value in the private sector. Results are what matters, and cost and performance are key elements of successful results.
most phds I met don't care about name or publications, they are just curious how to solve something if it doesn't exist yet. almost all phds I met want to only work in industry yet are treated like their priorities are same as professors they never wanted to be. especially engineering phds are quite used to practical correlation/estimation solutions rather than deriving something from fundamental principals with countless insignificant parts. doesn't matter really there are no such thing as getting an interview anymore with 10k applications for every thing
@@im7254 Yes, the online application game is a loosing game. I equate it to playing the lottery - somebody will win, but it's not likely to be you. The right way to get a job is by reaching out to people in your target area.
But that's a whole other topic. Check out this video: ruclips.net/video/7SP5iCEenwM/видео.html
@@heliumfrancium8403 I don't think the 'unique' vs 'optimized' solution is such an important distinction. What your manager will want is that you can quickly and efficiently get to a solution that meets the specifications and/or constraints and then move on. The big problem is when PhDs can't finish one project and move on to another. We have a tendency to be 'constantly questioning and revising everything' - that's an exact quote.
@@heliumfrancium8403 Applied researchers may have more of a pragmatic mindset. Theoretical researchers are sometimes liable to come into industry and say it's self-evident that the C++ should be ported to Haskell. It's not unique to PhDs but it is related to narrow focus.
This is just a way of saying "Get used to the low standards if you want to earn some money." I'm not a PhD but I studied my undergraduates in a top university in engineering. Then I went to business. Let me tell you that the reason this video tells you to be "more agreeable rather than critic" is that the most people in business are very underqualified that when their ideas are challanged, they get defensive and perceive this as a personal insult. Yes, PhD's better find ways to correct wrong methods, or false decision making rather than directly saying it if they want to make it in business. But not because it is false, just because I'm sorry to say that but most managers and employees in business are not that bright. Industry needs solutions, and solutions require hard work, right methodology, and experimentation. But people in the industry want to make wonders without much effort. And that is just not realistic. And because of that most of the time they simply can't.
@Aleosha Rojdestvenski I think you have a point that scientific method and free-trade success are different than each other. But to my experience, if you need to re-design a service, innovate your existing workflow, to sum up, most acts that bring competitive advantage requires detailed and methodological work. For instance, you need to prepare process flow schemas and think through them, train others through them, and make conclusions about having alternative choices in order to bring success on the table like "Can we automate this part of the work with acceptable cost so that we will provide speedy service to customer?". Most people in business doesn't have mental skills to think things in this way, even executives. They want to rule everything with savage, shallow qualitative interpretations. Experimentation, changing certain variables of job to see if improvements will follow... They are not equipped with these skills. And I defend that they are essential for market success.
@@ergolibersum Industry needs VIABLE solutions. Financial and human resources are scarce and costly. You may argue as much as you want but this is basic economic logic.
@@seekknowledge8034 Look, the mentality of free market relies basically on competition induced progress. Because financial and human resources are scarce just like you said, you need to solve complex problems of consumers to come up with viable solutions so that you gain competitive advantage and become more profitable and so on. Do you think electric cars is a viable solution? I think so. Creation of viable solutions require people who can work with complexity, detailed thinking, experimentation mentality and so on. What I defend is most business people are not capable of undertaking complexity to create something competitive, which is most of the way the only way of making it. They want to achieve things with simple thinking and simple operations. Most of the time they only achieve their survival.
From my experience, you'll get better results from the young guy out of school who's hungry, wants the work, and wants to prove himself. You'll have to watch them a little closer and check their work more carefully but the old Ph.D. is not usually the guy that you want. He's been a member of the big-boys club for 20 years, thinks most tasks are beneath him, and his first question to any task that comes down is, "What's in it for me?" In most vocations, a Ph.D. is a license to make a bunch of money to sit around, tell other people what to do, and make excuses to not work. Hell yes I've seen it in engineering.
This guy hit the nail on the head.
I'm 3 years into industry (after a PhD) and can confirm it is 100% teamwork, and everything in this video is true.
Thanks for your input! I hope your experience has been a good one.
This is good advice. (Industry manager here) When I work with highly educated my main goal is to teach them how to be action-oriented. Knowing a lot is useless if you don't DO something.
I completely agree. Knowledge is not power. Action based on knowledge is power.
😂 Too much of anything is bad. You can be handicapped by knowing too much. When I knew little, I was much more economically successful than when I obtained advanced specialized knowledge. You can get stuck and fail to realize that life is moving very fast
"Perfectionism is the enemy of productivity." Make a decision! Even if it is wrong, you have gain valuable knowledge.
@@manlybaker3098 As the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. Montesquieu: Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien.
@@TurningScienceVideo In industry. Academia IS knowledge for knowledge sake. Industry is knowledge for profits sake. Seems like the PhD just needs to realize the values paradigm is different.
I’ve been successful at work, I’m 51 and not far off the C-suite now. I did a masters after my bachelors, it’s helped, it gave me work ethic, thought clarity and writing skills. I put people at work into one of three categories, Workhorse (most people), Problem makers (like your Naysayers) and Problem solvers. Only problem solvers get above manager. The quicker you work closely with problem solvers, the quicker you gain that experience, the faster you can progress. I’ve seen people move ahead of me, and it’s because they learned that sooner. The people I’ve left behind are mostly now naysayers. I agree that academia is different, it’s about challenging ideas. Success in business is about fixing things and searching for solutions that bring competitive advantage, it’s not about looking for flaws.
200% agree! PhDs are meant for people staying in academia and research. Industry dynamics requires some experience gained and actual people management skill (which academia doesn't dig into a practical level)
Looks as if what's important is just people skills...
All in moderation. Master is far better than ph.d if u wanna work in industry with broadening chances of work and insights
The problem with going straight to the solution is that you miss the opportunity to find a solution which is way better that what you initially planned. What I generally do is starting small workshops and concept meetings already 6 - 12 months before we plan to implement something. This way, the concept has time to mature, i.e. engineers have enough time to think about it. When we go towards the actual start date of the project, I increase the frequency of these meetings, so that we have a reasonably solid concept when the first line of code is being written or the first line of schematic is drawn. So far, this works pretty good. It's definitely better than being more or less done with a project and already knowing that this will be a thing which you later will have to explain with "legacy code", "historic reasons", or "technical debt"...
Thanks for sharing. Incubation time before implementation is a valuable strategy!
Sometimes you need to push a solution because waiting can cause more prejudice. Sometimes you can iterate and push a next-gen solution based on improvements and learned lessons from the first iteration. Sometimes you can take your sweet time.
It all depends on the bigger picture.
@@cacildeasa If I really have to do it, then I go for a quick & dirty solution. There is no point in investing more time than necessary into a project which is outdated even before it arrives at the customer.
"he problem with going straight to the solution is that you miss the opportunity to find a solution which is way better that what you initially planned. "
Thsi is only happening when you are inventing being unprepared for the job. This means undereducated in given circumstances. The largest achievements are not made like that. Hoover Dam, Pyramids, Moon Landing. You live in a world of lesser rascals that didnt learned before, are learning slow, and want to get the credits for learning.
@@krzysztofbosak7027 As someone who leads an engineering team, I can assure you that this is not how it works. Experience (not knowledge alone) makes results of quick solutions better. However, in most cases the best result is being achieved if the idea has matured properly.
I knew a guy with a Ph.D and he told me he had to lie to get a job. He said the moment "Ph.D" is on the application, they are rejected. It's called being "overqualified".
I've heard a lot of that from job seekers. People who hear that are usually looking at jobs that they are overqualified for.
Or, they display the stereotypical behavior I describe in the video, and 'overqualified' is just the easiest way for the hiring manager to tell the PhD that they don't get it.
So, he said he doesn't have a PhD? Wow!
@@mandarbamane4268 Yes. He withheld that information and got a job.
@@TurningScienceVideoIt's true they apply for yes-man grunt positions and don't get it's a yes-man grunt position. It's probably better to drop the PhD from the resume because from the outset the hiring managers will feel belittled by it. Even if you were to get hired and humble yourself, it's still walking on egg shells if they know this.
I have "just" a master's degree in mathematics, and even I got told repeatedly at the IT company I was working for that they were nervous that I'd get bored / would leave and find another job.
Lots of truth here. Corporate culture is about teamwork to an extent yes also strong individual performance. Assignments often seem rushed in the construction world where I'm in now. To management its all about schedules dates deadlines and minimizing hours to get job done to have higher profit margin. Speed seems more highly valued versus 90%+ accuracy. Get it done now or yesterday seems like the mantra they like to push.
Too much speed however will lead to lawsuits that may cost more money than the labour you put in. Analysis and using that data to put's checks and balance on speed are equally importance as speed without control can be a legal catastrophe.
Furthermore, long term thinkers can if pointed in the right direction or of their own violition can figure out ways to make things either cheaper of quicker without compromising on quality which means an gradual increase in profit margins over time will less cause for legal viability.
A PHD student essentially is someone who is trained to look at a problem, tackle it and work out a way to innovate, well from stem PHDs anyway not too sure about those of the softer subjects. But those softer subjects may have different elements of that.
There is a saying in dutch: "Haast en spoed zijn zelden goed." If you go fast, you make lots of errors. Better go slow and do quality work.
I've seen a good many examples of cutting corners in order to meet schedules and increase profit. There have been many times when engineers and geologists I know have refused to use their PE/PG seals on rushed projects for fear of accepting liability for substandard work overlooked by project managers and company managers. And there were several times during my career when I turned down offers to work on projects because of concern about liability. I've also told attorneys that I would refuse to testify in a contested case hearing or in court if I were not granted the latitude to conduct a proper assessment of a matter that would likely end up in litigation. I concluded long ago that obsession with the bottom line has wrecked the ethical standards of much of American corporate culture, especially among environmental consulting firms.
corporate culture correlates nothing to teamwork. corporate culture is about alienation and employee self-sabotage.
This video is actually so underrated.
True most PhDs might not survive in a competitive high intensity market. But also people need to recognize that many people do their PhDs exactly to avoid high intensity employments. I teach casual hours at universities, make a lot of money for few hours work a week. I don't aspire to work 9-5 in a high pressure environment to get the same pay I'm already getting.
5 years later I'm rewatching this while working an industrial job, still so underrated. Amazing advice.
Welcome back, jeffz! I remember your comment from 5 years ago. Thanks for the support!
4:20 These practices are actually good for literally any job, even besides science or just for PhDs. Great video
Thank you for the observation! I agree completely.
As a PhD find a company that requires PhDs for tough problems and where leadership understands the value you add. Thinking a little bit longer can save a lot of time and effort and a PhD could solve an otherwise intractable problem.
edits: typos
Thank you for your input. Many of the problems that PhDs face in finding a good job is that they are looking below their capabilities. If you just search online, you are much more likely to find the lower level jobs. Good managers look in their network for people to fill the challenging jobs.
LOL..tough problems can only be solved by working experience..not by Permanent Head Damages people.
PhDs are not required to solve specific problems. That is ego. If an idea is the best for the business, the PhD should be able to argue that without appeal to self-authority. The solution does not need to be perfect and should not be motivated by a need to be the first name on a publication or patent.
Sorry mate!
Most of the PhDs has an over the top estimate of their skills and ability to tackle "tough" problems, when in practice they usually lack the breadth AND depth needed to even understand the problem, let alone solve it! Unlike the academics, the smart battle hardened industry managers read them instantly! [Yes, there is exceptions! The top 1 - 2% of PhDs do bring in the value in proper context].
One of the root cause is that, the whole academic system has become a training ground for the PhDs to play loose with basic integrity and intellectual honesty in pursuit of individual benefits like publication!
Agreed. I have many (non PhD) engineers with 5+ years experience who see a problem and the first thing they want to do is solve it by brute force trial and error approaches. It generates a ton of graphs which they can show, but rarely does that method discover an actual root cause and direct fix. Sometimes I want to say "you guys spent 4-5 years in school, you took hard classes that taught you how to think critically, how to approach difficult problems and solve them intelligently. Why the hell are you throwing that all out the window to do trial and error crap? Use the scientific method, think about the problem, come up with a logical hypothesis based on your expertise, test it out, and go from there". On the other side, the PhD engineers can get stuck in "analysis paralysis", but I have found it is easy to break that cycle by just telling them something else is higher priority
Let me suggest a different title for your video although it will not be a click bait like what you have now: "For low-level industry, Ph.D.'s are overqualified" because if you want to make a faulty product fast and sell it with max profit while not paying enough to your employees, you want somebody who is not meticulous yet obedient who ignores the faults and is happy with a lower salary. If a Ph.D. makes a video and call it "90% of non-Ph.D. engineers are useless" , how would you feel?! I have seen a bunch of students in my classes going to industry and they can barely do any proper algebra or write a few lines of code, yet you think they are better than those who tried to teach them everything?! For any proper R&D, graduate education is needed.
My first job out of the US Navy was as an electronic technician using my knowledge gained in the Navy. I only had a GED. I quickly became a lead technician as other technicians left, mostly due to the lateness of the swing shift we worked. I had one guy who was a PhD candidate in Electrical Engineering who seemed to be incredibly bad at basic math, as I continually had to correct his work. I once asked him he could be so lacking in basic math skills. His response floored me, “I don’t need to know everything I do. I can just look it up in a book when necessary.”
On the other hand I worked with some PhD’s at Sperry Univac who were phenomenal. Not only did they know what they were doing they could make other people understand what they were trying to accomplish, and the limitations under which they worked. A good example of this was TV’s. This was in the mid 1970’s when all computer terminals were TV’s displaying text. There were a few work stations like Tektronix was building. This PhD I was working with showed my group a work station that projected computer generated color graphics on a wall screen big enough to be shown in a small auditorium. Hot Dog! This was exactly what my team was looking for. The PhD went on to explain to our group why his machine was ahead of its time. All the electrical boards and chips used were a one off build. You see in the 1970’s there no PC’s then, so the computer monitor/screen was no where to be seen. All the off the shelf components were for TV’s. TV’s had a hardwired 525x525 resolution on a square screen. What we saw was 640x400 that was for the time very crisp graphics. The point is this was a PhD that could make a product, and then explain to engineers (I had a degree by then) what its limitations were in a production environment. It took the Apple Lisa and later the PC/Macintosh to see our project be done in the market place ten years after was shelved- cheap workstations engineers could use.
Sounds like someone who has a PhD and is mad at the truth and reality. Don’t let your pride and arrogance from obtaining a PhD cloud your mind.
@@mogbp7775 sounds like somebody who has bad experiences with Ph.D.'s. I know some Ph.D.'s might fit what was said in the original comment, but generalizing it to all of them is the actual arrogance and rudeness.
Yeah, this is more how to act like a yes-man grunt in a yes-man grunt position. If that is the case, drop the PhD. They will think you're overqualified. They want a drone. Not a thinker.
A Ph. D. doesn’t make you overqualified.
I’ll provide an observation. People have a self-selecting bias. Most people do not have PhDs in industry and those people tend to select people like themselves. People only with a Bachelor’s; however, this works the other way too. When PhDs get into positions where they can decide who to hire, they also want to select for people like themselves. PhDs don’t think others without PhDs have the ability to handle Research topics, which I do not believe to be true. It becomes hard to enter certain domains when you have PhDs who won’t consider people who didn’t make/have the choice to endure a PhD and therefore gatekeep that domain to people only like themselves.
Thank you for sharing your great observation. I agree that some of the best teams are those that have a wide range of skill sets and education levels, and everyone respects the experience and strengths of the other team members.
Getting a Ph.D. is hard and economically doesn't worth it, but for Ph.D's, not everything is about money. The best thing about it and working in Academia to me is the freedom you get and the fact that your job security isn't affected by your boss if you disagree with him. Industry managers want obedient employees and so Ph.D.'s are not a good fit there.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. But your experience in industry sounds very different than mine. I've never had a manager that wanted obedient employees, and I've felt like I was a great fit in all four of the companies I've worked with.
I dunno. Your security is in fact dicated by both the subject matter of your inquiry, the department you're in, and the admnistration, all of which, except for econ compsci and physics are highly politicized. With the best universities the most politicized. I couldn't put a dissertation committee together for my cross disciplinary work, nor could I take as long as I have with my efforts, nor if I published would I be able to maintain employment. And I work largely in epistemology, economics, and law, and particularly in fraud deception and lying - and more specifically in sex and political bias differences in lying. And the results are far more unpleasant for democratic polities than darwin was for the church.
@@heliumfrancium8403 I've worked at 4 different companies over about 25 years. There are several reasons I decided to change, but in two of those moves, the group I was working in was closed down.
@@TheNaturalLawInstituteyour PhD definitely sounds worthless.
"your job security isn't affected by your boss if you disagree with him". Haha! Try saying there are two genders or trans women aren't women and see how long your job lasts.
Some of the PhDs I’ve worked with have a lot of horsepower when it comes to problem solving but many of them make terrible decisions, have quirks or ideological ways of thinking which make collaboration or practical criticism of their ideas very difficult. Oftentimes their personal lives aren’t that great either, which makes me think they might be better trained than they are smart.
Yes. Most are over trained, over optimized, over leveraged average smart guys!
A PhD requires a lot of time and effort to achieve. That sacrifice comes at a cost at other things such as a personal life. It's present in those who commits too much of their time to anything whether it is to a degree, or career. They are going to end up struggling in their personal lives.
A PhD doesn’t mean the person knows how to solve industrial problems. I’ve spent my entire career learning new subject matter, new ways of doing things. In technical fields, progressively challenging technical work is more valuable than an academic degree.
Agreed that the degree doesn’t necessarily teach you to solve practical problems. But it does give you a valuable depth of understanding that you can’t get in a job where you have to focus on fast results. It also develops patters of critical analysis and thinking that you don’t tend to develop in an applied environment.
@@TurningScienceVideo It depends on what kind of work you do. I probably have the equivalent of a couple of dozen PhD’s …I review and routinely find errors in analytical work of PhD’s. A PhD tends to pigeonhole you into a narrow field of practice.
I would add that many times they are over- or underqualified for what they are actually supposed to do - and expect a bigger salary for it.
I work in a very successful company. We are successful because we hire the right people. The only criterion for hiring is the skills you bring with you. Of course someone has to have the education, but whether someone has a PhD or not doesn't matter. Everyone is hired at the same salary at the beginning, and the salary then increases with the personally generated turnover. One third has a PhD (myself too).
I think evaluating candidates with prejudices is the completely wrong approach. I have been to so many interviews that for me the title is not a reason for hiring. The person has to fit the company. The most important thing is motivation. That includes first of all motivation for the tasks in the job profile and to develop professionally.
Thanks for your input. That sounds like a great model.
And as you say, motivation is very important.
Think of a Ph.D. as an apprenticeship in academic research in a particular field. If someone did an apprenticeship in carpentry, then wanted to work in a job that didn't involve woodwork, then their apprenticeship would count for little.
One of the best tips I have heard about PhDs. Many thanks !
You are very welcome! I'm glad you found it helpful.
I know a Sociology phD (whose specialization was East Asian business related) who failed to get a tenure track job. She ended up pivoting into UX research and is now at a big FAANG company. She seems to be doing pretty well there.
Good advice for anyone working in a team environment. I've been fortunate to have worked to have worked in industry with some very good PhD's over the years; however, many complain that they spend too many years in academy and should have stopped with an MS.
The statistic is probably not too far from the truth, but speaking as a successful PhD myself, 95% of all managers I have ever dealt with are worthless as well, for several reasons. First, they think they are smarter than the staff who work for them. Second, they will never make a decision unless they have top cover from their boss, and third, they always want more data and want to continue to analyze decisions to the point where they are overtaken by events. But the worst part of management and managers is that their overriding concern is moving up, rather than getting anything done. What we really need in industry are innovative leaders. Note the word leader and not the word manager. Leaders are hard to find and innovative leaders are even more rare, yet status quo managers will not hire them because they are maverics.
I'm not sure if I've just been really lucky, or if people have unrealistic expectations of managers (and fail to take into account that middle management has to push people to hit deadlines that people at the top set).
Every single manager I've had was okay to genuinely very good -- I've never had a worthless manager.
90% in industry and 100% in the academy. Becoming a Ph.D. long ago ceased to be about doing original work, or even just mastery of a subject matter. It is all about pleasing the current academic authorities in order to become part of the club.
This is a problem of universities' false advertisement.
Higher education is never about getting higher payroll.
It's about fulfulling YOUR intellectual needs, and being a decent colleague YOURSELF, to create a better work experience for EVERYONE.
Very accurate. Paralysis by analysis. I get annoyed when I keep hearing people complain about things, but never offer reasonable solutions.
I hear that a lot. Thanks for your input!
None of those three bad features are exclusive to PhDs, though. Heck, my father-in-law displays two of them constantly and he didn't even finish high school. Managers who univocally link those three behaviors to PhDs are reinforcing a stereotype.
I do appreciate the three pieces of advice given at the end of the video, but they apply equally to PhDs, MBAs and people with a BA in English Literature.
Agreed, these can be found anywhere. But most PhD training actually encourages them in certain contexts.
@@TurningScienceVideo It doesn't encourage it. It correlates to it via the personality type
@@the_expidition427 I can easily see phD training encouraging people to be in the "find faults" or "be perfectionist" mindset more than the "find solutions" or "be decisive" mindsets. phD candidates who try to act in a decisive, "good enough" manner will probably get reprimanded.
But even if you're right, even then it's still rational for managers to be wary about hiring phDs.
Phd holders tend to value themselves more. So what the industry leaders are really saying is, "your knowledge and experience frightens my sense of control and power, so I'm not going to pay your salary."
0:30 look as someone who hires people to work on his project; I have so far hired people who never went to a university/ had a PhD; they cost more, want more pay and I just like working with the people who have more hands on experience from artist to writers. I look at the past works NOT if you went to school or not. I have hired High School drop outs for my project as well, not as employees but for paying them in exchange of services for my project.
If it's a field/ study where I can see the person is knowledgable and not that they're a PhD but rather what they had done for past works being important to me.
Thanks for the great input. What I think you are saying is that it's what someone can DO that really matters.
@@TurningScienceVideoExactly.
90% of statistics are plucked out of thin air. Stereotyping is the issue here. People with doctorates are not a separate species but have strengths and weaknesses like everyone else.
I was quite surprised by this video because at my company, we have people from many different backgrounds and I've never seen any issues with PhD holders. (I am one myself!) No one is arrogant or "not a team player". We just understand that we have different experiences and excel in different ways. We do take a balanced approach to hiring both in terms of experience and culture "fit" though. So I am grateful for that.
My thoughts about the PhD: My PhD advisor always told me that getting a PhD is not about specializing in a narrow field. It's about learning how to teach yourself anything! For me, I find my PhD training helps me to adapt quickly to different situations. I've been put onto a number of challenging projects where I've had to both learn new things and produce solutions quickly (but still with enough rigor). It's about understanding the context of what you are trying to do and being able to adapt.
Thanks for your great input! It sounds like you work at a great company that has developed excellent team dynamics.
And your comments about your PhD training are spot on. Those are the strengths that I teach PhDs to focus on when they look for a job.
Unfortunately we tend to leave grad school thinking that our specialization is our key strength, but that's not true.
@@TurningScienceVideo Happy to share my experiences and thanks for making the video!
@@antobot2 I work with a lot of people with PhDs as well and its overall a nice experience. I dont hold a PhD and I work in an industry that I am not that knowledgeable about. The thing is that we are complement each other’s skills. They are really good at doing the mathematical side of things and I have the expertise in computer science to know what is possible and how we can achieve this in reality.
And at the end we both learn from each other in the process.
However I can see how things can go wrong. I saw a few arrogant people with PhD that thinks that they are better in every way. The other issue can be communication which is the most important thing when it comes to team work.
@@collan580 I’m glad to hear that you’ve had an overall good experience. It’s the same for me. Indeed, communication is key. Showing empathy, understanding where people are coming from, and their motivations also helps a lot! And I’ve also encountered arrogance before but thankfully only once when I worked in academia.
That’s been my experience as well. The 10% are usually exceptional. Too many PhDs think getting their PhD was there life accomplishment and just want to get paid to do nothing after that.
I like to think of it as a bell curve, where ~ the top 10% get it on their own, and the bottom 10% will never get it. The middle 80% just needs some guidance.
I worked in the industry for 5 yrs (including running a successful business of my own for 3 yrs which I sold). I'm now currently doing my PhD in Neuroscience to pursue my intellectual curiosity, because I've already 'made it' financially.
And I have to say, the people I encountered in academia will be chewed up and thrown away in the industry for their attitude and lack of action. It's a different world out here.
Agreed - definitely a different world. I tell PhD candidates that they need to treat it like a game, not a formula, where you look for the 'right answer.'
Thanks for your input.
I think PhD graduate is still a graduate. It's also unfair to expect they will work seamlessly in a different environment.
these bad habits are really tough to get rid of, I thought it was part of my personality, thanks for the video))
You’re welcome! I still struggle with these habits. Not sure if it is our training or something in our personalities that may have led us to science in the first place.
Well, there's a question to which extent phDs make people like this, and to which extent people who are like this choose to get a phD.
This notion that PH.Ds cannot enter the industry is flawed and highly generalized. NOT all Ph.Ds are the same. For managers to think that, it is wrong and bias. Good managers screen candidates based on professionalism, work ethic, integrity, etc. and not on University degrees.
I like the way you stated that. Thank you.
You're engaging in the NAXALT fallacy. Just because not all are like that doesn't mean that we can't identify a common trend across the entire set of people. We can. We have.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitutewhere did OP say we can't identify said trend? Or are you engaging in the strawman fallacy?
Wasn't OP's actual point about how no matter how pervasive said trend is, the exceptions need a case by case professional examination, and aren't worth missing out?
Notice the difference between "because not all PhDs are like that, therefore professional character screening is needed" vs "because not all PhDs are like that, therefore managers can't find a trend"?
This is a great example of the academic vs practical / industry mindset. From an academic mindset, just some anecdotes don't prove that phDs are problematic and should maybe not be hired. But from a practical / industry mindset, some anecdotes may be enough for that.
@@lightworker2956 ah yes, driven by data vs driven by fear
The fact that school primarily prepares you for more school and not for life or business is rather upsetting
Yes, we could do a much better job preparing people for both life and business.
Academia is mostly a huge dick measuring contest to qualify for jobs and not job training. They don't care what you know, but that your scores prove you're at least disciplined or smart enough to qualify for a job.
I was an Engineering & Maintenance Manager for 40 + years and I never hired a PhD. Phd's are a research degree, attained after many years in academia. We were working in Industry, very fast paced and required Critical Thinking at a prodigious rate (which a doctorate has) on a broad base of Engineering (which they don't). Without doubt, they know a great deal about something and relatively little about the broader issues (such as people skills, the interaction with highly skilled staff of multiple disciplined trades and the absolute necessity of resolving to Root Cause quickly and moving on).
If I wanted a specialised Engineer or Physicist, I'd rent one.
Interesting advice. On the other hand, I also see experienced people with less theoretical education who have more trouble identifying inefficiencies, or looking beyond the first visible solution... it's frustrating when you know your team could be 4-5 times more efficient, but isn't willing to commit the resources to improve practices, esp. when it's well-documented (though I've seen PhDs fall in this pitfall as well).
Every time I've seen this tried, it fell flat.
wow, this video has a vietnamese subtitle in it. Amazing for a channel only has 4.6k view.
Also I appreciate the info in the vid so much. Subbed.
1:01 yeah pretty much why I stop working with certain people because of this as well; don't even get me started on the game designers with PhDs but little to no actual hands on work.
A problem I noticed is that Industry also rarely hires PhDs fresh out of University with no work experience as they often expect salaries higher than those who spent the time in working, where we find that the actual work experience is far more valuable than a PhD in the same time frame. Valuable PhDs are usually those that work 20 years and then do PhDs, as actual experience just cannot be replaced by theoretical knowledge and classroom discussions
Yes, what you are saying is valid. For my first job I found a company that was heavily into developing cutting edge technology, so they needed lots of PhDs to work in the lab. That was my way in and from there I had to get the practical experience needed to move effectively into other roles.
A PhD involves very little course work and is almost entirely practical experience…
"by theoretical knowledge and classroom discussions"
This is not a PhD.... A PhD is (should be) generally a lot of practical work on an industrial problem.
@@Tommybotham I am getting the impression from a lot of these comments that people are just annoyed at someone having higher qualifications than them. All of the complaints are of weird straw man descriptions of phds and what they entail.:.
@@tainicon4639 Not all qualifications are created equal. And no in the last 5-10 years most PhD apllicant's thesis have been entirely theoretical. I'm not going to Dox myself but I can tell you on good authority that PhDs have become extremely easy to obtain, mostly because government and other grants directly benefit institutions the more PhDs they produce (in my Locale at least). If you think you are now an expert because you wrote a thesis on 12-pin power connectors with complex calculations, I have a bridge to sell you. We always hire those with experience above fresh out of University PhDs
As a manager with a couple of PhD's I haven't encountered any "I'm smarter than you", but I do find that I have to spend so much more time with them explaining the problem to be solved as they cannot take a small thing and build from there, they have to have every bit of nuance or ambiguity removed before they can proceed. Once going they are excellent, but If I have to define the problem to that extent, I have probably solved it before they get started.
Thanks for the input. I've seen some of that in my own management experience. To me it seemed that they were afraid of getting it wrong, which is another thing we PhDs tend to learn.
@@TurningScienceVideo Doing it now and maybe getting some small bit incorrect is far far better than doing it perfectly.
@@Gnrnrvids Absolutely true.
@@Gnrnrvids
That "small bit" might make your application completely useless.
To get detailed feedback on what's required and asking sooner rather than later are good things.
I'm with those phds.
@@MrCmon113 You've clearly never worked in actual industry then. An 80% solution now is often better than a 95% solution next year. Forget a 100% solution.
When defining those small bits is part of the assignment I'm not interested in having to try an explain it as to get the info, I might as well do it myself and at that point you are useless to me. The PhD's are more useless than an engineer without the PhD as they tend to be more practical and can handle the ambiguity and will go find a solution.
This is a good video. I did a PhD, then 5 years postdoc, then 30 years in industry. The PhD was worse than useless, it makes you think you are special, and it gets you used to being in control of a project. In industry you are often one small part, you are not expected to think too much, and pointing out that things could be done better (more efficient, less problems) annoys people. Being good at your job is often irrelevant, what matters is the opinion of the manager(s) who often don’t know what each person does. In that case brownnosing and giving the impression of being effective matter far more. I was let go from several companies when they had troubles, and the managers subsequently discovered that the chap they kept was not as capable as they thought. And I’ve seen many times excellent people lose their jobs, whilst the lazy useless people are kept on because they know how to impress.
What you describe sounds just as much like the university as industry. You obviously have not been there in a long time.
@@jeffreykalb9752 The difference is that in industry you learn useful skills. Most people tend to stay in a job for no more than three years, you learn skills, then move on. In academia most people I knew who went on to become professors (a senior role in the UK) were extremely capable. The problem is that a PhD does not teach useful skills for the outside world. Would you hire someone for a technical job because they were very good at football, or chess?
I think you oversimplified this issue, and ironically may not have made a good case for the usefulness of a PhD degree. I think that the heart of the issue is the question of how education translate's into solid character,and if PhD holders don't know how to refine their characters they'll merely magnify whatever personality defects that are latent in them,which i've noticed happens to people who 'ingest' more knowledge than they can absorb(i.e comprehend).
Managers in industry have to deal with a multi-dimensional world,and while it's beyond doubt that there can be mediocre managers & executives,anyone with a one-dimensional perspective or who's 'overspecialized'(like some PhD holders might be) could clumsily do more harm than good in the 'real world'.
Academia & industry should be compatible,but anyone with an 'excessively' academic mindset and an underdeveloped character would unwittingly be a liability in any industry.
Like all degrees it depends what the area of study is.
I'm with you on that one.
I’m not sure one ever recovers the tuition spent and years lost in gaining industrial experience. Most PhDs get pigeonholed into a narrow career area.
In the US most PhD scientists get their tuition paid, and also get a stipend for teaching or doing research. It's not a lot of money, but at least you aren't paying out of your pocket.
depends, if you are doing medical research, great, if trying to make money, its worlds apart, ( I realise medical research is often money driven, but not the same urgency, )
That's all good advice. Unfortunately, I had a really bad manager in the past that made me "gun shy" about making mistakes.
Thank you for the feedback. So sorry about your manager. A bad manager can really leave a dark cloud hanging over us. I hope you are able to move beyond that experience.
I work for a company that is paying me to get a PhD (I work part-time and get paid full salary). So, different companies see it differently.
That’s great to hear! Congratulations. What will your degree focus on?
For some positions, it genuinely is helpful to get a phD. I don't think that's true in the majority of cases, but sometimes it is.
Noting more frustrating than having to deal with a PhD human that has no clue, but being informed to follow directions as they know better.
Sounds like you have direct experience. I'm sure that was very frustrating.
The people who become management are rarely the high performer, they're the social people. Teamwork was invaluable for them. Even if they believe you that you could do better alone, they still won't risk your lazy or incompetent coworkers making them look bad.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. However, as we invest less and less in actual research, our need for PhDs is dwindling. I worked as a scientist in a research lab (of the military-industrial complex) during the cold war days. There were PhDs all around us, and while many did display the characteristics you mentioned, they did work in a research environment where those attributes were not so detrimental. If you are not going to work in a research environment, then a PhD is not necessary and nowadays we are doing a lot less real research. BTW naysaying is a habit common to all engineers, not just PhDs. Part of the problem is the management is always pushing us to do too much too soon, so the reaction always is to point out why that is not possible.
It's a great point you make that perhaps we are making more PhDs than we need.
However, I'm also of the view that a science PhD teaches you a lot of skills that are valuable outside of a research lab. The critical thinking and problem solving skills and the habit of questioning assumptions that I learned as a PhD physicist have been valuable to me in both product development and business development environments.
And I also agree that engineers have a tendency to find fault as well. For some reason, I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about them as the PhDs. Go figure...
@@TurningScienceVideo I only know about the aerospace/defense and telecommunications sectors, so my answer is limited to those areas. But I have seen PhDs of two types: First is the type that have very deep expertise in some technical area and spend much of their life doing research in that area. Such people are often very unidimensional in terms of their expertise, thinking, aptitudes, attitudes, etc. Second is exceptionally bright people (with PhDs) who are asked to solve intractable problems in any and every area. I have met a few such people in Silicon Valley startups. These are just phenomenal people in every respect. Nathan Myhrvold is a great example of this very rare breed.
In my experience you can do very well in industry with a masters degree in a technical field like data analytics or engineering. I think a PHD may be overkill if you want to climb the corporate ladder since many CEOs dont even have one. Avoid the MBA though those are going out of fashion in favor of technical degrees.
Yes, I have worked with many successful people who got a masters degree and focused on leadership roles rather than highly technical roles.
I was slower to learn the game of business, so my PhD allowed me to get into to a tech company that was developing cutting edge laser technology, and from that position I was able to learn enough about the game to move into many different positions of influence.
I think that should depend on your ability and whether you have the desire to do some extended research project. If you're good and have a topic you're really into, you should stay for the PhD.
Academia is where people that produce nothing of value end up at. PhDs are for people that want to stay in academia, while the industry wants people with practical experience in solving problems, not bringing problems for every solution
'Bringing problems for every solution.' That's a great way to describe what too many PhDs do when they work in a company.
And that's definitely not what companies need.
Thank you for your input.
I have a PhD and my stint in academia was extremely short compared to my decades of reasonably successful experience in the private sector.
Moreover, implying that academia produces nothing of value is utterly ridiculous.
@@Dan210871 ridiculous is the idea that publishing useless papers has any value. Or do tell how many products have been created, manufactured, put to market and competed against alternatives to bring solutions to people’s lives by academia
@@Dan210871 Well, of course getting a phD is better than spending 4 years in suspended animation. But for most positions, a person would be better off getting four years of industry experience than getting a phD.
@@lightworker2956 You're making up an irrelevant comparison out of thin air, given that pretty much nobody spends 4 years in suspended animation. I bypassed more than 4 years of industry experience because I could prove my PhD had clear and advantageous practical applications.
A friend of mine has a family member working in the hiring dept at intel and and he told me they often don't hire bachelor graduates and above. The reasons being is that in the past they have found they often demand more pay for the same work as honours graduates, they see themselves as overqualified for work and often have an entitled attitudes refusing to do work they see as beneath them, even when just starting out and with zero previous work experience.
sounds like an american problem. the whole "university is elite" thing you guys have going on.
@@SteveAkaDarktimes This is in ireland.
It's very unfortunate ( Exceptional Few) those are best ranked in high school, colleges, universities then PhD have thought that they accomplished their best/ targets of life. Actually they are the best in that Age Group
. Professional Career life span is from mid twenties to Sixties. This is around 35- 45 years period. All of them forgot it. Those who work hard and learn on job ,they end up at a successful level. Qualifications are wild card for entry but not Guarantee. It's a Psychological issue. Street smart children are more successful Career than Qualified Professionals.
My humble take on your pointers:
1. Don't be the expert.
The very reason a PhD is hired is because of his/her expertise.
I guess the point here is that an in-depth solution is not
always needed.
2. Don't be the naysayer.
One has to be a naysayer, and not submit to the pressure of the
sales team. They don't like no for an answer, even if it means
that the solution is just not feasible. The sales' team take
on this is: the liability resulting from an inferior performance
has been accounted in the contract.
3. Make a decision and move on.
In Industry, and in Academia, this is given. Not sure who does this.
My humble take on your guidelines:
1. Be effective, not just smart.
Can't do one without the other, most of the time, I think.
2. Find solutions, not faults.
Agree 100 %. In fact if one does not know the solution, then one
needs to take the help of the team, and not just be stuck. That's
what teams are for.
3. Be decisive, not perfect.
No solution is perfect; not even the decisively take ones.
Thanks for your input. I like your final point best. If we can agree that no solution is perfect, I think that helps people stop searching for perfection.
Spot on. Perfection is relative. What matters is an acceptable solution, to both the academia and the industry.
1:07 PhD are NOT valued for technical skills. They usually have very limited skills. They have an in-depth knowledge of a selected problem which usually has no direct application the industry.
This has not been my experience, either in my own career or with the PhDs I've worked with.
This is kind of one-sided though. What you just mentioned gives the impression that that teams in many industry companies are more dominated by managers instead of actual leaders. A leader has a vision of the projects goals and therefore gives clear directions for the team. They also know how to make use of the different sets of skills the employees have. In turn they have trust into the competence of their co-workers. They wouldn't feel personally insulted if one of their co-workers tell them an idea was wrong, instead they'd appreciate the thorough research. Managers usually tend to micromanage a lot of things. There is no room for the individual people to actually add some new ideas. And if they do, they might end up getting a reputation of being smart-asses (like you mentioned in the video). Why is that so? I guess many managers actually feel threatened by that because they know how brutal the private sector can be. If you work in a competitive environment and there is someone who can replace you, you will be replaced sooner or later.
My father has a PhD in Business Management, teaching in Acedemia, and also worked as logistics manager in a mining company. He got his PhD while working, said he was the only person in Peru to do both academic work and industry work when he got his degree (dunno if that is true).
By his own admission, both sides of the equation dislike him. The academics think of him as too rough and ready to jump to conclusions, more interested in teaching set solutions; his fellow managers think he is too analytical, searching for the root of the problem far more than they, and being too self-assured
The asshole also thinks he is smarter than both groups, so it is reciprocal.
That 'us vs them' mentality where both sides disrespect each other is unfortunate. Academia and industry both have great value, and both are needed for innovation.
One of the scientists I interviewed in my first book (Turning Science into Things People Need) said he knew two brothers who got their PhDs at the same university. One went to industry and the other to academia, and both thought the other was not doing anything worthwhile. So unfortunate.
Thanks for sharing!
It is a human failing that we correlate our level of education with our level of intelligence. More education only increases this likelihood. There are lots of reasons why very intelligent people do not pursue PhDs. In addition, the factors for success in academia are very different than the factors for success in private industry. What worked in one place may not work in the other. I have worked with several PhDs in my career in IT. Were they the smart? Yes. Were they the smartest guys in the room... the experts? Almost universally not; expertise in our field comes from practical application. In general, they worked at a slower pace than others, possibly because of some of the reasons mentioned in this video, but they were still valuable team members. Small sample size disclaimer (N=6), of course.
Thank you for sharing your observations. ‘Smart’ has many dimensions and is indeed not always correlated to value.
Saving this. This is how academia sells it's credit hours and degree programs
A PhD is a much better indicator of someone's usefulness, because it shows both intelligence AND consciousness.
@@MrCmon113 The best indicator of someone's usefulness is their motivation to work, not their intelligence.
Intelligence part is debatable @@MrCmon113
I just recently earned a Ph.D in Organizational Leadership of all things. Yes, it is a business discipline but I did it for personal enrichment and to be quite honest, I like the letters after my name, even if that sounds somewhat shallow. However, I am 63 years old and retired early, and have no intention, at least for now to return to corporate America. As much criticism that this video has against Ph.Ds, I have equal complaints about the office politics and pettiness of mid and upper management.
I am completely honest to declare that unlike the stereotypes regularly adjudicated to Ph.Ds, I am not conceited enough to think that I am infallible or "know everything". Yes, I am humble in that regard.
I have a friend or two that keep questioning me about what I am going to do with my degree and this got me thinking in that direction. I have actually considered perhaps to become a business leadership coach or consultant so that I retain my independence and in control of my time. Never again will I subject myself to the whims of some egomaniacal and dictatorial management who believe they have the right to tell the people working for them to jump hoops for their own gains.
So this works both ways. What a concept right?
I've worked with a lot of Phds and they are some of the most impractical people ever. I find that they only want to focus on finding problems and rarely ever look at ROI or time/project management
Yes, we are trained to focus on certainty, so ROI is generally not a consideration. It took me a while to shift my thinking and appreciate how important ROI is.
Please keep posting videos. You encourages us a lot
Thank you for the feedback. I'm glad you find them helpful!
My experience with a PhD in electrical engineering that I hired who was an expert in Robotic algorithms for ML, but when faces with trouble shooting a problem, he could not operate an oscilloscope nor analyze a PCB, and not even pick up a soldering iron. He had no experience doing any experimental or design work in hardware despite his own claims and knowledge. He would say such things are "trivial" and not worth his time. He would say he has a PhD to anyone that could hear him, but I viewed this as a sense of entitlement in image only. The team viewed him s a guru, but too toxic in attitude to help them get a problem solved.
Thanks for your input. Definitely an indicator of what one should NOT do.
I am going to graduate with Ph.D. degree in chemistry soon. Yesterday, I bought this book. Now, I am reading 😊
Great! I’d love to hear what you think about it.
So what im getting is that ultimately getting a phd all depends on if it works with your current and future situation
TurningScience responding to every comment with a well thought-out paragraph is perhaps the most PhD thing I've ever seen.
LOL - Touché.
My grandfather (an exceptional blacksmith and boilermaker) used to say, "You can always tell an engineer ... but you can't tell him much."
Lol. Thanks for sharing.
@@TurningScienceVideo 🙂
Officers in the Marines learn to take action when you get to 80% confidence level. You’re going to be right most of the time. If not, you are then in a new situation with new info and can proceed once you get to 80% again.
The only industry I see that emulates that is Software Engineering. They get a product out the door that’s “good enough”, and once it’s out there in the hands of customers, the amount of feedback on the product’s strengths & weakness comes in so fast it allows them to know exactly what to zero in on, way, way quicker than they would have been able to on their own.
I like that 80% model.
Didn't Colin Powell have a 40%/70% model? Don't make a decision until you have 40% of the info, and don't go beyond 70% either. Seems like a great principle.
AFAIK that's pretty common to all industries. It's call MVP- minimally viable product. Similar to what Hyundai did in the 90's (?) with their crapbox cars. Each generation was improved upon until they reached rough parity with other offerings.
There's no hope for PhD's if it's not a company that puts a lot of efforts in R&D department.
From where I am, if you are a PhD, you are instantly disqualified for being overqualified for any job other that being a professor at some college or university.
And since it takes long to get a PhD, from my observation, the PhD candidates put too much time in academics rather than actual jobs, thus not getting the experience they should have when applying for jobs, disqualifying them for inexperience. Imagine you're 35 and applying for an entry level job.
In the IT industry, we rarely if ever hire PhDs as engineers, developers, or managers, heck even data scientists are not normally PhDs. But IT innovation relies heavily on the research carried out by PhD holders. Look at the explosion of GenAI or the mini-explosion of blockchain, all of which was founded in years of PhD research. I wager the same is true across other engineering oriented industries. Industry managers do not want researchers that may spend years and millions of dollars on dead ends that go no where other than advance the state of knowledge. Even those huge companies that do their own research, Google, big pharma, etc. often rely heavily on the research from academia.
Great input. Thanks!
Bold of you to assume I care what companies think of me. I only care about how I see myself. No one else is going to see the effort stress I go thru but me.
Managers don't like smart people! They can't fool them or get around them. They don't like people with more impressive titles or credentials then they have. They want to be able to talk down to the employee, not have to talk up to them. I frequently have this trouble with managers.
Badass o:
PhD holders are not always smart. High education is not alway equivalent to high intelligence and success.
I'm sure this varies widely between industries. In software engineering for example, PhDs are very desirable for specialist roles that require deep expertise in something specific, but most PhDs wouldn't know how to write quality code if their lives depended on it. They care about different things, and the academic interests of PhDs is much different than the product interests of engineers.
Agreed - it varies widely. Thanks for your input.
Yep, PhDs writing code usually just a nightmare. It solves the issue, but after a year even they dont know what the actual code does. But cooperation between people can solve this issue. One person does not have to do it all, nor have to be an expert at everything.
I love this. You could replace “PhD” with “Software Architect” and this video applies 100%.
It depends. Some companies put a lot of effort into highly specialized R&D. The type of R&D that involves a lot of scientific research. Your average company does not need and do that. So if a PhD comes along to such a company, all they see is a person with (probably >90% of the time) almost zero practical experience. If you put on top a person, who is the "So what? I have a PhD" type, you get a rather useless employee.
Most companies look for applicable knowledge. Shooting particles and creating black holes is incredibly interesting, no doubt. But 99.9% of the companies out there are not really dealing with unraveling the fabric of the universe.
'99.9% of the companies out there are not really dealing with unraveling the fabric of the universe.'
Well put. Thanks.
Yeah but rushing a solution will increase failure rate and often those consequences fall on the employees not employers. So no, I’d rather perfect a solution and keep my job than wager it on rushed guess work.
Significant improvement can be made over academic timelines and still produce excellent products and solutions. That's good product development, not rushing.
So we have learned again that 2+2 is four but some people want more. Academia is a different environment, based on hype, feudal relations ect. Industry, is something else, is a pulling a waggon with a squared wheels, faster, harder with more load and you are not allowed to change to round wheels. Because you will have to pause for 5 min and they cost $30 which is inacceptable cost for the management.
i spent my entire 20s bcoming an expert & now for job i have to pretend like i ain't one, life's a struggle eaither way😞
I feel you on that one. However, my point is that you shouldn't pretend to be an expert on everything. It's important to be an expert in some things, because that's why they want you on the team.
Finding faults in proposed solutions is part of finding the actual solution though, is it not?
Yes, it certainly is. It’s actually part of the scientific method: someone proposes a hypothesis and everyone sets out to disprove it. So it’s understandable why we would have this tendency, but it is not well received by non-scientists.
it's works better to work with ppl on solutions rather than making it seem like you're "against" them or making them feel like they need to be defensive by only mentioning flaws. simply by asking them on what they think about a solution idea you have to a possible flaw, the conversation becomes more productive. it goes a step beyond and psychologically helps people change their mind and reach something productive
Yes, but it's only marginally helpful. If you also bring solutions to those problems then you are worth having around.
0:35 I haven't even reached the PhD level, yet I already have those symptoms...
PHD is a test of working in isolation in a focused way and industry values team work and leadership skills as much as technical skills. Also those that are resilient and learn from failure have huge value.
Yes, this is one of the key points I make in my 'It's a Game...' book and my workshops. In academia, people tend to succeed with independence. But in industry, teamwork is critical to success.
@@TurningScienceVideo agree. I decided not to do post grad quals after my engineering degree and 40 years on, have several fellowships and having built a 25m t/o business, I would say the main skills for success after a strong technical education, are team work, leadership, communication, emotional IQ and most of all a really thick skin for the resilience of recovering from failure. None of which are taught at university.
@@terryo5672 - After 27 years in industry myself, I agree with all of those.
I hire engineers and I'm not usually too attracted to PhD types. I find them often quite odd and not team players.
I can't decide if I want to get a PhD or go to the industry. I feel like PhDs are for people who want to become teachers/professors, and I don't want to be involved in an academic environment. But I also want to develop/work with new technology, understand how it works the way it does, and own a business in my future. Any advice?
Historically the PhD degree has been to train people for academic careers, but this is now outdated. Today the vast majority of PhDs choose careers outside of academia. A PhD is a great degree for industry if you want to build your career around technical expertise, but it's important to understand that the industry environment is very different than academia, and your thinking and working habits need to be different. Industry is focused on solutions rather than creating knowledge. Quick decision making and teamwork are very important.
If you decide to pursue a PhD, make sure you research what you need to perform well. Hopefully your university will hav resources to help, but most do not. My YT channel here has a lot of great info, and so does the book that I link to in the description.
I wish you well!
I wonder what role neurodivergence plays in this. I don't have a PhD, just a BA, but one of my neurodivergent traits is I can't execute a plan or follow a workflow I don't understand a justification for. I will run a marathon for my employer if I understand why it's neccesary, but I wouldn't pick up a pencil off the floor for them if I didn't understand why it needed to be done.
That's a great question. Not sure if anyone has looked into this yet.
Sounds like a great PhD project. :)
I've literally been diagnosed as autistic by a psychologist. With that in mind: are you sure that's a neurodivergent trait and not just a changeable preference of yours?
I'd prefer having a justification too, but after working in industry for five years as someone who is autistic, I've gotten over it and can now do things without fully understanding or agreeing with them.
One of my professors told me there are only 3 jobs for a PhD: Own your own company, teach, or drive a taxi.
Lol. Sounds like you had a very interesting professor.
@@TurningScienceVideo He was offering me a chance at a PhD under him. A very honest "sales pitch".
Good to see that kind of honesty and understanding of the real world.
None of this rings true about PhDs, but I guess it depends on what kind of PhDs the man's talking about. Biology PhDs are rarely like this.
I have a B.S. in electrical engineering. Shit-ton of math in that degree. Graduated in the tech bubble burst, so no jobs in my major emphasis world-wide. Became a statistician. As a side gig, have been tutoring calculus and higher math to engineering majors for over 20 years. Approached one of the colleges where I tutor students and offered to teach a calc-1 class for them (they were desperate for teachers). The turned their nose up at me because I didn't have a PhD. Fk-em! I already taught a dozen of their students each semester.
That’s unfortunate. Sorry you had to deal with that. One of the things I like about the private sector is that it’s much more about what you can do than what your qualifications are.
I did two Masters degrees - so tricky at job interviews. "You're over-educated." "Why would someone with your education want to work at this job / work for this salary".
That's a tough thing to hear. I hope you found a creative way to deal with it.
"Why would someone with your education want to work here?"
I have a passion for your company and the way it does things. (cite research here. Maybe dabble into why you being over qualified isn't a bad thing: you won't educate, you won't hijack control, you'll respect those above you, etc.)
That's my best response, anyway.. Seems like they already made up their mind so there's no point trying to convince one person when the team behind them is already in agreement. ):
Easy solution if you keep getting that just don't show the education that they think you are "overqualified" for. When in doubt, withhold information.
Let me translate that to plain English for all'y'all - it's not me telling you this, it's what the video tells you:
1) Even though you most likely ARE the expert in your field, corporate culture expects you to pretend you're not and everybody's opinion is equally valid even if some of your "teammates" say stuff so stupid that it isn't even wrong, just meaningless. The only socially acceptable way to present important insight is doing it in a way that will make your boss/teammates think it was THEIR idea.
2) "Managing" works on the principle of shouting at the tide - nobody gives any shits whatsoever about something being literally impossible once they decided it needs to happen; so since pointing out an insurmountable problem you can see but have no solution for would be "unacceptable", just shut up instead, proceed full tilt, and make sure you know who else to blame when the whole trainwreck inevitably hits the brick wall the "management" indignantly refuses to even hear about.
3) Those ideas about making decisions based on solid information and sound reasoning are cute, but wrong. Shit will inevitably hit the fan equally whether you started with an exquisitely justified choice or a completely baseless "gut instinct", so don't even bother; just do SOMETHING very confidently (which is what everybody else does) and make sure the "management" will have reasons to prefer to blame someone else not you if the permanent state of FUBAR grows out of hand.
I worked as a machinist, and when the foreman, or anyone else came to talk to me, I would show them that I knew more than them, or would out-think them. I would like to say that it wasn't on purpose, but realize that our true faults are the ones that we cannot see. So then a coworker came up to me, scolding me, saying, "You know, you have to learn something -- 'it pay's to be thick'. You don't have to show everyone how smart you are. Let them be the smart one for a change". Ahh, valuable advice. From then on when someone came to talk to me about something, I would act like their information was valuable to me. If I had a counterpoint, I would hold it back, then wait a half hour or so to give them the impression that I thought about what they said. I would approach them, "I was thinking about what you said. What do you think of such and such?" People feel better about you when they think their input is valuable to you. They will also value your intelligence, but they will still feel that they have something to contribute.
Some will see the above as not worth their time. "To each their own", as they say.
This is a great story, and such valuable advice! Thank you for sharing!
This is behaviour typical of highly gifted people. But I don't think your approach is right. You really should let them finish, then agree if they're right and politely tell them why not otherwise. This is the most intellectually honest method and I think will leave you the happiest.
I worked for a small company that always wanted to have a PhD on the books. I don't remember any of them producing much of value.
Interesting. Do you know why they wanted to keep a PhD on staff?
They thought it would impress potential customers.@@TurningScienceVideo
When I've had PhDs apply to join my unit, I've found them to be equipped to do academic research, writing and presentations, but not work with the breadth and flexibility of a business. IMO a PhD is an qualification for a career in academia. I'd look for a Master's with practical runs on the board over a PhD anytime. Except for specialist areas. I worked in industrial chemistry. I would hire PhDs in synthetic chemistry, but not if their work didn't touch the chemistry that we used.
Thank you for sharing. I’ve heard similar comments from other industry managers.
David, to be fair, physicists play an immense role in our lives. The TV, radio, sending men to the moon and venturing far beyond the solar system would not have happened if not for physicists. I learnt all these from my idol Dr. Michio Kaku. However I'd like to point out that as an engineering company, we have no need for PhD holders or similar, for the same reason that you don't need a musician or a pilot in your company. However if one day you need to synthesize music, then and only then would you need to hire musicians to play various instruments so that the sounds and pitch can be sampled across the octaves and synthesized. In our company, we don't have nor do we need R&D. Not every industry do. Does a car repair shop need a PhD? However if one day I turn to manufacturing and need to innovate some high tech products, only then would I consider to hire a PhD. But for the time being, there is no requirement, though we do get applications from time to time. Normally we redirect them to academia or some R&D Institute. Best regards from Malaysia!!
pretty wrong on your part that you don't give opportunities to PhDs in you company.
@@HellRaiZOR13 Tell that to your car workshop owner and see what he says.
Car workshop owner says the PhD hire was a great decision, really ramped up profits and efficiency
Well getting a PhD is a research/R&D degree, you're building excellent technical and communication skills from training with an advisor in an apprenticeship dynamic, to eventually work in that area. A Master's is often treated as a source for further general training but also a salary booster. The degree types are pretty different and should be approached not with the same perspective.
Aside: At least in the US, a PhD in physics is highly respected in the private sector but also government and academia. Perhaps it's different in other countries! (saying this as someone with a MS in physics but also accepted into a PhD program)
Mate almost none of that you mentioned came from "physicist" or "researchers"; but most of them were hard core engineers who were later "co-opted" to be "physicists" / "researchers" because they were really good!
To be fair to PhDs in science (including mathematics), there are jobs for which you absolutely need a PhD (or equivalent expertise), but these jobs are extremely competitive. The US job market in this area is open to the whole world, not just US PhDs. The PhDs industrial managers are able to hire are only the failures in this job market, unless the industrial job is so complex that it does require a PhD. PhDs in non-science areas are a completely different story.
Thanks for your input. Indeed, there are many valuable jobs where the depth of training a PhD gives you are needed.
My brother's girlfriend literally has a mathematics phD, and she's working in a job that she could have landed with a mathematics bachelor's degree. She probably would have been better off financial-wise and career-wise if she'd started to work in the industry 7ish years sooner than she did.
Undergrad and even some masters degrees have defined learning outcomes that correspond to required industry skills. Phds are very vague, have no well defined learning outcomes, and generally have no real world application.
In addition, there is a hige amount of required knowledge and skills that are not taught by universities - in my field of engineering, thats interpretation and application of standards and legislation; people management; and lots of practical issues that are not addressed.
The academic world also has massive cultural and corruption issues, with massive egos, that are extremely toxic in a team environment.
A person who has gone straight through to Phd and has not worked a significant amount of time lacks these critical skills and knowledge. So, while they are worth consulting for their advice, they are not worth employing.
At the end of the day, I hire for attitude and critical thinking, not what you already know. So while your extremely narrow specialist knowledge is impressive, it's not useful. You need to accept that you're going back to basics once you leave university, which is very difficult for most people who have been exclusively involved in the academic world to do.
Thank you for your input. Attitude and critical thinking are indeed very important.
my program required like 80 hour work weeks, unsure when I'd have time to work full time. getting a job is always the goal so I'd just work instead of I could. soon starting 11th year of job search with 0 interviews