Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google The Internet Businesses

Google's Ph.D. Advantage 572

Frisky070802 writes "The New York Times reports on Google's success and desire in hiring Ph.D.'s (free registration required). It says that Google's willingness to let every employee spend 20% of his or her time on an independent project is a compelling motivator and that they estimate that Google has as many Ph.D.'s working for it as Microsoft, which is 30 times larger. How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Ph.D. Advantage

Comments Filter:
  • by harryjrsd ( 778693 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:31AM (#9356136) Journal
    BS = (obvious)
    PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper
    • by Hooya ( 518216 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:35AM (#9356172) Homepage
      PHD = Permanent Head Damage
    • by elhaf ( 755704 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:46AM (#9356259) Homepage
      I used to think the same thing until I stared working on one. Investigate what it really means to get one, and what it takes, and you might think different(ly).
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:51AM (#9356309)
        The question is: is it really relevant for most jobs? I doubt it.
        • by Prendeghast ( 658024 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @01:09PM (#9357607) Homepage

          If you believe that the sole reason for getting a degree is to gain knowledge, then no. If you believe that a university education is about learning to learn, then yes.

          A BS (BSc, BA in the UK) demonstrates (in theory) an ability to follow a prescribed course of study at the pace set by the lecturers but with the self-discipline required to go to the library rather than goof off. You should make a good worker bee who doesn't need to be continuously supervised.

          A MS (MSc, MPhys, MChem ...) demonstrates an ability to function independantly within broad parameters to achieve a general objective set by your supervisor. You should be capable of working at a remote site without seeing your direct boss for six months (and you should be capable of picking up the phone when you need help - rather than just sitting and stewing until someone demands to know what you have been doing for months).

          A PhD demonstrates that you can determine your own goals, demand information and contributions from a wide range of individuals (even people who are senior to you in an organisation), set your own schedule, work towards a project goal that is years in the future and say with a tough project longer than some people stay at one company in Si Valley (at least during the "new job every six months" boom :) Furthermore, you have demonstrated that you don't need someone to have done it before - you have proved you can create something original!

          Of course, these are all grotesque generalisations, and I know several PhDs I wouldn't trust to drink a glass of water without close supervision and paramedics standing by. Equally, there are other paths that demonstrate the same skill set. Furthermore, it can be hard to maintain one's non-conformist, independant spirit when one is producing a PhD thesis that must, by definition, conform to your examiner's views.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:03AM (#9356401)
        I've worked at two universities, and I'm still happy with my undergrad.

        The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world. In the event you actually research or do something worthwhile your expertise is basically a very tiny narrow slice of the pie in your discipline in which you possess astonishing depth, and you are likely no more knowledgeable about the rest of your field than a masters candidate.

        I've worked with a number of Phd candidates in computer science, chemical engineering, history, and life sciences, and then EXPECT (yes, I said expect) one of two things to happen when they graduate:

        1. A company offers them quite a bit of money to do the research that *they* love
        2. *poof* Tenure track faculty position

        in reality now, its usually

        1. Teach as an adjunct
        2. Try to convince private industry that you're okay taking that 60k a year position as a chemical engineer.. I'm not overqualified, HONEST!

        I think the most perverse observation I've made is that it seems like MBA's and doctoral business students have no trouble getting work around here. How depressing.
        • by It'sYerMam ( 762418 ) <thefishfaceNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:41AM (#9356733) Homepage
          A PhD is not necessarily so you learn about the subject. My dad did a PhD in Chemistry, and wrote a thesis on "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate" (Making cement, to you and me.)
          He now works as a computer programmer.
          This may seem a little weird, but if you think about it, a PhD [hopefully] shows that you're willing to apply yourself to something and do hard work. People with PhDs should be the most intelligent of the bunch, as they managed to get the thing.

          So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less. It shows that he has skills beyond merely chemistry.

          • by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:25PM (#9357165) Homepage
            So Dad's PhD is a prestige degree - from Oxford, no less.

            Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.
            • by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:49PM (#9357400) Homepage
              Liar. Oxford doesn't give out PhDs.

              Since the moderators obviously didn't understand the joke: A doctorate from Oxford is a D.Phil (short for "Doctor of Philosophy"), in contrast to most other universities, which use the term PhD (Philosophiae Doctor, which is exactly the same thing in Latin).
          • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:39PM (#9357307)
            I have a MS in EE. I was offered a scholarship to do a PhD. However during my MS thesis work I worked closely with PhD candidates and suffered perhaps a fraction of what they did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy what I do, but I eat corporate shit for $$$ alone, so I declined. My observations are as follows:

            1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)

            2) PhD slave labor wages are less than those of any given malaysian factory child if you count the total number of hours worked and divide that into your scholarship/stipend/grant/etc.

            3) If you are not a US citizen/permanent resident and are on a scholarship to get a PhD in the US, you are fucked. Bring the vasoline and bend over.

            4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.

            5) If your PhD is not in a subject actively investigated by the corporate world be willing to accept an academic position after getting your degree, or find another subject. It's heartbreaking to see people get their degree and realize they are either stuck in academia or worse, take a job in industry doing work outside their expertise making the same they would have as a masters (i.e. degree worthless).

            6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go. I can't recommend it enough, if I personally thought there was money in a PhD this is what I'd do myself. If your professor administrates whatever finances your degree, and you are above broccoli intelligence, he WILL try to hold you as long as he can (5-7 years in most schools). If your company is paying the bill they are quite good at getting you in and out ASAP. Avg stay of corporate funded PhD students in my experience was 3 years. Do this!

            7) Stupid people can get PhD's far easier than smart people. Simply put, professors want stupid people out of their hair, if they can't wash em out, they graduate em. Just like elementary school.

            • by Beetle B. ( 516615 ) <beetle_b&email,com> on Monday June 07, 2004 @01:17PM (#9357695)
              1) PhD is a lot of work for yourself, and 1000x more work doing your professors busy work (papers etc.)

              Depends on the field. I'm currently working on one in EE. Whatever work I do for my advisor is fair game for my thesis. Almost everyone I know here has a similar agreement with their advisors. There are a few whose thesis work is not related to their assistantship, and they're the exceptions one has to look hard to find.

              The arrangement is beautiful - I get paid to do my PhD.

              In fields that are closer to science, one usually becomes a teaching assistant, and thus life is nastier - their paid work is independent of their thesis work.

              Besides, I don't see the complaint. The point of getting an assistantship is to support your PhD financially. If you're willing to pay for it yourself, then you're free to spend all the time on your thesis.

              2) PhD slave labor wages are less than those of any given malaysian factory child if you count the total number of hours worked and divide that into your scholarship/stipend/grant/etc.

              I've known factory workers in third world countries (not Malaysia, though), and frankly, your statement is offensive. With my lowly stipend, I get far more benefits and opportunities, not to mention food, than they do.

              And the math is deceptive, anyway. At least in my university, if an advisor wishes to fund a graduate student, not only does he have to pay his wages, but his tuition fee. Given that I'm an out-of-state student, that amounts to about $35,000 to $40,000 a year. Considering I officially work only 20 hours a week - he's spending quite a bit of money.

              3) If you are not a US citizen/permanent resident and are on a scholarship to get a PhD in the US, you are fucked. Bring the vasoline and bend over.

              The majority of engineering students are non-permanent residents. While the situation is worse for them, only a few get treated as you mention.

              4) If your goal is simply to get a degree to get more money, stop at your masters.

              Agreed.

              5) If your PhD is not in a subject actively investigated by the corporate world be willing to accept an academic position after getting your degree, or find another subject. It's heartbreaking to see people get their degree and realize they are either stuck in academia or worse, take a job in industry doing work outside their expertise making the same they would have as a masters (i.e. degree worthless).

              Well, I guess PhD's need to think more about their motives. I'm in it for academics, and I'll be glad to be one of those "stuck".

              (However, if you're in engineering, the point is still mildly valid as most of your research funds will come from industry).

              6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go.

              No thanks. It is a good idea if you know you want to work for them later on, but I don't want to be bound to a contract when I have alternative methods. I'm also not in a hurry to finish early. Grad student life is a nice one if you're paid enough not to starve. I certainly don't work as hard as industry folks, and have plenty of free time.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:56AM (#9356888)
          A PhD isn't about learning facts. It's about learning HOW to do research. It doesn't matter that one's topic is the The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate". The important thing is that when told to find out something new about "The Hydration of Tri-Calcium Silicate", you can do so. The same person can also be told to find out something new about search engine algorithms, and hopefully do a good job of it.
        • by nodwick ( 716348 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:00PM (#9356915)
          The Phd: an exercise in self-aggrandizing behavior with little application to the real world.
          That's such a sweeping generalization that it's awfully easy to take a few potshots at it. Since this is Slashdot, I assume that computers and the internet play a big role in your life. Well, the packet switching technology and ARPAnet that made it all possible owes a lot to a bunch of PhDs at UCLA led by Leonard Kleinrock [ucla.edu]. Like being able to chat with your friends on your cell phone? Ever heard of Andy Viterbi [ieee.org], who went off to found Qualcomm by hiring many of the top researchers (yes, lots of them were PhDs) and developing the CDMA technology now used in North America? And of course, there's Claude Shannon [bell-labs.com], the so-called "father of modern communications". Just a few of the more "practical" PhD guys you may have heard of.
          In the event you actually research or do something worthwhile your expertise is basically a very tiny narrow slice of the pie in your discipline in which you possess astonishing depth, and you are likely no more knowledgeable about the rest of your field than a masters candidate.
          Again, I'd have to disagree here. A bachelors is great for giving you a good grounding in the background material you'll need in your field. A masters degree is primarily about teaching you how to do independent thinking, which is going to be important once you start moving beyond the basics and into new innovation. At this point, you'll have started developing the skill set, but won't have the experience. A PhD is where you really get to know your field well (much better than a masters student, by the time you're done), and understand what's been done and what's left to do. It's also about learning to develop relationships with other top people in the field, both in industry and academia, and learning about more than just the technical aspects of your area.
          I've worked with a number of Phd candidates in computer science, chemical engineering, history, and life sciences, and then EXPECT (yes, I said expect) one of two things to happen when they graduate:

          1. A company offers them quite a bit of money to do the research that *they* love
          2. *poof* Tenure track faculty position

          What's wrong with aiming high? I'd hate to think anyone would start any endeavor expecting not to do well.
          in reality now, its usually

          1. Teach as an adjunct
          2. Try to convince private industry that you're okay taking that 60k a year position as a chemical engineer.. I'm not overqualified, HONEST!

          You're generalizing again. Just like in every other line of work, whether you get a "good" job or not when you enter the real world depends largely on the individual. I've certainly known people who ended up in exactly the situations you describe. On the other hand, there are also many others who are doing very well. Our lab's also got a graduate this year who's starting tenure-track at USC, and another who's tenure-track at Stanford. One of my officemates just turned down a 100K EE job (a 2-body problem), and another had several offers in the 90-100k range as well.

          If you're good at what you do, there'll be good jobs for you no matter what path in life you choose. If you're a lazy slackabout, then you're screwed no matter what. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer about whether a PhD is a good choice -- it's about whether it's a good choice for YOU. This is the real reason why people tell you to do something you love -- chances are, you'll be enthusiastic about it and do it well, and success will follow naturally.

      • by jabberjaw ( 683624 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:08AM (#9356454)
        Start here [phdcomics.com].
      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:38PM (#9357299)
        I do computer support for an engineering department on campus. Means I deal with supporting PhDs (and masters students and undergrads). For many of the PhDs, this isn't an unfair generalization. They are so focused on their one little area of expertise, that they seem to loose all basic knowledge. This is an engineering department here, so people should have a little technical skill. None the less I've solved printer problems that stumped a room full of masters and PhD students by turning the printer on (really, twice). They ought to have the basic electrical knowledge and problem solving skills to figure this out. The DID at one time to pass the undergrad courses.

        Now that's not to say there aren't some really smart PhDs out there. We have them here too and they are fun to work with. But there are plenty that aren't.

        Working here has really shown me that having a PhD doesn't mean your smart, just means that you could play the game long enough and well enough.
    • by BasharTeg ( 71923 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @02:38PM (#9358451) Homepage
      Here come the ignorant assholes who will knock on getting a Ph.D. because they can't get one. Sure, I'll accept that a Ph.D. isn't terribly practical for many jobs. Our department is hiring programmers right now, and I would probably veto a Ph.D. applying for our junior software engineer position. But I am sick of hearing everyone with lesser education cover for their insecurity and lack of accomplishment by knocking higher educational goals.

      I work as a "Senior Software Engineer", doing serious C++ programming including use of Win32 API, Winsock, OpenSSL, MySQL, etc in a multi-threaded multi-server multi-system programming environment which powers telecommunication systems which require very robust programs capable of maintaining the best uptimes possible. There are many developers who do work that makes my job look simple, but considering I only have an AA in CompSci, I think I am doing fairly well. I work on the same level as individuals who have BSCS in CompSci and some who have 20 years experience in development. However, I don't have a lack of appreication for their superior education and experience. I am working towards my own BSCS, Master's, and maybe even Ph.D. someday. Not to try to bring in a major paycheck (I already do very well), and not to try to be better than those who only have a BSCS, but because Computer Science is my field. It is my study, my hobby, and I have dedicated my life to it. Since I consider myself a (budding) Computer Scientist, it is simply my responsibility and my desire to continue to advance in the field and learn everything I can about all of the many aspects of Computer Science.

      People with vocational certificates (MCSE, CCNA, etc), are often fine employees to do the work they've been trained to do. I find Bachelor's degrees in Computer Science from trade schools like Coleman College to be offensive mockeries of a real BSCS, which I have worked for years to gain, while they took a few classes in outdated languages like COBOL and FoxPro. (We have one such person working in our customer service department.) But people who actually attend a university, any real university, and learn the science of computers, are a league above those who would criticize what they cannot attain.

      Just because you couldn't make it in college doesn't mean college has no value. Just because you didn't stick it out long enough to learn something, doesn't mean colleges don't teach CompSci principles which no self-taught person will understand and appreciate. The only reasons to not advance your education further are your own reasons, so to attempt to apply them to everyone and make blanket statements about higher educational levels than your own seems more like a desperate attempt to cover your insecurity that there might be people out there who know more than you do, even if your non-tech manager and your family members think you're the God of Computers.
  • by SoTuA ( 683507 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:32AM (#9356139)
    ...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive.

    Besides, I'm guessing that a lot of those PHD's independent projects have something to do or might eventually be integrated into google (PHDs researching information retrieval, web page ranking algorithms, you name it).

    • I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...
    • by quadra23 ( 786171 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:49AM (#9356287) Journal
      ...goes a long way towards keeping your company productive. I agree totally. Having an army of PHD's doesn't guarantee anything unless they enjoy what they are doing and able to use all their skills effectively. It also helps if they able to branch off into things that they enjoy as hobbies for a time as well. The more flexibility an employee has in doing their job (within reason) the more successful they will be in completing the job. Just watch all the other companies following Google after this becomes a big success.
  • Umm... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:32AM (#9356143)
    How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

    Quite a few. Any kind of scientific research, for example.

  • by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:34AM (#9356160)
    Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem. If Google tried to use the naive clustering model their expenses would have massivly higher and their scalability and fault tolerance would have been much lower. It seems that Google realizes that the best way to hire and retain the people that will continue to come up with the smarter aproaches is to offer them things that not many other employers are, time to do what intellectually stimulates them for instance.
    • >Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.

      Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?

      Its fine that Google is doing this now, but they are still small and closely held. The key is if they become a mature and larger company and still retain these factors.
      • by SandSpider ( 60727 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:58AM (#9356358) Homepage Journal
        >Google is proof that using a smarter aproach is often the best way to solve a problem.

        Vs. the "dumber was is often the best way to solve bleeding-edge technical problems" the rest of the world has been doing?


        Actually, vs. "Throwing more money and people at the problem" that the rest of the world has been doing.

        =Brian
      • Don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)

        by plopez ( 54068 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:21AM (#9356564) Journal
        90% or more of start ups and product launches fail, mostly in the first year. That track record is not a
        a good argument for using a 'traditional' business model. There is no doubt Google has beaten the odds, and they have done some things differently. I.e. the radical notion of becoming profitable *before* the IPO.

        Google is a good case study. Everything they do should be reviewed for lessons in success.
  • 700 PHDs? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:35AM (#9356166) Homepage Journal
    On this page [google.com], they claim to have only 50 Pigeon Harvesting Dogs (PHDs). Now they're up to 700? Wow....
  • Slightly O/T, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:35AM (#9356170)
    Good for Google, but let's hope they don't get carried away.

    I remember when a local telecom company tried to up-size their education level. They insisted that *everyone* in the building have a university degree. No exceptions. This meant that janitors, cafeteria staff, etc. had to have university degrees to mop floors or serve burgers. As I recall, they changed this policy after about 6 months.
  • Waitaminute (Score:4, Funny)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:35AM (#9356173)
    Google is focusing on the wrong aspect, they have got their foot in the door allready, they need to take a page from other big corporations.

    Once you get Ub3r Big and popular you need more JD's

  • by StacyWebb ( 780561 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:36AM (#9356182) Homepage
    Although having an advanced degree is great, some of the best tech sector innovators come without advanced degrees. -- Also most employees spend more than 20% of their work time on personal goals anyway.
  • by Noose For A Neck ( 610324 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:38AM (#9356194)
    I guess it's a good thing to see someone hiring a lot of PhDs these days. Most people with PhDs in technical fields (especially the sciences) these days have a lot of trouble finding any kind of employment, because once someone sees that "PhD" on your resume and you're not applying for, say, thermodynamic research at GE or machine translation research at Google, they just toss it in a wastebasket.

    This is what is known as "being over-qualified", and it's a killer. You wouldn't think that, after all that hard work in getting through school and finally getting a doctorate in a hard science or engineering, you'd have trouble finding work, but you do. Ever see a PhD working a helpdesk? Not a tech PhD, that's for sure.

    Also, the amount of free time provided to PhDs at Google to do their own thing seems like it would be pretty standard - after all, they've hired the best and the brightest, how else do they expect to retain them? Isn't this standard at other companies, too?

    • by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:53AM (#9356326)
      This is what is known as "being over-qualified", and it's a killer. You wouldn't think that, after all that hard work in getting through school and finally getting a doctorate in a hard science or engineering, you'd have trouble finding work, but you do. Ever see a PhD working a helpdesk? Not a tech PhD, that's for sure.

      Having hired helpdesk technicians for years, I can say that I've never turned down a Ph.D but have turned down more than a few types with postgraduate degrees. If you've got a Masters in any IS field and are applying for a $30k helpdesk position what are the chances of you sticking with me when that good job does come along? If you decide to move on I wouldn't blame you at all - but new employees mean my company incurs siginificant training costs, and it's generally a few months before the techs are operating at a level that actually benefits the company. Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.

      I know I'm part of the problem, but for helpdesk (and even Tier 2 deskside support positions) having a postgraduate degree actually hurts you - because there's no way I can keep these guys. Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile ;-)

      • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:19AM (#9356544) Homepage
        If you've got a Masters in any IS field and are applying for a $30k helpdesk position what are the chances of you sticking with me when that good job does come along?

        I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time? The customers are often frustrating, the pace can be exhausting, the work rarely has long-term personal satisfaction associated with it... If you get some PhD, hire him / her and feel very lucky to have a (presumably) competent employee for the few months that they are with you.

        Hiring is an investment and I need to be able to see a return on that investment.

        Get use to the "would you like fries with that" crowd, then. Face it: Help Desk is no ones ideal job. Why would anyone stick around for an extended period of time?

        • by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:28AM (#9356625)
          I'm not really trying to crack a joke here, but honestly: What are the chances ANY competent person is going to stay with a Help Desk job for any significant period of time? The customers are often frustrating, the pace can be exhausting, the work rarely has long-term personal satisfaction associated with it... If you get some PhD, hire him / her and feel very lucky to have a (presumably) competent employee for the few months that they are with you.

          I hear you, but I can promote helpdesk technicians to fill Tier 2 slots - IME the guy with the postgradual degree will more than likely leave the company. If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.

          • If I can keep the MS in the company I'd have no problem starting him at the helpdesk.

            From earlier, however:
            Easier for me to just put their resume in the 'do not hire' pile

            Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.

            I don't know how many masters you actually have applying, but many may stay with the company. This number can be increased by promoting them to the second tier faster. As a way out, you could provide a one month trial period; state that as they are masters, you expect more
            • by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:23PM (#9357156)
              Oops, I guess they just don't even get a chance. Sad, really.

              That it is.

              I do hear you loud and clear, honest - and agree with quite a bit of what you say. I can't ask applicants to sign an employment contract - if I could get them to stay for a year or so in *some* position in the company I'd hire the guy with the Masters in a second.

              [whine]

              I don't have the authority to promote from the helpdesk to a design team because ADP support and application development are two different divisions in my company - the best I can do is recommend. In almost seven years I've been sucessful in placing a desktop tech in the development section only once. I don't have enough personal horsepower in this company to pull something like that off ;-)

              [/whine]

              I agree that it'd provide real-world experience to the guy with the Masters - and it would build his skill set considerably. But again, my primary responsibility is to the company, not the applicant.

              Let me ask you a question, DrkShadow - if you had an MS and I started you at the helpdesk at $30k would you sign an agreement to stay with the company for a year?

        • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:47PM (#9357389)
          Sure you might have nearly 100% turnover, but on what time scale? Someone who is a PhD is probably gone first chance they get, maybe even a month or two if they can find a better job that quick. Somone entering in to the tech industry you can probably get a few years out of. Hiring someone for a couple of months is just not worth it. The search procedure is time consuming (and therefore expensive) and it DOES take time to train someone to work efficently, even if they are highly (or over) qualified. If they skip after a couple months, after you finally have them trained, it's a looser for you.

          Also lots of education does not equal highly competent, espically in customer service type jobs (which helpdesk is). Most of the professors here would be TOTALLY unsuited for the help desk and doa much worse job than our students that ear $8/hour. Even the professors best suited would only be on par with a deceant student. Yes they could be trained, but that takes time and if they skip as soon as that's done, it's a loss. Training takes staff time (and therefore money) in additon to meaning less efficecy from the person being trained.
    • by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:02AM (#9356391) Homepage
      I was applying for temp work and the first agency said I was over qualified and probably wouldn't enjoy the work they could give me. They said they'd look if they really wanted me to but then never got back to me with any jobs.

      After that I went to some more temp agencies, but I dumbed down my resume. Instead of "software engineer" I was a "computer programmer". I put a 2.2 GPA (my school doesn't officially give out GPAs anyways...). Most of the skills in my skills list were removed and I replace them with my hobbies. All references to money, like how much money I saved a company, were removed.

      Suddenly I had 2 offers for jobs at one agency and 1 offer at another agency. They were the same types of jobs that the first agency was giving out. It's surprising the number of companies willing to pay $14/hour for dumb ex-computer people.

    • You're probably right about employers considering PhD's as overqualified for certain jobs, and you'd think that the PhD's would figure that out and simply not post that they have their PhD...? I understand that certain employers would fire someone for lying about their educational background on their resume, but would they really fire someone because they claimed less education than they really earned?
    • by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:04AM (#9356425)
      I call posts like these, the "slashdot slant". Since very few Computer Science Ph.Ds read or even bother with slashdot, and since it's mostly filled with early-20s sysadmins - the skewed bias is sometimes laughable. They rationalize that being a Ph.D makes you overqualified and makes it hard to find a job, but they have no real evidence to back it up.

      Here is a clue: I know plenty of Ph.Ds, ALL of whom are gainfully employed and highly sought after. I also know alot of 20-something sysadmins with no degrees. They're the ones out of work.
    • Someone told this story on Slashdot regarding over-qualification months (years?) ago...

      Essentially, someone had a Ph.D but was looking for some sort of relatively menial but steady work so he could continue to eat.

      In order to avoid being thrown out for being over-qualified and therefore requiring more pay / risk of leaving for better work, he changed his resume to the still truthful:

      Education
      Diploma: Smalltown High School, 1975

      Hobbies
      B.S in Mechanical Engineering, Foo State University, 1979
      M.S. in Physics, University of Bar, 1981
      Ph.D. in Physics, University of Bar, 1984

      He was hired, and told that his soon-to-be employer "approved of hobbies."

      - Neil Wehneman

    • by keraneuology ( 760918 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:30AM (#9356636) Journal
      PhDs are supposedly experts: somebody who knows more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything there is to know about nothing.
  • Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:38AM (#9356202) Journal
    How many other companies put "Ph.D. a plus" in their want ads?"

    How about: Every company which does any kind of research?

    Seriously. In areas like biochem, getting a job (or at least, a good one) without a PhD is near-impossible.
  • If you have a Ph. D and you're working at Google, you've got a great job. Ph. D jobs are worth the work for the degree, believe me. However, don't think you'll just be able to glide into getting that degree like you can with a BS... because professors will not just let you out! A Ph.D is designed to figure out which people actually can be creative and think of new stuff, and to keep out the "Ivan make basket" (you need communications skills) or "i learned it in 24 hours, and I think I'm a god now" (how many patents do you have? I thought so) folks.
  • by maxbang ( 598632 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:48AM (#9356277) Journal

    I always thought Microsoft had more phd than Google. Wait, is it spelled fud or phd? See? Their phd has already phdded my fragile mind! Ah, phuk 'em.

  • by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:50AM (#9356299) Homepage
    If you can finish original research and a dissertation, then most likely you can finish any project handed to you if you have acheived a PhD. Most likely! All of the "high-end degrees are unnecessary" whiners never had to teach, research, write, suffer an advisor, AND find time to sleep all for 12000USD a year and a tuition waver. My advisor makes every boss I have ever had look like Caspar Fucking Milquetoast. Science PhDs tend to be particularly motivated, but don't discount us social science types, just because we want our summers off and tenure someday. ;-)
  • PhD = Management (Score:3, Interesting)

    by superid ( 46543 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:51AM (#9356307) Homepage
    I work at a research lab of roughly 2000 people or so. The majority of employees are engineers (all kinds), math, phyics, chemistry, etc, majors. We have a lot of opportunities for education including on-site masters programs in Computer Science, Electrical Engineer, and Ocean Acoustics.

    There are also long term offsite programs where you can go get a Ph.D. and this is also popular. However, of all the people that I know here with Ph.D's the majority seem to migrate into project management, essentially doing nothing but running a small team, writing proposals and giving presentations. Eventually they move into fulltime management where they even give up driving the technical direction of the programs they may at one time have created.

  • by manmanic ( 662850 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:53AM (#9356320)
    It's not only a matter of internal PhDs at the company which help along their R&D efforts. Thousands of developers outside of Google are using the Google APIs [google.com] to create new Google applications. Some notable hits are BananaSlug [bananaslug.com] and GoogleAlert [googlealert.com] (the latter of which is indeed the product of a PhD, according to this article [poynter.org]). The fact that Google is able to tempt so many to build on their platform is another sign of their popularity with the academic nerdy elite.
  • Job choices (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @10:58AM (#9356361) Journal
    Someone with a Doctorate degree looks at a University, where labs and resources are for research, but everything will be owned by the school.

    Any major company that does research, where ownership is the companies.

    Google, where it appears you can profit from your own side jobs. The regular job is doing cool research too!

    Good choices, for different goals.
  • I think one of the reasons behind Google's success isn't just the sheer number of PhDs they have. Its the PhD's having the power, rather than the PHBs (pointy-haired bosses). It's one thing to be working with intelligent, science-oriented people. It's better to be working for intelligent, science-oriented people.

    Anyone can hire PhDs. Even the government. But there may be a corporate culture that doesn't take risks, that cares too much about short-term profit, that is affected by political considerations. In Google, the nerds seem to run the show. They have the business people, and great branding. But the technical side of things is the priority.

  • by boris_qd ( 116055 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:05AM (#9356436)
    What is innovation? - you can be coding monkey without a PHD - sure. If you like it then don't get a PHD. But where has the real innovation come from?

    The transistor? Nuclear weapons? Drugs that save your ass? What other technology came out of Bell Labs?

    The real innovation in our society is done for the most part by people with PHD's. Amazon.com, eBay - these are small innovations compared to the above. The groundwork was laid by the PHD's creating the underlying technology.

    Boris
  • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:09AM (#9356458) Homepage
    A lot. Very few make use of it though...
  • by jonasmit ( 560153 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:12AM (#9356491)
    The article never even states how many Google employees have PH.D's anyway - only that it is probably more than 100 (out of 1900).

    That is slightly over 5%. Sure, in many industries that would be very high but at a tech company - I am not so sure - and for a mature research organization that might be low (the drug industry or checmical companies).

    However, the real advantage is that the *encourage* employees to perform independent research and that they hire people with that mindset. The PhD is a predictor of that mentality but the culture is what makes it work.
  • by MarkWatson ( 189759 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:24AM (#9356592) Homepage
    To be honest, when Google flew me to California for an interview, I was luke warm about the idea of working for Google because I love my life style living in the mountains of Northern Arizona.

    However, after spending a day being interviewed by 6 extremely bright and creative people, I very much wanted the job (I did not get it, oh well). It is true that bright people want to work with other bright people. Anyway, it may sound strange, but I view the interview process as a very positive experience (also, after 30 years of working, it was the only job that I tried for that I did not get, so I was able to set most ego stuff aside). In addition to the interviews themselves, I got to have lunch with Peter Norvig and before I left the Google campus a nice person let me ride a Segway :-)

    It really is true that a few very good people are way better than many above average people.

    One of the most fun times in my career was when I had a boss who has a PhD from MIT and hired many other PhDs and MSs from MIT - some of the best colleagues that I ever had.

    Personally, I think that I am going to invest in Google stock, but I am likely to wait for a few months after the IPO (or make a low bid for the IPO).

    -Mark
    • by MarkWatson ( 189759 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:38PM (#9357296) Homepage
      One more thing: in just one very long day of interviews, I had my attitude adjusted re: software development:

      I am a hacker (at heart), and I always look to rapidly coding something that works and is solid.

      At Google, it seemed to me that their main focus is on algorithmic development. In the few months since I was at the Google campus, I have found myself "slowing down" and spending much more time thinking through issues of scalability and efficiency (and not just use a "good enough" algorithm, or pull my copy of Cormen/Lieserson/Rivest Algorithms book from my book shelf and not do much original thinking).

      Anyway, I thought that it was cool that an investment of one day actually changed some of my own attitudes about software development (and I am an older guy, coding since the 1960s :-).

      -Mark
  • by Dr. Smeegee ( 41653 ) * on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:30AM (#9356632) Homepage Journal
    This American Magazine article was mentioned in the NYT piece. I can't find it anywhere! Does anyone have a copy or an excerpt?
  • phds (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:30AM (#9356633) Journal
    A phd doesn't imply anything. If it comes with good work, and good recs and from a top univ, then you might be considered smart and productive; if you haven't done anything with your 5/6 years, and your recs are bad, then you are an overpaid donkey. and every permutation in between.
    just as technology follows a path from small company/innovative to commoditization, so does ed requirements in an industry; its not that anyone needs a phd, but many cutting edge technologies come out of universitys, and those people have phds.
    Google is fortunate - they have a monopoly posistion (at least de facto for now) and that allows them to hire top talent; as soon as the cash flow drys up, the phds go; look at the formerly world class att res labs.

    There are a small number of companys that consistently do good science, such as ibm and corning and 3m; i suspect they hire phds because innovation is a character trait of people who are not interested in money, and those people often wind up getting phds, because it is a fun way to get to play with toys and do cool stuff.
  • by LorenzoV ( 106795 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @11:32AM (#9356642)
    Alas, my experience with Ph.Ds in the workforce has been less than satisfactory. I can recall one gorilla with a Ph.D at a former employer who could not seem to get anything done. Poor slob; his first manager, the poster child for the definition for PHB herself, could not seem to find a way to dismiss him. Instead, she transferred him, with no warnings or cautions to the receiving organization. He ended up working on a project I was on. It was dismal! ... It took close to a year for the company to "get it" and release him.

    Yet, my last boss at my last job before I retired had a Ph.D. A most brilliant fellow. Able, capable, competent, easy to work with. I suppose that in retrospect, I stayed even longer than I might otherwise have because he, and his boss too, were so easy to work with.
  • I've known many (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HerbanLegend ( 758842 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:02PM (#9356935) Homepage
    I worked for several years as an intern at a giant Pharmaceutical company, in research and development, where EVERY employee had a PhD (except me!). To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with their range of knowledge or their overall competence.

    I think another poster hit the nail on the head when he said that PhDs are overqualified in a teeny, tiny area of study that only they actually care about. However, the "Doctor" title brings out the Ego in many of them, disabling their critical thinking skills (i.e. - "This project is a total waste of time and will never come to anything"). In essence, they're the reason many failed projects go horribly overbudget before they finally die.

    • Re:I've known many (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#9360451) Journal
      "PhD" obviously isn't a qualifier for "knows what they're talking about". It doesn't even mean "pretty good". However:

      a) It means that someone is more likely to be willing to do something for the knowledge rather than the direct money. This is, IMHO, a good correlation to knowing what they're talking about.

      b) It means that they probably have at least some reasonable ability to deal with things abstractly.

      c) It means that they have a certain degree of stick-to-itiveness.

      d) If you're lucky enough to get someone who did their thesis on the area that you're working on, they probably know the area very well.

      Honestly, perhaps because I've been lucky enough to work mostly with PhDs in *academia*, I've found that a PhD doesn't seem to make people arrogant. I personally suspect that if anything, it's a bit humbling -- you realize how much there is to learn.
  • Ph.d. thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by algedeon ( 607817 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:20PM (#9357119)
    I am about to finish my Phd in CS and during these long years, I came to realise that part of the Phd process is (maybe) to figure out what is this all about... be able to answer questions of the form "Does it help me to find a job?", "Should it be useful?" etc.

    My take on this is as follows... It's not about finding a job... it's not about adding another bullet in a CV to impress someone... it doesn't have to be useful or practical.. it doesn't have to cure cancer (although some people do this for a phd)...

    I think a phd is a long thought exercise. You prove to yourself (and to a bunch of other people) that in a finite amount of time, you can understand an area, the issues involved, and you can come up with something innovate, something new... a new problem or an new solution to an old problem...

    how to get a job after all that, is an orthogonal issue... maybe deserving another phd... :-)
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:44PM (#9357363)
    By the time one becomes a PhD, they should know what is a significant, doable problem in their field. Masters students or beginning PhD students oftern choose the wrong-size problem. It may be something triviable and already doen by someone else. Or something that may take decades and gigabucks. A right-size problem can be done in about two years. Sometimes an advisor lets the student learn the hard way by letting the student work on a wrong-size problem. The coursework and skillset difference between a masters and PhD is often not that great.
  • by melted ( 227442 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:47PM (#9357390) Homepage
    who owns the fruits of their research. Most employment contracts in high-tech companies are pretty anal about that. No matter when and how you develop the code, even if your own spare time and using solely your own hardware and software, the company 0wnz0rz the code. And there are also provisions about conflict of interest...

    It would be interesting to know how google manages all this mess.
  • by multimed ( 189254 ) <mrmultimediaNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday June 07, 2004 @12:57PM (#9357486)
    Call me cynical but this seems like another one of the things that differentiates Google & contributes to their success--yet I seriously question whether most of it won't go away once they're a publicly owned & traded company. At any given time, a large portion of stockholders are short-term, looking for a quick profits. I mean what percentage of Google shareholders will look at this and think, "20% of their salary expense is going to things not directly contributing to the bottom line, we gotta get rid of that waste." Just like they'll say, "If Google just puts a few ads on their front page, revenues will double!" Now I'm not saying capitalism in the US isn't the best real world solution. But what makes it work--herd mentality--also makes it less effective in certain things. It just seems like a number of great companies, in particular technology oriented ones, lose their competitive advantage, if not their soul when they effectively turn over the reigns to a herd of short-term thinking owners.

    There are two reasons to IPO--to generate capital to expand or to cash out. Certainly I can't image Google needs the former, and while I don't begrudge anyone the right to cash out on their creation, I hope they realize that by definition, they're giving up ownership. Maybe they're strong enough leaders, and will start off with enough shares to be ok--I certainly hope so becaue the list of technology visionaries who were ousted from their own company is already too long.

    I guess I am cynical today.

  • Ph.D. Passion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Enkerli ( 554033 ) <enkerli@gmail.com> on Monday June 07, 2004 @01:33PM (#9357819) Homepage
    Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic.
    As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes /. comments into a broad picture. Not just "a Ph.D. is worthless/you can't do anything without a Ph.D." but a whole array of different points.
    Not much to add, probably, but my $0.02 anyway, focusing on my own perspective which happens to be exactly as worthy (neither more nor less) as anyone else's.

    I'm a Ph.D. candidate in a non-tech field. You can't realistically be hired for academic jobs in my field without a Ph.D. and it's rather hard to be hired even with a Post-Doc. Of course, a lot of people I know work with "only" a B.S./B.A. or M.S./M.A. but none of them has the type of job I'm aspiring to, which happens to be academic.
    There's a lingering feeling that college degrees are like honorific titles that "institutions of higher learning" thrust upon bright people. Of course, this feeling seems stronger with people who associate education with employment than with people who are driven by their passion for knowledge. For a variety of reasons, I happen to belong to the latter category: I'm an academic because I'm passionate about select academic subjects. Though I'm really looking forward to other phases in my academic career, I thoroughly enjoy the life I chose. Thing is, I'm not the only one like that. Sure, some grads constantly complain about not being free to do what they please but academia's incredibly satisfying for those who do it for the "right reasons." Yes, I'm helplessly naive in thinking I'll get a tenure-track position relatively soon, but since high school I've been prepared (by advisors, peers, etc.) to fight my way through.
    In other words, contrary to popular belief, you don't begin your career after you get your degree. Your degree is an acknowledgement of a certain of things you have done at an educational institution and your career began with your choices.

    Interestingly, I've been looking for menial/mindless work before I take up a teaching fellowship. It seems that my résumé showed me to be overqualified to flip burgers or force people to buy security systems but I eventually found work in a nearby café. It might surprise some, but I'm quite happy about this. The reason is, it's not necessarily about the money. It's about doing what you like and liking what you do.
    Most of the time, doing so goes with inspiration, perspiration, fun, friendship, and most likely some beer.
  • by flacco ( 324089 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @01:40PM (#9357893)
    ...i'm looking for a job that says "college drop-out a plus" that doesn't involve cleaning solvents.
  • by tyrantnine ( 768028 ) on Monday June 07, 2004 @05:08PM (#9359977)
    I worked as one of two junior programmers at a startup (now dead), which at its height had approximately 10 or 11 people on the software side of things), and 5-6 of those were PhDs (and 6 or so hardware guys, I think half also had PhDs). Most all of these guys had very impressive resumes/CVs, and were being paid enormous salaries... though some were light on working in industry

    Anyway, we were a small startup and I had heavy interaction with basically all members of both the software/hardware teams working on basically parallel processing. To make a long story short, having a PhD didn't lead to a correlation between being good at implementation OR design, or really anything. Out of 5-6, only one was truly good at actually programming/implementing, but I figured their strength was in their ability to help out designing some of the horrendously big and complicated stuff, and the algorithms underlying. However after over 2 years of work at this company, many code reviews, design meetings, etc, it was pretty clear having a PhD in EE/Comp Sci didn't particularly mean you had a handle on algorithms or design, either. I still vividly remember a presentation over a design prototype one of the PhDs had developed on his own (approximately 1-2 months of solo work) that was absolutely ripped to shreds at the most fundamental levels during a code review meeting. It was actually embarrasing to be in the room.

    Anyway, my experience there pretty much killed whatever mystique or respect I previously had behind having a PhD. To me it seems to mean you 1) Did a research project, which may or may not have been relevant to anything at one point 2) Had 5+ years to do it 3) May or may not have learned a lot about the subject. I don't mean to belittle it, but I think in general theres a *lot* more fluff surrounding a PhD than meat.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.

Working...