Grad students who do the work are usually lead authors on their papers.
But everyone knows that the last author is the one who funded the research and will credit for the idea....the research adviser
It could be worth a shot to do this. However, now you are now competing with a large pool of very qualified applicants who may have conducted research in the specific areas that the job is in. The odds of landing a position at a big Tech company may be slim with a PhD in a research area outside of the companies interest area.
Although the PhD, your research, and your experience could add significant value to the company, it may be difficult for prospective employers to see/appreciate this value. Like other posters have said, consider starting at the bottom (volunteer, low paying position, startup, self-employed)
Heck, one of the greatest physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, spent 9 years after he graduated trying to get the job that he actually wanted. Four of those years were after he had written four papers in 1905 that would revolutionize physics. During the interim period between graduating and landing a professorship, he took a tutoring job, worked as a patent clerk, and taught classes pro-bono at a local university.
As much as I hate to say that, hiding a part of your education from resume (like not mentioning your PhD) is a pretty common method of getting employment. Of course with lower salary. They run screaming just because they think that they would need to pay more, because you had PhD.
My perspective as potential employee
I'm a PhD candidate (Computer Engineering) at a top 5 engineering school, and I would say that through the process of looking for full-time employment, the opposite has been happening to me.
Employers see the PhD and their expectations rise exponentially; they expect you to walk on water and work miracles during the interview process even though the position you have applied for only requires a MS. Ironically, an MS graduate would have an easier time getting the same job that I applied to.
Employer perspective
I do understand things from the employers' perspective. Employers are concerned about retention and not just about at the company, but at the position you applied for at the company. They worry that if they pay you below fair market value for PhD salary, that you may jump ship when an opportunity comes along for you to get a PhD salary at some other position and/or some other company. Also, a PhD can signal to the employer that you are very ambitious and really like to learn. Above average ambition and appetite/ability to learn can be a risk factor for them because you may get bored of your current position and jump ship
I bought a car expecting it to go real fast. The reality is that regardless of whether or not it can go real fast, I rarely drive much above the speed limit anyway. I bought a Wii expecting to use it to exercise. The reality is I sit on the couch and play games with wrist flicks. People buy based on expectations, not how they'll actually use it.
People buy based on how products are marketed to them, not how they'll actually use it.
Regular universities don't sell you the knowledge.....
They sell you there resources, connections,network, and reputation. Very difficult to get your foot in the door for a job if all you have is knowledge and skill.
Why? It takes work for companies to actually spend the time and effort to evaluate each potential candidate for a job and figure out the candidate's actual knowledge and skill set.
The easiest thing for an employer to do to filter out resumes/applicants is to trust the brand name. It is the same thing that people do in a grocery store when they want to choose a product that is produced by many companies. It is a heuristic to conserve mental energy and a way of life.
Because legal attacks have worked really, really well against anything that happens on the Internet. Taking down MegaUpload and The Pirate Bay eliminated piracy altogether, never to resurface again. Gone, dead, finished. Burying ad blocking services under lawsuits will totally never make them even more resilient and hard to pin down. No way that'd happen.
You can add napster as another case example. Did the legal battle on music piracy really change anything? No. What ended up happening was a handful of individuals were fined ridiculous amounts of money that they would never would make in their life time.
You know what changed everything? Having a legitimate alternative to being forced to pay $20 for an album with maybe only 2 or 3 descent songs on it. Cue itunes.
That problem is solved if cars act as if all the information they can trust is their own, and only add "potential dangerous situations" reported by others to their own list, but never discarding them purely based on another machine's information.
This approach has the same issues that we have in cyber security (i.e. think x509 certificates and Certificate Authorities). How do you know who to trust? Can we always trust them? When should we trust them? If we use a reputation system to manage trust, how do we make it work such that it scales?
Brad Templeton proposed a solution many years ago... The school of fish test. http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/fish-test.html
This approach has the same issues that we have in cyber security (i.e. think x509 certificates and Certificate Authorities). How do you know who to trust? Can we always trust them? If we use a reputation system to manage trust, how do we make it work such that it scales?
One thing that history seems to make clear: the bigger a company is, the more likely it is that it will become unresponsive to market forces, and drop like Goliath with a head wound.
IBM said hello.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
