8 comments

[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 28.6 ms ] thread
I did not expect that ending.

From "I've spent the last six months working on a deep learning system to improve virtual screening for drug discovery"

To "I’m currently working on a new startup in the blockchain space with a couple co-founders."

I don't get why invest time in PhD if your work afterwards seems totally unrelated to your expertise. Is this how most of the PhD stories end, working at a completely-unrelated-to-your-expertise job for a good pay?

Having tried and failed to finish a PhD in the UK, I wish universities over here took the approach that I see in these snapshots of requiring PhD students to still take classes.
For me (and maybe others without PhDs), this is a really nice insight into the mysteries of doctoral study. I agree with others though that the ending was a bit jarring after the steady and admirable forward progress at the intersection of interesting fields.
Despite the common misconception that a PhD involves a narrow focus, this seems broad: coursework and rotations in various research groups to interdisciplinary work in computational biology, chemistry, and physics, starting with ML theory but then moving on to practical application with protein sims.

All the collab is impressive also- Google, Pfizer, Merck, and some startups.

I’m a fan of PhDs open-sourcing and providing open datasets also. DeepChem, MoleculeNet, etc. I heavily referenced open PhD work in one of my last jobs that I wouldn’t have been able to do myself. I’d bet many solutions provided by LLMs are based on published PhD work also.

It would’ve been nice to get a PhD. It takes more focus and discipline though than I think I’ll ever have.

"A PhD on average takes 5 to 6 years of time." -- this is only true in the US. In UK/Europe PhDs take 3-4 years.
A PhD is about learning how to think. It doesn't need to be directly related to what you do after, as long as you're better critical independent thinker.