A lot of careers have very effective feedback loops for telling you that you're progressing, while being almost completely silent on whether the destination is one you actually want
A career probably shouldn't choose the destination for you. The danger is that it gives such clear feedback about progress that it's easy to let it do exactly that by default
The concept of a "career" as a defined external thing has basically evaporated. There is at best a set of opportunities which you can grab, and a set of dependency credentials and acquaintances which you can use to unlock the opportunities. If the right opportunities do not arise then things can go downhill even if you've "done everything right".
I have a horrid memory of interviewing "a kid" for an entry level engineering job during on-campus recruitment. The "kid" had just finished his PhD in chemistry following a master's and bachelor's in the same field.
He was now closer to 30 to than to 20, was interviewing for the same job that a BS-grad can go after, and wasn't competitive compared to them.
I asked him why he had spent so much time in chemistry just to pivot and he just literally didn't know. It was hard to look at his graduate education as anything other than a wasted decade that actually has set him back career wise.
One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one? We think of PhD designating that someone has committed to the field and pushed a little edge of the frontier forward through sheer motivation and brillians and it was just hard to imagine this being true for this guy.
Graduate school is not about passion and pushing frontiers. It is about training new researchers. It is it not a place that I would recommend to anyone who has real passion or brilliance in any field.
You think that researchers lack passion and cannot push frontiers?? Research and passion are not dichotomous, they are (or at least should be) synonymous.
(I am genuinely sorry for whatever bad experience that's led to this bitterness, though.)
I think that graduate schools do not filter on passion and ability. They filter on people that can play the game, where such things can be a liability.
Edit: “research” in academia now revolves around grant writing and publishing. That is an anti-filter for individuals that do not want to play that game and spend time doing actual research, like myself.
Academia is not a waste of time just because it doesn't translate into "productivity" and wealth. Some people enjoy the pursuit of knowledge, and find great meaning in it.
Increasingly the arts are being defunded based on a similar argument, and humanity as a whole is worse off because of it.
While I agree with you, I also have to acknowledge the absurdity of some schools having kids define their own crazy undergrad majors, while plunging them into large amounts of debt. They should at least have to sign a waiver that says, "I acknowledge that this degree will likely not be a good investment".
Yeeees, but .. now is very much a time when you're going to have to justify that investment to the funding system and the broader public. I generally agree with the "pursuit of knowledge" framing, but there's a big advocacy gap.
At the age of 17 or 18 how do you actually know? My kids are going through this now. He's like I don't even know if I want to be an engineer, people just tell me I'd be good at it.
I don't think they are necessarily supposed to know. They are supposed to make intentional, well-considered choices: to weigh the tradeoffs, understand the consequences, and choose the option that works best for them.
Unfortunately, educational systems tend to be biased toward a utilitarian view of education rather than one centered on judgment, self-understanding, and the ability to make meaningful choices.
Does he have a college scholarship? If so, he should take it, and take some engineering classes. It's a way to find out if he likes it, at least to some degree. But he should also take some other classes - science and humanities, to find out what else he likes.
If he doesn't have a scholarship, same thing, but at a community college.
But the people telling him he'd be good at it see something. "I'd be good at it" is not the same as "I'd like it", but we often enjoy things we're good at more than things we're bad at. (Also, it's often easier to get jobs in things we're good at.)
Many would dream to be top scholars of their field, to the point it feels like a personal mission. The reality kicks in for the first time when you can’t progress through the system anymore, be it 25 or 30.
A PhD demonstrates the ability to think deeply about something. It thus isn't useless for any good job. However there are often better trainings for that job.
I think it mostly proves how much you're willing to submit yourself to hard, complex, frustrating and unrewarding work. You don't get the PhD just for the thinking.
A friend of mine did a PhD in computer science solely and specifically so he could prove to himself that he could do a suspended, multi-year solo project and complete it. He then got a job he totally would've gotten 4 years earlier as well, with just the MSc. When asked (eg by recruiters/interviewers), he always said "because I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it" and personally I find that a very satisfying answer.
All I'm saying is, not everyone doing a PhD and then leaving academia was accidentally climbing up the wrong ladder. Some did it on purpose, just to admire the view.
I would have felt that he was at least technically savvy; and, beyond that, he might have the spark of one of the best qualities of a future colleague i.e. interesting-ness - one can't underestimate that.
At least chemistry is objectively useful knowledge. Even if he would rather work in software engineering, there are a lot of places where domain expertise like that is very valuable. Plenty of software in the sciences.
Oh hey that’s me! Not literally me. Probably I was a little better off. But I was recently in a similar position, and feel like my PhD was a lost decade in some ways.
The answer, as I’m sure many already know, is idealism and a certain kind of naïvité. It’s not an absolute naïvité, but it is some kind of belief in the value of doing something that isn’t “mere” careerism. You think it’s noble to contribute to science. And you do contribute, a teeny eensy weensy bit. And then you’re 30 and one day you unblind yourself. You look at the job market, and how much money various jobs actually pay. More importantly, you realize quite suddenly that money can actually make your life better, and that, whatever damage it might have wrought on your soul to pursue it, it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit. And the fresh grads who went straight into tech and finance making $300k (hold on, you can make $300k? Wait a second, that’s not a senior executive salary? That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?)… just naturally understood.
And then you try to explain this on a message board or something. Half the people call you a class traitor. The other half call you a mediocre sucker.
> it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit.
ding ding ding. This is the real kicker. This is why it’s a waste of time to pursue. Want a PhD? A home? A family? Pick one or two. With the amount of time and effort it takes to achieve those these days, you won’t get to have them all. So you have to pick one. At 17/18 it’s easy to see the coming decade as longer than it really is, and opportunity cost will catch up to you quick.
> That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?
Some people. That's very field-specific and won't last forever. Basically FAANG programmers and finance bros.
> hold on, you can make $300k? Wait a second, that’s not a senior executive salary? That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?
Is this world as normal and common as you describe? To me it seems more like a byproduct of a brief era in tech, today only accessible to people already in the system or creme of the crop students going to the right institutions and who have the skills, connections or luck to string together events that lead to them working there. Today, I know loads of people who did the right thing, but my current generation of graduates definitely isn't aiming for $300k starting salary, not even the best people I know can dream of that. Maybe it would be better to use a more grounded example, since many average workers in many careers will still take home considerably more than most PhDs - instead of using what feels like a closing window from a gold rush.
> But half the people call you a class traitor.
That doesn't make sense. You don't even change your class, you go from working for a wage to working for a wage. I only see the other reaction you mention, the "you're done, it's over, you wasted your life".
No, of course $300k is a very high salary even on a US basis, never mind a global one. I’m not confused about that. I went my whole life thinking $100k was like “you’ve made it.” But it turns out that if you have what it takes to get into a top technical degree program, you’re among people who have the opportunity to make that kind of money, and most of them know it. This is a very surprising fact. It did not fully occur to me that this was what so many people were struggling for and fighting over in their Stanford applications. My parents told me it was all about “natural curiosity” or something. I believed them. It offended me a whole lot, at first, when I was disabused of that fairy tale.
And, yes, it certainly is a closing window for a gold rush.
> You don't even change your class, you go from working for a wage to working for a wage.
True, but I’m literally employed as a capital-C Capitalist now. You’re technically right, but…
Yeah, at the end of the day I didn't say you were confused or wrong in your assessment, I just wanted to say that there's a more poignant version of that argument that can be made by using more 'normal' examples of low-6 figure careers that are ever-present and can be reached by more people.
> I’m literally employed as a capital-C Capitalist
What do you mean, is that your job title? Or do you own capital? I thought the class separation was only in whether you were recurrently paid to work for someone else or if derived your wealth from owning something.
As another poster mentioned, I also wanted to add that this attitude is why there is so much stress and pressure on kids these days to figure out everything in their lives by the time they're 22. It's pretty amazing to me that anyone can look at a PhD in Chemistry and say that was a wasted decade. Why was he not competitive? What skills were you looking for? In what way are you already biasing candidates based on your preconceived notions about what makes someone helpful, useful, intelligent, etc.
I know broad generalizations aren't too useful, maybe this specific person had real significant shortcomings compared to the other 22 year olds you interviewed, but I encourage you to consider why we are doing "all of this" anyway (is it money? productivity? prestige? big houses?) and why someone might prioritize going so far in a field to actually CONTRIBUTE something new to the field (as one does through a PhD). Maybe consider why someone might not slot perfectly into your idea of the perfect economic pawn, though nevertheless have chosen an absolutely fine way to spend ones life (or ten years of it).
I agree with you. So many variables at play and every 7-10 year cycle stacks and compounds knowledge and skills if one does it right. A stint as a PhD in Chemistry is extremely valuable substrate to build upon, especially if the person was interested in it and understands it deeply.
I think if that time was spent productively, it's not a loss at all. With AI the coming iterations will favor different kinds of combinations of perspectives and experiences towards identifying esoteric solutions. Or otherwise stated, people who are deep learners will find that they are able to deeply learn faster and at a larger breadth now too and this will produce new kinds of solutions to problems that in some cases haven't even been defined yet.
I think this will be a critical thing in the near timeline that Elon and others predicted, when more things can be automated. There will still be a lot of increasing demand for thought workers and researchers and engineers including those who started out in other thought-based disciplines. I believe tokenization of financial instruments or for development of new ones means an additional productive substrate layer to the economy and that is why big/smart money are flowing into it. Those + AI will be a big driver in growing the power of that new layer and driving wages for those people/teams pushing the envelope further there.
We have a lot of control over this kind of thing these days...meaning we can be productive in creating such incentives and possibilities because the yield is far greater. It produces and will produce way more knowledge and products/services in the future. I think people are severely underestimating the potential of the American system to produce 0 to 1 innovation in literally everything at huge scale with the right incentives/environment set up for people. Productivity here is not the issue, the problem is legacy notions on what is valuable and how to fund it. Legacy meaning no longer functionally or logically sound due to the advanced possibilities afforded by decades of compounded gains since WW2 or the Industrial Revolution or the Printing Press.
Your needlessly condescending description of the event coupled with the power imbalance of the situation suggest to me that you got the answers you expected to get simply because that’s what you were looking for
This is so interesting as a response. I feel like any description of a problem state can be described as "condescending" or "unempathetic" or what have you, which prevents our ability to talk about and solve problems.
The bottom line of the story is this man had invested a decade in a field in what I could at best describe autopilot - it didn't seem like he had and lost passion or was simply making a finance-driven decision.
At the end of the day this is pretty much what happened and to dress it up would hurt our ability to connect to the problem and think about it.
Happy to engage. referring to him multiple times as a "kid" in quotes from a "horrid memory" is not useful context. It sets the tone in a judgmental not open to interpretation way.
An alternative view of someone choosing to change career paths later in life is that you gain access to a different background than the other candidates in your pool. that may not be valuable in your case, but often it is. At the very least he's recognized a sunk cost and cut ties, which can be hard to do.
I appreciate what you are saying, I really do -- and I think there are scenarios where your second paragraph is completely applicable and true (I hired plenty other PhDs for these kinds of jobs so it's not an inherent bias) -- but in this case the hour I had spent interviewing him led much closer to the picture I painted in my first comment even if I phrased it unkindly.
But I do think there's communication value at describing things sharply. "John has been affected by alcoholism" and "John has fucked up his life by drinking - his wife left and took the kids" can refer to the same event, and while the first phrasing is more pleasant and respectful - it is the second phrasing that drives home the severity of what's actually happening.
> Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one?
The value of a PhD is what it brings to you. It will cost vast amounts of unpaid toil and tears, and it will not give you a well-paid job afterwards. But if you love the idea of discovering something genuinely new about this world, having the sheer freedom to dive into a research question without fear or restraint can be exhilarating.
And sure, you can also get a PhD by doing the minimum and letting your supervisor carry you through. But why would you throw years away on something you didn't care about, with nothing but a subsistence living allowance as a reward? You're only cheating yourself at that point.
In my situation I started my PhD in a time before AI, and now that AI solves the problems I grappling with whether or not I should continue in this profession.
I think it depends on how much you enjoy/value your career. I spent a lot of my twenties working in random startups, doing work that I question the ultimate value of.
Looking back on it, I think I'd probably had preferred to spend the time doing a PhD in philosophy or art history, if only for the lifestyle and knowledge. It turned out okay in the end, but I do think there is a real lack of "intellectual rigor" in most market-based jobs compared to academia.
I think some people get on this train and they don't really know where to get off or what to do whenever they do get off. So inertia keeps them riding along, doing something that is comfortable (even if they don't enjoy it) to postpone figuring out what to do next. Eventually the train gets to the end of the line and they have to get off and figure something out.
I think this is part of the tragedy of our parents generation pushing college at all costs. It is very hard to know what you want to do for the rest of your life as an 18 yo. Even worse to take on all the debt in the world for something you don't end up loving or without a good path to repayment. In previous generations, some of these people would have done a stint in the service or taken a gap year but now there is too much pressure to know "now".
> I think this is part of the tragedy of our parents generation pushing college at all costs.
I can’t blame em, they seem to have lucked out and been around just at the right time.
I currently live in a smaller blown out rust belt shithole city. It used to be a fairly sized industrial center even through the decline of the region. I meet a lot of middle aged and older people here who will opine on about their father the chemist who invented some everyday, but notable item for [chemical conglomerate] in the 80s/90s. Some people here have established a fair bit a wealth for their family through their patents even.
Even here on HN I keep nothing commenters talking about their father the physicist or their mother the biologist. Nowadays those people seem to be struggling to figure out where if anywhere they can afford to start a family (or just giving up on the prospects)
> It was hard to look at his graduate education as anything other than a wasted decade that actually has set him back career wise.
> One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Some people pursue knowledge because they are interested in it and not because it maximizes their income potential. I find that admirable. Even more, I find the opposite pretty sad.
This reads like Claude in its abstraction ... I'd rather hear the story about what degree you actually got, what the dissertation was, and some concrete experiences of being disillusioned along the way, etc.
Complexity becomes a way to postpone the verdict. etc. Meh
Agreed. I think there is a much better story hiding under the surface but I wouldn't read a follow up because it's like Claude is holding them hostage for content.
> Much of my research began with a large claim about society (e.g., "consumer culture constructs identities") and I then searched texts for language that could illustrate that claim. Because almost any passage could be interpreted that way through a sufficiently flexible framework (and enough imagination), it was difficult to say what evidence would prove the claim wrong.
Doesn’t sound like you’re doing science, to me.
In fact, this is the crux of the whole reproducibility crisis in social sciences, is it not?
This also stood out to me, such that this article really has no bearing on the validity of advanced degrees in the sciences. Case in point, if you got a "Doctor of Sciences" degree and "had no idea what a p-value was or why the hell anyone would take the logarithm of a number" that is clearly not a scientific degree.
> any passage could be interpreted that way through a sufficiently flexible framework (and enough imagination), it was difficult to say what evidence would prove the claim wrong
Statistics has been great for social sciences is the foundation of any rigor in the field. There are many 'valid' statements about society that can be drawn using statistics.
At an individual level, those statistics are fairly meaningless. You can bucket yourself into any number of statistical groupings but being a representative datapoint or an outlier doesn't really explain nor does it solve anything.
I have a PhD, because at the time I wanted a career in academia, and I enjoyed research. I did a short post-doc, because I still wanted a career in academia, and enjoyed research. I quit academia because I no longer wanted a career in academia, and I didn't enjoy the research (or my boss).
I don't regret my wasted years. Sure, I would have likely earned more money, but it was fun, and made me who I am.
I do find it a bit of a shame that my current and previous employers couldn't give two hoots that I have a PhD etc, but oh well.
EDIT: I have a PhD and post-doc experience in Cell Biology, and now work as a software engineer at a fairly large hardware company.
I trained and qualified as an Industrial Electrician (not on the same scale as a PhD academically but not a trivial amount of work to do either) and decided I loved the theory and hated the practical.
I'm a software engineer and none of that training has ever been directly applicable (though some of the engineering and planning aspects generalised have).
I have found it a bit frustrating that I am more junior on the company scale than most people my age. In some respects, I have lots more experience with people my pay grade, but in others, not so much.
to be honest, there's no interest in studying capitalism unless you study its mechanisms critically. and i fear yours was foucault-slop, pseudo-radical drivel that doesn't even aspire to change anything. no change = no direction = no meaning.
there's some philosophical interest in the question, altho i cannot say exactly where. but if you start from a statement like that and your thesis is mostly a display of what you read, it's barely social science. it is social theory at best, and not particularly good social theory either.
the interesting questions - especially in social science - are the hows and not the whys. the mechanisms. that would have been more empirical and more interesting.
push it further and you'll find you're doing marketing, which is applied sociology anyway: who buys what, and how, and maybe why, at the end.
but twenty years of foucault-slop isn't bad at all. at least you chilled.
Canadians and Indians in SF only hire their own, and are always collaborating in their own groups to get Americans fired.
Jews - not true - Jews hire everyone of all backgrounds. But they also have in-group thinking. So do Mormons, Christians, and any other culturally strong group identity especially when confronted with “outsiders” (even if they are the transplant!)
But yeah Canadians are annoying as hell. Their flag is on everything - their clothing, their internet bio, they tell you about Canada 24/7. I would say the Canadians are more obnoxious than the Indians in this regard.
Wish they would shut the hell up or go home if Canada is so great, stop buying our houses and taking all the white collar work here. They think they’re superior but really I find them to be low IQ, obvious, oblivious, and in tech almost none of them are very technical or artistically talented. Their fashion trends are like 10-15 years out of date and their group think has destroyed their ability to think for themselves.
Bunch of pedo stash, mason jar, keeping up with each other types - insufferable birds
> But you may know the move: when a project or career no longer survives a basic question, you respond by making it more elaborate.
When I'm defending a political position and it's going so badly that I have to add epicycles, I know I'm on the wrong track. But if I go back to first principles and develop a simpler internally consistent argument, it is usually insanely extremist to modern sensibilities.
Turns out that human morality and consistency are usually strangers.
beware: you can spend your life avoiding the thing you know you must do. You can even become rich or famous or get any other external validation you deem important in the process of not doing the thing you know you must do.
The thing you know you must do probably is an internal thing, but can also be an external thing. It's hard to navigate this, but no one cares if it's hard.
I came to a similar conclusion during my masters, with less data and a less well-articulated rationale. I realized that I already had a talent for intellectual bullshittery, and grad school was encouraging it rather than giving me core skills. Looking around at fellow students, the same was true of them, and the competitive environment reinforced this tendency in all of us.
I learned to be more self-critical of my thinking than others were, and to recognize when others weren’t holding me to a higher standard. And I left.
This is the element of Russia vs. reality of the rest of the world. And not even just Russia - the entire post-Soviet space is like that. Totalitarian regimes create their own bubbles, ruining countless lives and stymieing overall progress and well-being of our species.
> I had no idea what a p-value was or why the hell anyone would take the logarithm of a number.
And that my friends is why people need to pay attention in school. Some time around 9th grade or so, the logarithm is taught and it's a mystery how anybody can go through modern life without knowing what it is.
A few years back I sat across a financial advisor who wanted to sell me a certain product and I asked him how long it would take for those proclaimed 3.8% yearly to double my money. He took a calculator, entered 1.038 x and then counted how often he had to press = for 2 to appear. I shook my head and walked out the door.
Of course not everything is about money. But exponentials play a role everywhere. Not having a basic understanding is failure of the school system ... or society that it is embedded in.
OP has two problems, one of which is being a Russian national stuck in a state which is collapsing over decades, and the other is being stuck in a postmodernist mire:
"Identity, values, ideology, post-modernity; critical discourse analysis, rhetoric, persuasion, functional grammar, genre analysis, sociolinguistics, metapragmatics. At least in my hands, each new framework became another way to support a conclusion I had largely reached in advance"
They know the solution: Popperian falsification. "But it has one property much of my previous work lacked: reality gets a vote".
It ain't much, but falsifiable work is honest work. I hope they get to the (physical and metaphorical) place they need to live.
> But it has one property much of my previous work lacked: reality gets a vote. Code fails. The parsers disagree. And the data can refuse the story I want to tell. In this project and elsewhere, I am now trying to judge work by what survives outside its own scoreboard: a transferable skill, a finished artifact, a reader, a useful result, an opportunity -- perhaps even a little more freedom.
Sounds like there’s an interesting story in here - but just post the prompt you gave to Claude to write this instead of the model output. Imperfect writing is much preferred to AI’s generic decompressed version of your experience.
In a sense, this is very anti-Marxism. The amount of work put into anything isn't necessarily linked to their value. I can spend my whole life digging holes and achieve nothing.
But the story makes me sad. While I don't feel too bad about humanity reducing its investment on anything related to Foucault, the author appears to be a capable and motivated individual. It would have been great if they could have found something that they like which is also useful for everybody. Win-win.
68 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 22.3 ms ] threadHe was now closer to 30 to than to 20, was interviewing for the same job that a BS-grad can go after, and wasn't competitive compared to them.
I asked him why he had spent so much time in chemistry just to pivot and he just literally didn't know. It was hard to look at his graduate education as anything other than a wasted decade that actually has set him back career wise.
One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one? We think of PhD designating that someone has committed to the field and pushed a little edge of the frontier forward through sheer motivation and brillians and it was just hard to imagine this being true for this guy.
Because the system arounds you encourages it.
(I am genuinely sorry for whatever bad experience that's led to this bitterness, though.)
Edit: “research” in academia now revolves around grant writing and publishing. That is an anti-filter for individuals that do not want to play that game and spend time doing actual research, like myself.
Increasingly the arts are being defunded based on a similar argument, and humanity as a whole is worse off because of it.
Unfortunately, educational systems tend to be biased toward a utilitarian view of education rather than one centered on judgment, self-understanding, and the ability to make meaningful choices.
If he doesn't have a scholarship, same thing, but at a community college.
But the people telling him he'd be good at it see something. "I'd be good at it" is not the same as "I'd like it", but we often enjoy things we're good at more than things we're bad at. (Also, it's often easier to get jobs in things we're good at.)
All I'm saying is, not everyone doing a PhD and then leaving academia was accidentally climbing up the wrong ladder. Some did it on purpose, just to admire the view.
I would have felt that he was at least technically savvy; and, beyond that, he might have the spark of one of the best qualities of a future colleague i.e. interesting-ness - one can't underestimate that.
On the other hand
> he just literally didn't know
That would have been disappointing to hear.
The answer, as I’m sure many already know, is idealism and a certain kind of naïvité. It’s not an absolute naïvité, but it is some kind of belief in the value of doing something that isn’t “mere” careerism. You think it’s noble to contribute to science. And you do contribute, a teeny eensy weensy bit. And then you’re 30 and one day you unblind yourself. You look at the job market, and how much money various jobs actually pay. More importantly, you realize quite suddenly that money can actually make your life better, and that, whatever damage it might have wrought on your soul to pursue it, it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit. And the fresh grads who went straight into tech and finance making $300k (hold on, you can make $300k? Wait a second, that’s not a senior executive salary? That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?)… just naturally understood.
And then you try to explain this on a message board or something. Half the people call you a class traitor. The other half call you a mediocre sucker.
ding ding ding. This is the real kicker. This is why it’s a waste of time to pursue. Want a PhD? A home? A family? Pick one or two. With the amount of time and effort it takes to achieve those these days, you won’t get to have them all. So you have to pick one. At 17/18 it’s easy to see the coming decade as longer than it really is, and opportunity cost will catch up to you quick.
Some people. That's very field-specific and won't last forever. Basically FAANG programmers and finance bros.
Is this world as normal and common as you describe? To me it seems more like a byproduct of a brief era in tech, today only accessible to people already in the system or creme of the crop students going to the right institutions and who have the skills, connections or luck to string together events that lead to them working there. Today, I know loads of people who did the right thing, but my current generation of graduates definitely isn't aiming for $300k starting salary, not even the best people I know can dream of that. Maybe it would be better to use a more grounded example, since many average workers in many careers will still take home considerably more than most PhDs - instead of using what feels like a closing window from a gold rush.
> But half the people call you a class traitor.
That doesn't make sense. You don't even change your class, you go from working for a wage to working for a wage. I only see the other reaction you mention, the "you're done, it's over, you wasted your life".
And, yes, it certainly is a closing window for a gold rush.
> You don't even change your class, you go from working for a wage to working for a wage.
True, but I’m literally employed as a capital-C Capitalist now. You’re technically right, but…
> I’m literally employed as a capital-C Capitalist
What do you mean, is that your job title? Or do you own capital? I thought the class separation was only in whether you were recurrently paid to work for someone else or if derived your wealth from owning something.
I think if that time was spent productively, it's not a loss at all. With AI the coming iterations will favor different kinds of combinations of perspectives and experiences towards identifying esoteric solutions. Or otherwise stated, people who are deep learners will find that they are able to deeply learn faster and at a larger breadth now too and this will produce new kinds of solutions to problems that in some cases haven't even been defined yet.
I think this will be a critical thing in the near timeline that Elon and others predicted, when more things can be automated. There will still be a lot of increasing demand for thought workers and researchers and engineers including those who started out in other thought-based disciplines. I believe tokenization of financial instruments or for development of new ones means an additional productive substrate layer to the economy and that is why big/smart money are flowing into it. Those + AI will be a big driver in growing the power of that new layer and driving wages for those people/teams pushing the envelope further there.
We have a lot of control over this kind of thing these days...meaning we can be productive in creating such incentives and possibilities because the yield is far greater. It produces and will produce way more knowledge and products/services in the future. I think people are severely underestimating the potential of the American system to produce 0 to 1 innovation in literally everything at huge scale with the right incentives/environment set up for people. Productivity here is not the issue, the problem is legacy notions on what is valuable and how to fund it. Legacy meaning no longer functionally or logically sound due to the advanced possibilities afforded by decades of compounded gains since WW2 or the Industrial Revolution or the Printing Press.
The bottom line of the story is this man had invested a decade in a field in what I could at best describe autopilot - it didn't seem like he had and lost passion or was simply making a finance-driven decision.
At the end of the day this is pretty much what happened and to dress it up would hurt our ability to connect to the problem and think about it.
An alternative view of someone choosing to change career paths later in life is that you gain access to a different background than the other candidates in your pool. that may not be valuable in your case, but often it is. At the very least he's recognized a sunk cost and cut ties, which can be hard to do.
But I do think there's communication value at describing things sharply. "John has been affected by alcoholism" and "John has fucked up his life by drinking - his wife left and took the kids" can refer to the same event, and while the first phrasing is more pleasant and respectful - it is the second phrasing that drives home the severity of what's actually happening.
The value of a PhD is what it brings to you. It will cost vast amounts of unpaid toil and tears, and it will not give you a well-paid job afterwards. But if you love the idea of discovering something genuinely new about this world, having the sheer freedom to dive into a research question without fear or restraint can be exhilarating.
And sure, you can also get a PhD by doing the minimum and letting your supervisor carry you through. But why would you throw years away on something you didn't care about, with nothing but a subsistence living allowance as a reward? You're only cheating yourself at that point.
Looking back on it, I think I'd probably had preferred to spend the time doing a PhD in philosophy or art history, if only for the lifestyle and knowledge. It turned out okay in the end, but I do think there is a real lack of "intellectual rigor" in most market-based jobs compared to academia.
I think this is part of the tragedy of our parents generation pushing college at all costs. It is very hard to know what you want to do for the rest of your life as an 18 yo. Even worse to take on all the debt in the world for something you don't end up loving or without a good path to repayment. In previous generations, some of these people would have done a stint in the service or taken a gap year but now there is too much pressure to know "now".
I can’t blame em, they seem to have lucked out and been around just at the right time.
I currently live in a smaller blown out rust belt shithole city. It used to be a fairly sized industrial center even through the decline of the region. I meet a lot of middle aged and older people here who will opine on about their father the chemist who invented some everyday, but notable item for [chemical conglomerate] in the 80s/90s. Some people here have established a fair bit a wealth for their family through their patents even.
Even here on HN I keep nothing commenters talking about their father the physicist or their mother the biologist. Nowadays those people seem to be struggling to figure out where if anywhere they can afford to start a family (or just giving up on the prospects)
> One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Some people pursue knowledge because they are interested in it and not because it maximizes their income potential. I find that admirable. Even more, I find the opposite pretty sad.
Complexity becomes a way to postpone the verdict. etc. Meh
Doesn’t sound like you’re doing science, to me.
In fact, this is the crux of the whole reproducibility crisis in social sciences, is it not?
The field of social research in a nutshell
At an individual level, those statistics are fairly meaningless. You can bucket yourself into any number of statistical groupings but being a representative datapoint or an outlier doesn't really explain nor does it solve anything.
I don't regret my wasted years. Sure, I would have likely earned more money, but it was fun, and made me who I am.
I do find it a bit of a shame that my current and previous employers couldn't give two hoots that I have a PhD etc, but oh well.
EDIT: I have a PhD and post-doc experience in Cell Biology, and now work as a software engineer at a fairly large hardware company.
I'm a software engineer and none of that training has ever been directly applicable (though some of the engineering and planning aspects generalised have).
to be honest, there's no interest in studying capitalism unless you study its mechanisms critically. and i fear yours was foucault-slop, pseudo-radical drivel that doesn't even aspire to change anything. no change = no direction = no meaning.
there's some philosophical interest in the question, altho i cannot say exactly where. but if you start from a statement like that and your thesis is mostly a display of what you read, it's barely social science. it is social theory at best, and not particularly good social theory either.
the interesting questions - especially in social science - are the hows and not the whys. the mechanisms. that would have been more empirical and more interesting.
push it further and you'll find you're doing marketing, which is applied sociology anyway: who buys what, and how, and maybe why, at the end.
but twenty years of foucault-slop isn't bad at all. at least you chilled.
Not one of those? Try being Mexican if you are good at manual labor - endless work available, no credentials or experience needed.
Jews - not true - Jews hire everyone of all backgrounds. But they also have in-group thinking. So do Mormons, Christians, and any other culturally strong group identity especially when confronted with “outsiders” (even if they are the transplant!)
But yeah Canadians are annoying as hell. Their flag is on everything - their clothing, their internet bio, they tell you about Canada 24/7. I would say the Canadians are more obnoxious than the Indians in this regard.
Wish they would shut the hell up or go home if Canada is so great, stop buying our houses and taking all the white collar work here. They think they’re superior but really I find them to be low IQ, obvious, oblivious, and in tech almost none of them are very technical or artistically talented. Their fashion trends are like 10-15 years out of date and their group think has destroyed their ability to think for themselves.
Bunch of pedo stash, mason jar, keeping up with each other types - insufferable birds
When I'm defending a political position and it's going so badly that I have to add epicycles, I know I'm on the wrong track. But if I go back to first principles and develop a simpler internally consistent argument, it is usually insanely extremist to modern sensibilities.
Turns out that human morality and consistency are usually strangers.
The thing you know you must do probably is an internal thing, but can also be an external thing. It's hard to navigate this, but no one cares if it's hard.
I learned to be more self-critical of my thinking than others were, and to recognize when others weren’t holding me to a higher standard. And I left.
And that my friends is why people need to pay attention in school. Some time around 9th grade or so, the logarithm is taught and it's a mystery how anybody can go through modern life without knowing what it is.
A few years back I sat across a financial advisor who wanted to sell me a certain product and I asked him how long it would take for those proclaimed 3.8% yearly to double my money. He took a calculator, entered 1.038 x and then counted how often he had to press = for 2 to appear. I shook my head and walked out the door.
Of course not everything is about money. But exponentials play a role everywhere. Not having a basic understanding is failure of the school system ... or society that it is embedded in.
"Identity, values, ideology, post-modernity; critical discourse analysis, rhetoric, persuasion, functional grammar, genre analysis, sociolinguistics, metapragmatics. At least in my hands, each new framework became another way to support a conclusion I had largely reached in advance"
They know the solution: Popperian falsification. "But it has one property much of my previous work lacked: reality gets a vote".
It ain't much, but falsifiable work is honest work. I hope they get to the (physical and metaphorical) place they need to live.
Sounds like there’s an interesting story in here - but just post the prompt you gave to Claude to write this instead of the model output. Imperfect writing is much preferred to AI’s generic decompressed version of your experience.
But the story makes me sad. While I don't feel too bad about humanity reducing its investment on anything related to Foucault, the author appears to be a capable and motivated individual. It would have been great if they could have found something that they like which is also useful for everybody. Win-win.
"... instead of grabbing myself by the balls and admitting that I was climbing a ladder propped against the wrong building.."
Indeed a complex metaphor! Perhaps it has a Russian cultural source? An origin story?
But i also must ask: would it make any difference if one were climbing a ladder propped against the right building?
In any case I am glad I am not a Russian painter - it appears to involve skills that are difficult, painful and not at all easy-to-acquire.