1 Jul
2000
1 Jul
'00
9:38 a.m.
We also expect
that a PhD should be able to perform any task that might
require a mechanical, electrical, software or civil engineer, an MBA,
economist, lawyer or priest. They better have learned more in that extra 4+
years of school than they did in the 16 previous.
If you amend that to "...learned more about a very specific topic in that
extra 4+ years..." then I'd agree. The principle problem with Ph.D.s is that their
knowledge base tends to
be as narrow as any other new grads; the only distinction being that they
have significantly more depth in one very specific area.
I disagree.
I've had
more than one occasion
where such people were literally reduced to tears in design meetings
as a consequence of being crucified by some staff engineer.
I've also seen precisely the opposite where an engineer has been so caught
up in the way things have been done that they can't understand that there
just might be a better way or a case where the old way won't work.
It just means
that there are problems
Again I disagree. If a PhD is unfamiliar with the problem area they will
get familiar with it damn quick. That's what is expected of them. If they
don't do what's expected of them, you don't keep 'em around. Then again
an
engineer who is unfamiliar with the problem area will likely come into your
office every hour and a half to ask a question.
I can drop in the lap of a typical PhD that would
take a week to explain to
the typical programmer.
"...drop in the lap of a typical PhD who is familiar with the problem area..."
When they were done we tried to find
other things
for them to do, but they were only marginally more effective than
our new crop of four-year grads. The person in question is now making
use of their Ph.D. by teaching undergraduate CS courses.
I'm not saying there aren't idiots with PhDs out there. Did you ever
think that putting the PhDs to work doing the same tasks as the new crop
of four-year grads was a waste of material? You don't hire a PhD to write
Visual Basic code, you hire PhD's to do work that you need a PhD for.
It's a
different skill set, and should be treated as such.
I don't see any evidence that the skill set is particularly different; All the Ph.D. represents is an additional four years
of training in an
environment that is skewed from the one found in industry;
Ph.D. must me different where you come from. Where I come from a Ph.D.
candidate is not getting much training apart what they provide themselves.
The biggest difference I see between people in industry and people doing
their thesis projects is that people in industry work shorter hours.
It's all
about what you can
do and how well it fits with my needs. Everything else is meaningless.
Of course, and if you don't need Ph.D.'s working for you, so be it. But
you might want to consider that the guy with the Ph.D. may be able to do
quite a bit more than you need...
Eric