Decline in U.S. science spending threatens economy, security: MIT

“I’m sorry, you’ve gone too far down the intellectual route”. I interpret this to mean most hiring managers, the vast majority of which do not have PhDs have no interest in having a “smarty-pants PhD” working under them.

I work in industry, I have only a BS, but i havent even quite been doing this for 2 years yet, so i'm not really in any position to hire people. I just want to present to you, the alternative perspective, the way that a person with a BS and years of experience sees a PhD with no experience in the particular industry to which they are trying to get a job. This isn't my perspective per se, but its what i've gathered the general opinion from some of the management is(meaning the ones who would seem to fit your criteria), and it might just be my company, but industry is very focused on results. If you're good at what you do you will excel in industry and if you're not, you won't. You need to get lucky to get a chance, lucky to get a chance at a place that will let you fuck up while you learn, and lucky to work at a place with good scientists who can teach you the most important details of your field and can teach you how to think like a scientist.

Its great that you have a PhD. Nobody doubts that you're very smart and good at what you do, but guess what, people without PhDs are very smart too and someone who has 5-10 years of experience doing the very job that they're hiring you for probably cares more about how much effort its going to take to get you up to speed on the specifics of the job they're hiring you for more than anything else. Its not personal.

In smaller fields too, part of it is pay as well. Why pay a PhD with no experience the same amount as you could pay a BS with 5 years experience doing exactly what you need them to do?

/r/news Thread Parent Link -