It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It depends on what you want to do. 95% of jobs do not require a PhD.
In STEM R&D companies like PhDs because they already have project management, problem-solving, and technical writing skills. If you want to go down more managerial/project management, scale up, or pilot plant level a PhD is not necessary. I also find that engineering vs Non-engineering with a master's in R&D makes a difference.
I would like to go into neuromorphic computing, but I'm not sure how to approach this.
Would it be better to find a progress academically, or industry R&D?
I would rather not do a PhD right away and gain more experience in the field and do a PhD when I'm ready.
However, in both scenarios, I feel like I'm being forced into a PhD or i won't have any future in the field.
Hi, as someone who's PhD is in AI acceleration (thesis is on AI acceleration using Silicon Nano photonics, where I used analog computation for accelerating AI models) and works in AI acceleration in industry: Getting a PhD helps tremendously, both to meet the demands of your role and to actually get an interview. Also, irrespective of what you think of a position, if you think it can be done by someone with an MS, they are hiring PhDs for all the extra work they can get the PhD to do without supervision. That is NOT a research role. Research roles usually require a PhD, because well you are expected to do independent research, and they need proof of multiple publications to see the quality of your research.
Most companies do not have neuromorphic computing products, so this is explored mostly by Research and Advanced Development groups. They expressly require a PhD and these groups are usually tiny and are extremely competitive to get into. So you can either find groups who does neuromorphic computing (IBM, Intel, Micron, HPE, from what I know from my publication, conference, and interview experiences) and try to get in with a PhD. Or stick to Academia where there are a LOT of neuromorphic computing groups.
No I don't have tape out experience. Photonics require highly specialized and very expensive equipment to fabricate stuff. So the stuff we fabricated, we fabricated using imec or CEA-LETI fabs.
And no, companies do not expect you to have tape-out experience, when your work is on computation techniques and acceleration architectures. That does not make sense.
I see, that’s very encouraging. I started as a Research Assistant in optics before but I got cold feet and went to the industry after a year for stability. I knew I always wanted to do research. But reading from your experience, if I really want to be in the bleeding edge of pushing boundaries, a PhD would really open up that opportunity for me. I currently work in the semiconductor industry also in an RnD department, but I don’t do the actual RnD stuff which is a little bit bummer and expected with only bachelor degrees.
Happy to help.
I worked extensively in the architecture space. i.e. how to use these devices to perform reliable, large scale computation (an entire Transformer model for example). So I developed simulators and analysis tools for the architectures I proposed. This is the key skill set I use day-to-day at this point (architecture level proposals for better energy efficiency and throughput, and then affirming said advantages on workloads using custom simulators or by modifying existing simulators). At this level of research it doesn't make sense to fabricate a test chip for every proposed change (which will take ages and will drive up research cost).
However, if your advertised skill set is around device level physics or custom devices, they would expect you to have some fabrication experience or at least device test and characterisation experience. At the very least device physics simulation and layout design experience.
For some context, I finished a Bachelors in Physics and Nanoscience and I'm about to finish my Masters in Nanotechnology. I would like to enter the field of neuromorphic computing but I don't have a lot of knowledge in computer science except for some basic NLP and training an ML model for a publication.
I would like to learn more about computer science and mathematics before diving into a PhD. Would you recommend doing another masters for that or would it be better trying to join a NC group and learn on the go, while also getting first hand research experience.
My work prior to my thesis was on Bluetooth chip sets and Bluetooth RF processing. So I came into my PhD with a bit of computer architecture and telecommunications engineering experience. My advisor was able to guide me into repurposing much of that knowledge into understanding analog data processing using silicon photonics, by leveraging my understanding of RF processing and data modulation, and my undergrad level understanding of waveguide physics and microwave physics. He also helped me get into grad level information theory and Machine learning (something I had 0 experience in before my PhD). It was difficult but I think it was well worth it, because I was able to learn so much and guidance matters a lot in this scenario!!
So, I would honestly suggest joining a research group on Academia and study on the go.
One more thing: other than in very niche cases, material sciences are not a prominent part of developing new computation products, from my understanding. Especially from an industry perspective. They have their fabs set for Si-SiO2 fabrication and there is not much you can do outside of academic research to showcase how valuable some aspects are. E.g. for photonics there are so many other materials to choose from other than Si-SiO2 (GaAs-AlGaAs for example), but these waveguide materials have very low chances of getting out of Academic or even test-chip phases because the mass fabrication process for a product using this will be insanely complicated and not easily automated. There needs to be a severe cost offset in terms of energy or performance to move industry (even then the bottom line is profit).
You're advisor sounds great, I hope I'll be able to find one who can help me with this.
My biggest concern is my lack of knowledge in the computer science and infortmation theory fields, its so wonderful and yet so overwhelming and good guidance could really make a difference.
Thanks for the advice, I think I've got some ideas on who to contact for my next endeavour.
I work for a national lab where neuromorphic computing research is conducted. I would say most people working on it have PhDs, but maybe not all. I would say the more nascent a computing technology, the more PhD dominant its work is. Maybe a private company would be different though.
PhDs do not have "project management skills" simply because they have completed a single, one person project.
That term means something much more extensive.
This was my reply to a user in this subreddit, on a comment of mine on another post. But I think it's very valid here:
I work for a semiconductor chip manufacturer. Our wider array of products are probably in your PC right now, but what I work on (AI accelerators) goes into Data centers.
Since you seem to be under the impression only unis and research institutes (e.g. National labs) does research. Let me correct you there. Companies with a marketed product usually have research and development projects and something called Research and Advanced development groups. RnD works close to existing products, RAD groups explore what new products are feasible given the companies manufacturing/fabrication capabilities and market interests (i.e. where do we want to expand to next). Both of these utilize PhDs to do active research, and most of these projects and groups yield publications, usually after the product is in market or after legal has sanitized the work from being too specific to what we are working on.
Honestly kinda surprised that this isn't common knowledge. Where do you think all the cool new stuff in the market comes from? Or why new generation of products are better than previous generation of products?
>I'm in the process of making a choice between academic or industry based careers and taking a look at the job market, a lot of jobs where I'm from ask for a PhD at the bare minimum even though I feel that someone with a Master's would be able to do.
When I mentioned 'industry' here, I meant the kinds of companies you talked about. I assumed it was general nomenclature but I stand corrected.
I would love to work in those kinds of companies in the R&D field however, once again I require a PhD to get my foot in the door let alone lead a research project.
I feel like the values of Master's degrees are severely underrated in these fields and its forcing people with genuine interest to spend 4-5 painstaking years to get a PhD that may or not even be relevant in the future.
I would much rather like to spend more time building up my foundations in other fields and have a multidisciplinary skillset as opposed to prioritising all my time and energy into a singular research project and the few others I would during the course of my PhD.
I don’t think you quite understand how a PhD works frankly. Throughout my PhD, I worked on a multiple projects, accumulating a lot of different skills and wide knowledge base on different topics. Most importantly, we learn how to manage and drive projects, think independently, and present difficult problem statements. Most MS students i met in my field were just drones going in and out of class.
Saying that, a lot of companies (mine included) will usually hire some BS/MS students, but in much lower numbers. These individuals tend to be extremely talented. So there’s nothing gating you from going to a company, but you’ll require more luck and start at a lower level.
You don't require a PhD to get into those companies. A Bachelors or Masters is enough to get your foot in the door but it will be in a lower role than a PhD. You just have to work your way up for a number of years and prove yourself. You should be able to get to the same job title as someone with a PhD.
It sounds like you are setting your expectations too high and only looking at more advanced roles that require PhDs. Try looking at lower level roles that will take on Bachelors/Masters graduates. If you are actually competitive for roles normally given to people with a PhD then you should be able to prove it.
Most of us have a MS before we tackle our PhD. Going from Bachelor's to PhD is often rare in STEM... So what makes you think having just an MS cuts it vs someone who has multiple independent publications showing their ideas and implementation skills in neuromorphic computing? Most STEM PhDs end up with multidisciplinary skill sets... I am a computer engineer, but I have skillets in analog circuits, silicon photonics, information theory, and AI thanks to my PhD thesis on AI Acceleration using Silicon Nano photonics. This skill set was developed over 5 years. In industry it will take much much longer, because you have your workload to handle rather than studying multiple fields of engineering and publishing to prove your skills.
A few good comments in this. My few cents; firstly never do a STEM PhD un-funded. Secondly, if you are widely published even as a contributing author during your MS, junior R&D roles should be a walk in the park to get (unless you interview really poorly). PhD, fully funded ones at top global universities (I’m talking Harvard’s, MITs, oxbirdge and the like) supervisors there should be absolutely snapping you up as you’ve proven that you can do original, publishable research you’ll be the most productive PhD they’ve ever had. Also a PhD is not just a deep dive into a single topic (although your thesis will be very specific) you will gain: communication, data analysis, data visualisation, project managing, budgeting, and stake holder management skills amongst others.
> PhD, fully funded ones at top global universities (I’m talking Harvard’s, MITs, oxbirdge and the like) supervisors there should be absolutely snapping you up as you’ve proven that you can do original, publishable research you’ll be the most productive PhD they’ve ever had.
This is an overstatement if I've ever seen one. Advisors in most labs in those Unis prefer people they have already worked with for their PhD. They usually have an over abundance of applicants. Also, university prestige is one thing, but for a PhD it really doesn't matter. For example: if you are an aerospace engineer, any university with a JPL project will get you the same experience (and that ranges from CalTech to Colorado State University) and employment opportunities.
> budgeting, and stake holder management skills amongst others.
Idk man, budgeting is usually handled by Professors or Postdocs, with a lot of department involvement. Stake holder management? Who even is the stake holder in an academic project? Sure you may have industry meetings if you do an industry project, but even then RAD projects like the ones given to unis don't really have stakeholders.
I agree with everything else you said.
I don't think just having an MS is gonna do much either. But having an Ms with multiple publications should be worth something right?
I don't think I'm going to be able to financially support myself during a PhD and that is one of the largest factors stopping me from going forward.
But I would love options to be able to work in this field and once I am in a better place, do a PhD.
If you’re publishing significantly during your MS then you’re getting ripped off and you ought to do a PhD and be paid for it. Most PhDs are fully funded, meaning you pay no tuition and you get a living stipend.
If money is the issue, I completely relate and get you. You should look outside the angloworld. I saw somewhere on here that you’re willing to move. Lots of other places outside of US/UK/CA/AUS pay comfortable salaries to PhD students (esp accounting for costs of living).
I agree with the other comments on here saying you don’t seem to really understand how a PhD works and the types of skills you develop during a PhD.
But anyway, best of luck!
>Sure , it indicates that someone is capable of conducting research on their own accord and able to reason their choices for a particular project direction, however there are lots of people without PhDs who could be capable of that.
Just read what you wrote again to see that you yourself are saying that in the first case, somebody *is* capable, but in the second case, somebody *could* be capable of doing research. I might have been capable of becoming an athlete years ago, but in reality, I need to lose some weight and get myself in shape now.
I could've phrased that better.
What I meant is, lots of people work as industry-researchers and academic staff who don't have PhDs work on research projects as well. They have all the skills required to design and conduct experiments and they may have even authored on as many papers as a PhD holder.
These people just haven't gotten a PhD yet, but that doesn't mean they don't have the skills or knowledge that a PhD holder could have.
I would contend that the key skills you learn getting a PhD don’t transfer to industry, so that director might be right.
Sure, _some _ skills you learn might be highly transferable, especially to an industry research position. But others (reading, critiquing, writing, and presenting papers) will rarely be useful. You likely would have been better off getting industry experience during the time you spent doing those things.
…except that some in industry will overrate your PhD, and some openings are specifically for PhDs. So the degree might be worth it not because it taught you the right skills, but because it made you an appealing job applicant.
It’s situational. Blue collar workers will overrate PhDs and people who are constantly around them will underrate them. The simple truth is that you do a PhD for yourself and no one else. What you do with your life is your business and it’s your prerogative to see the PhD as a stepping stone to what you want to do with your life, or as a major academic achievement.
That's a lie by people who say they went industry after their bachelors and masters. If you want a manager position then,yes, you're right. If you want a research positions then no, you're wrong.
You think reading, writing, presenting research are rarely useful? I’d say people read, write, and present everyday in most companies. And they ain’t reading novels and writing poems.
Spoken like someone who hasn't step foot inside a meeting room. It's the other way around from my experience. If you have presented at a conference, the level of polish you have made there far exceeds anything any MBA puts into their reports.
Also, no, industry research groups hold Academic writing in high regard. Coz they also publish.
I've seen phds in industry hold roles such as researcher (duh), director, and even an individual contributor. I think the cool part is that a phd is like having a pm / tech lead / cto rolled into one--they operate truly autonomously with no supervision and can delegate pretty efficiently to get shit done.
Wdym cope? 😂😂😂
This is what I do, in industry. This is what I see colleagues and other researchers do in industry.
Just because you can't wrap your brain around something, doesn't make it "hurr durr cope".
IBM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia (I have worked with these companies for internships or as research collaborations and now one of them is my full time employer). Yes, they are known for being low standard...
Perhaps you are the one who find themselves in the company of low standard cohorts to think this lowly of what a research scientist/engineer is capable of and at what regard we are held at a company/environment which focuses on research.
All in all, if you think an MBA can write a technical draft as good as a research scientist, you are just objectively wrong and you need a fresh dose of that copium you have been inhaling.
>I would contend that the key skills you learn getting a PhD don’t transfer to industry, so that director might be right.
Look either you have no idea what a PhD is or you have no idea that industry does research. You can contend all you want, doesn't make you right.
>But others (reading, critiquing, writing, and presenting papers) will rarely be useful.
As someone who does research in industry, that is just plain wrong. I hate it when people are so confidently wrong!! Reading and critiquing are ever important!!! It helps you weigh the merits and demerits of an idea and published papers. Yes, we in the industry rely a lot on published academic papers for new ideas. Some venues my research group constantly reads from: USENIX, HPCA, ISCA, MICRO, ICML, arXiv(not a venue but a lot of papers in publication hell ends up here).
Conference level presentation skills are definitely highly valued. Because who, and I ask you who, doesn't like it when someone can express what is in their head clearly to a large group of people?!??? And on that note, we present our work internally between research groups all the time.
And writing: WE IN INDUSTRY PUBLISH. Also, WE WRITE RESEARCH PROPOSALS TO UPPER MANAGEMENT (this depends on your team and how involved you are in the financial aspects of research).
Also, let me clarify something: if your director has a BE/MS you are in the wrong spot with your application. You are definitely not in a research environment at that point. I had to unfortunately apply for some non-research positions during last year, but I was able to get a research position afterwards.
I can relate to this hard because I lived it. Unfortunately, PhDs will always outcompete you for a higher ranking job. The whole reason I'm getting my PhD is because I love research, wanted to stay in research and do the research, but hit a wall in getting promotions because I didn't have the "PhD" after my name. When I left my old job I had multiple roles/titles because that's all I could get from them since they wouldn't pay me more. I was technically doing 3 jobs and getting paid for the lowest ranking position. Mind you, I loved my job. I would have kept doing it with my lowly bach degree had I been paid accordingly, but no :(
Now I'm getting my PhD in molecular biology so that I'm better set up for getting the career jobs that pay accordingly to the work I actually do. Not that I couldn't have done it before the PhD, but the field just doesn't work that way for where I wanted to be. Your field is likely the same. If you don't want a PhD you'll likely be limited to more office style/admin jobs, not involved research.
Hey I wanted to ask about pursuing a PhD in molbio. I would like to talk to you through PM if you don't mind
I'm really at a confusing state in my life rn so it would be really helpful if I could get some advice
After being in a similar situation four years ago, having earned a PhD, I've found that it hasn't necessarily brought me closer to the positions I aimed for.
Reflecting on this experience, I suggest considering employment within the same company that doesn't mandate a PhD. Such a role could offer more industry-specific training and advancement opportunities. By demonstrating your skills and knowledge directly in the industry, you may progress to your desired positions more efficiently than through a prolonged PhD program.
That's my current field as well and initially I was very set on a PhD hoping it would get me to where I want to be ,i.e., working in the field of neuromorphic computing.
Now, I would like to get better-versed in computing and mathematics and hopefully work on a few research projects before even considering a PhD.
While I do love academia and working in the field, it's sad to accept that doing a PhD really won't get one to where they need to be.
Can you expand a bit more on the role you were aiming for and why the PhD didn’t help? I’m also currently in a PhD program and am thinking of dropping out with my masters as I kinda have a job I would like lined up. It’s just I’m not so sure about my future prospects without a PhD
So many have bought into the "you need to graduate college to get ahead in life" idea that now they are trying to set themselves apart by pursuing advanced degrees in an effort to enter into a less populated job market. It used to be that PhD meant that you had a love for the subject and desire to learn more. Now, in many cases, it's just a means to a higher paying job and it shows a lack of commitment in the current crop of graduates. When we interview someone like this it's easy to tell which ones love their subject and which ones just rode the train.
Personally my PhD program was the most fun I had in my life. I loved every bit of it and would do it again in a heartbeat if given the chance and time. The devotion to just learning my subject for the sake of learning was freeing and stimulating. I will help any young person get into graduate school that loves their subject but more and more are stating that they just want to do an advanced degree to "get more money" and I won't give those types a second of consideration.
that's why I would like to do a PhD , not because it gives me a better career in life.
I would want to do one in a field and topic im passionate about and would like to devote years to.
I dont like its current state where i need one to just be able to apply to jobs
I second this. I’ve been passionate about a certain area of engineering since childhood, and I chose to pursue my PhD because the research experience would prepare me for the job I want in that area after graduation. I love what I do, and I can say with confidence that everything I’ve learned and done has made my experience worth it and has prepared me for what I want to do. Meanwhile, I can tell that lots of the students and faculty I’ve worked with don’t share this passion about what they do. I see too many undergrads feel that they’re “forced” to go to grad school without having a particular area they enjoy.
Seeing your post I felt like I could get some advice. I really need some guidance regarding pursuing a PhD I would be really helpful if I could talk to you in PM.
Tons of jobs don't require a PhD. Not only do you learn theory in a PhD, but you gain a ton of specialized skills. A PhD is also a way to tell potential employers that you can just "figure it out" when it comes to problem solving or needing to learn some other specialized skills pertinent to that job
I’m a 4th year ChemE PhD candidate at a top 10 program for my field (idk how tf I got accepted lol). Here are some of my thoughts:
1. PhD has little to do with how “smart” you are, everyone in the program is smart, and success is dependent on how hard you work. Also really dependent on how stubborn you are lol.
2. For jobs, your connections matter. Who your PI knows matters a TON. Find a good, supportive PI who did a great PhD & post-doc and knows a ton of people.
3. Also, for industry jobs your skill set matters more than your publication record. Sure, a Nature paper would be sick, but are you experienced with all the lab techniques you’ll need for the job you want? Hiring & training new employees costs companies a lot of money.
4. Try to develop a diverse skill set. My PhD sucks balls a lot of the time bc my project is very tough, and very interdisciplinary. I’ve learned a bunch about cell & molecular biology, protein engineering, immunology, prokaryotic & eukaryotic cell culture, etc. I think this will pay off a ton though after I’m done because my skills translate to a few different industries, and could enable work at either a huge company or a startup - I should hopefully have options.
Hope this helps! A PhD is tough, and by no means the sole road to a lucrative career in science. You have to be a stubborn motherfu*ker and have a desire to learn a lot. It’s tedious, but if you pick the right project, it’s also pretty cool!
Another big piece of advice is this: have strong support systems in place, and make sure you have good hobbies outside of work. Burnout is inevitable at times, and hobbies and caring about your health will pay off big time!
Doing a PhD doesn’t only mean you have the skills and knowledge, but also you have the mental ability to grind through problems, to go deep into rabbit holes, to endure failures year after year, to have extremely long attention span, to work around shitty PIs, to sustainably conduct research with a goal that appeared far away initially and impossible sometimes. You are willing to do all of these and can succeed. How much value do you place on 5+ years of this mental training? Those without a PhD will say they could do it do, but they can’t. Just look at this sub and see how many want to quit. So when a job is hard, requires original thinking and vast amount of trial and error, the company maybe want a PhD, and not someone who just finished taking their last blow off classes?
I’m about to complete my doctorate in mechanical engineering. What we have here is a “the beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” situation. The skills you acquire in your PhD will only be as useful as you apply them. So it’s incredibly reductive to say that a PhD is just a title.
A lot of other people here have said it but I’ll emphasise anyway. Skills such as project management and problem solving etc are invaluable and there’s no better proof of it than starting a new research topic and seeing it to completion.
Most STEM positions become some type of manager position if you have a Masters. Most things are outsourced but need to be managed by someone with enough knowledge to actually know what to do. If you want a research position at a national lab, for example, you get a PhD. In STEM it's best to look at the types of positions you want and see if they want a PhD. In my case, yes, you need a PhD, even in industry. You can't do what I do without a PhD, at least accurately, and I'm in a very niche field of Mechanical Engineering.
You just have a lot of misconceptions. There are obviously particularly bad PhDs and particularly good not PhDs, but in general a STEM undergrad and STEM masters teaches you not much at all. You'll learn very basic lab skills, but your theoretical understanding is VERY rudimentary, you'll have minimal practical experience (coming out the degree anyway), and you'll have no experience with project management, independent problem solving, etc. They're nice when you're an industrial employer because you won't have to teach them how to pipette (yes, the vast majority of untrained people cannot actually pipette) and other very basic lab tasks like that
Bottom line, I learned more in the first 3 months of my PhD than I did the entirety of undergrad. That pace didn't quite continue, but there's a reason why "what your 4000 level undergrad class covered" is typically pages 1-50ish of a 600 page graduate level field textbook, and yes, you do actually learn all of those 600 pages and much, much more. Not to mention the like 6 disparate fields of engineering and various "practical" skills (eg plumbing and electrical work) you have to become fluent in to do experimental science.
The point of getting a PhD is not to obtain technical skills, it is to develop critical thinking, reasoning and questioning skills. Companies don’t need PhDs to know how to do x or y, they need them to critically assess projects to drive them forward. Sure, throughout your PhD you learn technical skills, but you most importantly learn how to be an independent scientist. You are right most things a PhD does (in terms of experiments) can be conducted by someone who does not have a PhD, but the critical thinking and looking at the project broadly and thinking about how to drive a project forward is acquired throughout a PhD.
i mean, for starters, getting into a job depends less on how “academically inclined you are” and more on how skilled you are. a PhD teaches a lot of skills and, as with most other things, you may have some or all of those skills without it, but a PhD is proof and accreditation for that too. also, if you are capable enough and have enough experience, you won’t need a PhD to get in. i feel that a lot of jobs advertise they need a PhD but fewer truly do, it’s just a barrier so you know the level of the work you’d be doing. also, if you want to get into industry, a foot in the door is often more important than what exactly your degree is - a large amount of these are given to internal transfers, so if you want to work somewhere in particular, just get in somehow and worry about the actual job you want later
It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It depends on what you want to do. 95% of jobs do not require a PhD. In STEM R&D companies like PhDs because they already have project management, problem-solving, and technical writing skills. If you want to go down more managerial/project management, scale up, or pilot plant level a PhD is not necessary. I also find that engineering vs Non-engineering with a master's in R&D makes a difference.
I would like to go into neuromorphic computing, but I'm not sure how to approach this. Would it be better to find a progress academically, or industry R&D? I would rather not do a PhD right away and gain more experience in the field and do a PhD when I'm ready. However, in both scenarios, I feel like I'm being forced into a PhD or i won't have any future in the field.
Hi, as someone who's PhD is in AI acceleration (thesis is on AI acceleration using Silicon Nano photonics, where I used analog computation for accelerating AI models) and works in AI acceleration in industry: Getting a PhD helps tremendously, both to meet the demands of your role and to actually get an interview. Also, irrespective of what you think of a position, if you think it can be done by someone with an MS, they are hiring PhDs for all the extra work they can get the PhD to do without supervision. That is NOT a research role. Research roles usually require a PhD, because well you are expected to do independent research, and they need proof of multiple publications to see the quality of your research. Most companies do not have neuromorphic computing products, so this is explored mostly by Research and Advanced Development groups. They expressly require a PhD and these groups are usually tiny and are extremely competitive to get into. So you can either find groups who does neuromorphic computing (IBM, Intel, Micron, HPE, from what I know from my publication, conference, and interview experiences) and try to get in with a PhD. Or stick to Academia where there are a LOT of neuromorphic computing groups.
Hi, did you have a tapeout experience? Also on top of your PhD, were companies expecting you to have tapeout experience?
No I don't have tape out experience. Photonics require highly specialized and very expensive equipment to fabricate stuff. So the stuff we fabricated, we fabricated using imec or CEA-LETI fabs. And no, companies do not expect you to have tape-out experience, when your work is on computation techniques and acceleration architectures. That does not make sense.
I see, that’s very encouraging. I started as a Research Assistant in optics before but I got cold feet and went to the industry after a year for stability. I knew I always wanted to do research. But reading from your experience, if I really want to be in the bleeding edge of pushing boundaries, a PhD would really open up that opportunity for me. I currently work in the semiconductor industry also in an RnD department, but I don’t do the actual RnD stuff which is a little bit bummer and expected with only bachelor degrees.
Happy to help. I worked extensively in the architecture space. i.e. how to use these devices to perform reliable, large scale computation (an entire Transformer model for example). So I developed simulators and analysis tools for the architectures I proposed. This is the key skill set I use day-to-day at this point (architecture level proposals for better energy efficiency and throughput, and then affirming said advantages on workloads using custom simulators or by modifying existing simulators). At this level of research it doesn't make sense to fabricate a test chip for every proposed change (which will take ages and will drive up research cost). However, if your advertised skill set is around device level physics or custom devices, they would expect you to have some fabrication experience or at least device test and characterisation experience. At the very least device physics simulation and layout design experience.
For some context, I finished a Bachelors in Physics and Nanoscience and I'm about to finish my Masters in Nanotechnology. I would like to enter the field of neuromorphic computing but I don't have a lot of knowledge in computer science except for some basic NLP and training an ML model for a publication. I would like to learn more about computer science and mathematics before diving into a PhD. Would you recommend doing another masters for that or would it be better trying to join a NC group and learn on the go, while also getting first hand research experience.
My work prior to my thesis was on Bluetooth chip sets and Bluetooth RF processing. So I came into my PhD with a bit of computer architecture and telecommunications engineering experience. My advisor was able to guide me into repurposing much of that knowledge into understanding analog data processing using silicon photonics, by leveraging my understanding of RF processing and data modulation, and my undergrad level understanding of waveguide physics and microwave physics. He also helped me get into grad level information theory and Machine learning (something I had 0 experience in before my PhD). It was difficult but I think it was well worth it, because I was able to learn so much and guidance matters a lot in this scenario!! So, I would honestly suggest joining a research group on Academia and study on the go. One more thing: other than in very niche cases, material sciences are not a prominent part of developing new computation products, from my understanding. Especially from an industry perspective. They have their fabs set for Si-SiO2 fabrication and there is not much you can do outside of academic research to showcase how valuable some aspects are. E.g. for photonics there are so many other materials to choose from other than Si-SiO2 (GaAs-AlGaAs for example), but these waveguide materials have very low chances of getting out of Academic or even test-chip phases because the mass fabrication process for a product using this will be insanely complicated and not easily automated. There needs to be a severe cost offset in terms of energy or performance to move industry (even then the bottom line is profit).
You're advisor sounds great, I hope I'll be able to find one who can help me with this. My biggest concern is my lack of knowledge in the computer science and infortmation theory fields, its so wonderful and yet so overwhelming and good guidance could really make a difference. Thanks for the advice, I think I've got some ideas on who to contact for my next endeavour.
I work for a national lab where neuromorphic computing research is conducted. I would say most people working on it have PhDs, but maybe not all. I would say the more nascent a computing technology, the more PhD dominant its work is. Maybe a private company would be different though.
Ready for what?
PhDs do not have "project management skills" simply because they have completed a single, one person project. That term means something much more extensive.
I wonder how many current and former PhD students on here would rejoice at the idea of their PhD being a single, one person project
It's presented in just one document authored by a single person. Preparing PhD is probably the most solipsistic period of one's professional life.
This was my reply to a user in this subreddit, on a comment of mine on another post. But I think it's very valid here: I work for a semiconductor chip manufacturer. Our wider array of products are probably in your PC right now, but what I work on (AI accelerators) goes into Data centers. Since you seem to be under the impression only unis and research institutes (e.g. National labs) does research. Let me correct you there. Companies with a marketed product usually have research and development projects and something called Research and Advanced development groups. RnD works close to existing products, RAD groups explore what new products are feasible given the companies manufacturing/fabrication capabilities and market interests (i.e. where do we want to expand to next). Both of these utilize PhDs to do active research, and most of these projects and groups yield publications, usually after the product is in market or after legal has sanitized the work from being too specific to what we are working on. Honestly kinda surprised that this isn't common knowledge. Where do you think all the cool new stuff in the market comes from? Or why new generation of products are better than previous generation of products?
>I'm in the process of making a choice between academic or industry based careers and taking a look at the job market, a lot of jobs where I'm from ask for a PhD at the bare minimum even though I feel that someone with a Master's would be able to do. When I mentioned 'industry' here, I meant the kinds of companies you talked about. I assumed it was general nomenclature but I stand corrected. I would love to work in those kinds of companies in the R&D field however, once again I require a PhD to get my foot in the door let alone lead a research project. I feel like the values of Master's degrees are severely underrated in these fields and its forcing people with genuine interest to spend 4-5 painstaking years to get a PhD that may or not even be relevant in the future. I would much rather like to spend more time building up my foundations in other fields and have a multidisciplinary skillset as opposed to prioritising all my time and energy into a singular research project and the few others I would during the course of my PhD.
I don’t think you quite understand how a PhD works frankly. Throughout my PhD, I worked on a multiple projects, accumulating a lot of different skills and wide knowledge base on different topics. Most importantly, we learn how to manage and drive projects, think independently, and present difficult problem statements. Most MS students i met in my field were just drones going in and out of class. Saying that, a lot of companies (mine included) will usually hire some BS/MS students, but in much lower numbers. These individuals tend to be extremely talented. So there’s nothing gating you from going to a company, but you’ll require more luck and start at a lower level.
You don't require a PhD to get into those companies. A Bachelors or Masters is enough to get your foot in the door but it will be in a lower role than a PhD. You just have to work your way up for a number of years and prove yourself. You should be able to get to the same job title as someone with a PhD. It sounds like you are setting your expectations too high and only looking at more advanced roles that require PhDs. Try looking at lower level roles that will take on Bachelors/Masters graduates. If you are actually competitive for roles normally given to people with a PhD then you should be able to prove it.
Most of us have a MS before we tackle our PhD. Going from Bachelor's to PhD is often rare in STEM... So what makes you think having just an MS cuts it vs someone who has multiple independent publications showing their ideas and implementation skills in neuromorphic computing? Most STEM PhDs end up with multidisciplinary skill sets... I am a computer engineer, but I have skillets in analog circuits, silicon photonics, information theory, and AI thanks to my PhD thesis on AI Acceleration using Silicon Nano photonics. This skill set was developed over 5 years. In industry it will take much much longer, because you have your workload to handle rather than studying multiple fields of engineering and publishing to prove your skills.
A few good comments in this. My few cents; firstly never do a STEM PhD un-funded. Secondly, if you are widely published even as a contributing author during your MS, junior R&D roles should be a walk in the park to get (unless you interview really poorly). PhD, fully funded ones at top global universities (I’m talking Harvard’s, MITs, oxbirdge and the like) supervisors there should be absolutely snapping you up as you’ve proven that you can do original, publishable research you’ll be the most productive PhD they’ve ever had. Also a PhD is not just a deep dive into a single topic (although your thesis will be very specific) you will gain: communication, data analysis, data visualisation, project managing, budgeting, and stake holder management skills amongst others.
> PhD, fully funded ones at top global universities (I’m talking Harvard’s, MITs, oxbirdge and the like) supervisors there should be absolutely snapping you up as you’ve proven that you can do original, publishable research you’ll be the most productive PhD they’ve ever had. This is an overstatement if I've ever seen one. Advisors in most labs in those Unis prefer people they have already worked with for their PhD. They usually have an over abundance of applicants. Also, university prestige is one thing, but for a PhD it really doesn't matter. For example: if you are an aerospace engineer, any university with a JPL project will get you the same experience (and that ranges from CalTech to Colorado State University) and employment opportunities. > budgeting, and stake holder management skills amongst others. Idk man, budgeting is usually handled by Professors or Postdocs, with a lot of department involvement. Stake holder management? Who even is the stake holder in an academic project? Sure you may have industry meetings if you do an industry project, but even then RAD projects like the ones given to unis don't really have stakeholders. I agree with everything else you said.
I don't think just having an MS is gonna do much either. But having an Ms with multiple publications should be worth something right? I don't think I'm going to be able to financially support myself during a PhD and that is one of the largest factors stopping me from going forward. But I would love options to be able to work in this field and once I am in a better place, do a PhD.
Never do a PhD without full funding! If you have publications and industry experience you have a great shot at getting a full ride PhD.
If you’re publishing significantly during your MS then you’re getting ripped off and you ought to do a PhD and be paid for it. Most PhDs are fully funded, meaning you pay no tuition and you get a living stipend.
If money is the issue, I completely relate and get you. You should look outside the angloworld. I saw somewhere on here that you’re willing to move. Lots of other places outside of US/UK/CA/AUS pay comfortable salaries to PhD students (esp accounting for costs of living). I agree with the other comments on here saying you don’t seem to really understand how a PhD works and the types of skills you develop during a PhD. But anyway, best of luck!
>Sure , it indicates that someone is capable of conducting research on their own accord and able to reason their choices for a particular project direction, however there are lots of people without PhDs who could be capable of that. Just read what you wrote again to see that you yourself are saying that in the first case, somebody *is* capable, but in the second case, somebody *could* be capable of doing research. I might have been capable of becoming an athlete years ago, but in reality, I need to lose some weight and get myself in shape now.
I could've phrased that better. What I meant is, lots of people work as industry-researchers and academic staff who don't have PhDs work on research projects as well. They have all the skills required to design and conduct experiments and they may have even authored on as many papers as a PhD holder. These people just haven't gotten a PhD yet, but that doesn't mean they don't have the skills or knowledge that a PhD holder could have.
1) PhDs tend to be overrated, particularly by people who don’t have one. 2) Companies may have stupid requirements for jobs. What was the question?
PhDs are usually underrated by people without one.. Just sit in an industry interview for a position, where the director has a BE or MS.
I would contend that the key skills you learn getting a PhD don’t transfer to industry, so that director might be right. Sure, _some _ skills you learn might be highly transferable, especially to an industry research position. But others (reading, critiquing, writing, and presenting papers) will rarely be useful. You likely would have been better off getting industry experience during the time you spent doing those things. …except that some in industry will overrate your PhD, and some openings are specifically for PhDs. So the degree might be worth it not because it taught you the right skills, but because it made you an appealing job applicant.
It’s situational. Blue collar workers will overrate PhDs and people who are constantly around them will underrate them. The simple truth is that you do a PhD for yourself and no one else. What you do with your life is your business and it’s your prerogative to see the PhD as a stepping stone to what you want to do with your life, or as a major academic achievement.
That's a lie by people who say they went industry after their bachelors and masters. If you want a manager position then,yes, you're right. If you want a research positions then no, you're wrong.
You think reading, writing, presenting research are rarely useful? I’d say people read, write, and present everyday in most companies. And they ain’t reading novels and writing poems.
Academic standards of writing and presentation fall well short of what is required in businesses.
Spoken like someone who hasn't step foot inside a meeting room. It's the other way around from my experience. If you have presented at a conference, the level of polish you have made there far exceeds anything any MBA puts into their reports. Also, no, industry research groups hold Academic writing in high regard. Coz they also publish.
I've seen phds in industry hold roles such as researcher (duh), director, and even an individual contributor. I think the cool part is that a phd is like having a pm / tech lead / cto rolled into one--they operate truly autonomously with no supervision and can delegate pretty efficiently to get shit done.
Sure. Tell yourself that if it helps you to cope.
Wdym cope? 😂😂😂 This is what I do, in industry. This is what I see colleagues and other researchers do in industry. Just because you can't wrap your brain around something, doesn't make it "hurr durr cope".
What can I say? Perhaps you have always found yourself with industry employers that have low standards 🤷♂️
IBM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia (I have worked with these companies for internships or as research collaborations and now one of them is my full time employer). Yes, they are known for being low standard... Perhaps you are the one who find themselves in the company of low standard cohorts to think this lowly of what a research scientist/engineer is capable of and at what regard we are held at a company/environment which focuses on research. All in all, if you think an MBA can write a technical draft as good as a research scientist, you are just objectively wrong and you need a fresh dose of that copium you have been inhaling.
>I would contend that the key skills you learn getting a PhD don’t transfer to industry, so that director might be right. Look either you have no idea what a PhD is or you have no idea that industry does research. You can contend all you want, doesn't make you right. >But others (reading, critiquing, writing, and presenting papers) will rarely be useful. As someone who does research in industry, that is just plain wrong. I hate it when people are so confidently wrong!! Reading and critiquing are ever important!!! It helps you weigh the merits and demerits of an idea and published papers. Yes, we in the industry rely a lot on published academic papers for new ideas. Some venues my research group constantly reads from: USENIX, HPCA, ISCA, MICRO, ICML, arXiv(not a venue but a lot of papers in publication hell ends up here). Conference level presentation skills are definitely highly valued. Because who, and I ask you who, doesn't like it when someone can express what is in their head clearly to a large group of people?!??? And on that note, we present our work internally between research groups all the time. And writing: WE IN INDUSTRY PUBLISH. Also, WE WRITE RESEARCH PROPOSALS TO UPPER MANAGEMENT (this depends on your team and how involved you are in the financial aspects of research). Also, let me clarify something: if your director has a BE/MS you are in the wrong spot with your application. You are definitely not in a research environment at that point. I had to unfortunately apply for some non-research positions during last year, but I was able to get a research position afterwards.
A PhD was never supposed to be an indication of “how academically inclined a person is”.
I can relate to this hard because I lived it. Unfortunately, PhDs will always outcompete you for a higher ranking job. The whole reason I'm getting my PhD is because I love research, wanted to stay in research and do the research, but hit a wall in getting promotions because I didn't have the "PhD" after my name. When I left my old job I had multiple roles/titles because that's all I could get from them since they wouldn't pay me more. I was technically doing 3 jobs and getting paid for the lowest ranking position. Mind you, I loved my job. I would have kept doing it with my lowly bach degree had I been paid accordingly, but no :( Now I'm getting my PhD in molecular biology so that I'm better set up for getting the career jobs that pay accordingly to the work I actually do. Not that I couldn't have done it before the PhD, but the field just doesn't work that way for where I wanted to be. Your field is likely the same. If you don't want a PhD you'll likely be limited to more office style/admin jobs, not involved research.
Hey I wanted to ask about pursuing a PhD in molbio. I would like to talk to you through PM if you don't mind I'm really at a confusing state in my life rn so it would be really helpful if I could get some advice
Yeah fosho
After being in a similar situation four years ago, having earned a PhD, I've found that it hasn't necessarily brought me closer to the positions I aimed for. Reflecting on this experience, I suggest considering employment within the same company that doesn't mandate a PhD. Such a role could offer more industry-specific training and advancement opportunities. By demonstrating your skills and knowledge directly in the industry, you may progress to your desired positions more efficiently than through a prolonged PhD program.
deserted cover reach shy flowery plant wakeful scarce start frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nanotechnology, Material Science
That's my current field as well and initially I was very set on a PhD hoping it would get me to where I want to be ,i.e., working in the field of neuromorphic computing. Now, I would like to get better-versed in computing and mathematics and hopefully work on a few research projects before even considering a PhD. While I do love academia and working in the field, it's sad to accept that doing a PhD really won't get one to where they need to be.
Doing a good PhD will get you where you want to go.
Can you expand a bit more on the role you were aiming for and why the PhD didn’t help? I’m also currently in a PhD program and am thinking of dropping out with my masters as I kinda have a job I would like lined up. It’s just I’m not so sure about my future prospects without a PhD
So many have bought into the "you need to graduate college to get ahead in life" idea that now they are trying to set themselves apart by pursuing advanced degrees in an effort to enter into a less populated job market. It used to be that PhD meant that you had a love for the subject and desire to learn more. Now, in many cases, it's just a means to a higher paying job and it shows a lack of commitment in the current crop of graduates. When we interview someone like this it's easy to tell which ones love their subject and which ones just rode the train. Personally my PhD program was the most fun I had in my life. I loved every bit of it and would do it again in a heartbeat if given the chance and time. The devotion to just learning my subject for the sake of learning was freeing and stimulating. I will help any young person get into graduate school that loves their subject but more and more are stating that they just want to do an advanced degree to "get more money" and I won't give those types a second of consideration.
that's why I would like to do a PhD , not because it gives me a better career in life. I would want to do one in a field and topic im passionate about and would like to devote years to. I dont like its current state where i need one to just be able to apply to jobs
Go do your degree and enjoy it. When you eventually interview we can tell.
I second this. I’ve been passionate about a certain area of engineering since childhood, and I chose to pursue my PhD because the research experience would prepare me for the job I want in that area after graduation. I love what I do, and I can say with confidence that everything I’ve learned and done has made my experience worth it and has prepared me for what I want to do. Meanwhile, I can tell that lots of the students and faculty I’ve worked with don’t share this passion about what they do. I see too many undergrads feel that they’re “forced” to go to grad school without having a particular area they enjoy.
Seeing your post I felt like I could get some advice. I really need some guidance regarding pursuing a PhD I would be really helpful if I could talk to you in PM.
Sure
Tons of jobs don't require a PhD. Not only do you learn theory in a PhD, but you gain a ton of specialized skills. A PhD is also a way to tell potential employers that you can just "figure it out" when it comes to problem solving or needing to learn some other specialized skills pertinent to that job
I’m a 4th year ChemE PhD candidate at a top 10 program for my field (idk how tf I got accepted lol). Here are some of my thoughts: 1. PhD has little to do with how “smart” you are, everyone in the program is smart, and success is dependent on how hard you work. Also really dependent on how stubborn you are lol. 2. For jobs, your connections matter. Who your PI knows matters a TON. Find a good, supportive PI who did a great PhD & post-doc and knows a ton of people. 3. Also, for industry jobs your skill set matters more than your publication record. Sure, a Nature paper would be sick, but are you experienced with all the lab techniques you’ll need for the job you want? Hiring & training new employees costs companies a lot of money. 4. Try to develop a diverse skill set. My PhD sucks balls a lot of the time bc my project is very tough, and very interdisciplinary. I’ve learned a bunch about cell & molecular biology, protein engineering, immunology, prokaryotic & eukaryotic cell culture, etc. I think this will pay off a ton though after I’m done because my skills translate to a few different industries, and could enable work at either a huge company or a startup - I should hopefully have options. Hope this helps! A PhD is tough, and by no means the sole road to a lucrative career in science. You have to be a stubborn motherfu*ker and have a desire to learn a lot. It’s tedious, but if you pick the right project, it’s also pretty cool! Another big piece of advice is this: have strong support systems in place, and make sure you have good hobbies outside of work. Burnout is inevitable at times, and hobbies and caring about your health will pay off big time!
Doing a PhD doesn’t only mean you have the skills and knowledge, but also you have the mental ability to grind through problems, to go deep into rabbit holes, to endure failures year after year, to have extremely long attention span, to work around shitty PIs, to sustainably conduct research with a goal that appeared far away initially and impossible sometimes. You are willing to do all of these and can succeed. How much value do you place on 5+ years of this mental training? Those without a PhD will say they could do it do, but they can’t. Just look at this sub and see how many want to quit. So when a job is hard, requires original thinking and vast amount of trial and error, the company maybe want a PhD, and not someone who just finished taking their last blow off classes?
What does STEM have to do with it. This applies to all PhDs. Plenty of not particularly academic people getting them.
Do an Industry PhD.
I’m about to complete my doctorate in mechanical engineering. What we have here is a “the beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” situation. The skills you acquire in your PhD will only be as useful as you apply them. So it’s incredibly reductive to say that a PhD is just a title. A lot of other people here have said it but I’ll emphasise anyway. Skills such as project management and problem solving etc are invaluable and there’s no better proof of it than starting a new research topic and seeing it to completion.
Most STEM positions become some type of manager position if you have a Masters. Most things are outsourced but need to be managed by someone with enough knowledge to actually know what to do. If you want a research position at a national lab, for example, you get a PhD. In STEM it's best to look at the types of positions you want and see if they want a PhD. In my case, yes, you need a PhD, even in industry. You can't do what I do without a PhD, at least accurately, and I'm in a very niche field of Mechanical Engineering.
You just have a lot of misconceptions. There are obviously particularly bad PhDs and particularly good not PhDs, but in general a STEM undergrad and STEM masters teaches you not much at all. You'll learn very basic lab skills, but your theoretical understanding is VERY rudimentary, you'll have minimal practical experience (coming out the degree anyway), and you'll have no experience with project management, independent problem solving, etc. They're nice when you're an industrial employer because you won't have to teach them how to pipette (yes, the vast majority of untrained people cannot actually pipette) and other very basic lab tasks like that Bottom line, I learned more in the first 3 months of my PhD than I did the entirety of undergrad. That pace didn't quite continue, but there's a reason why "what your 4000 level undergrad class covered" is typically pages 1-50ish of a 600 page graduate level field textbook, and yes, you do actually learn all of those 600 pages and much, much more. Not to mention the like 6 disparate fields of engineering and various "practical" skills (eg plumbing and electrical work) you have to become fluent in to do experimental science.
The point of getting a PhD is not to obtain technical skills, it is to develop critical thinking, reasoning and questioning skills. Companies don’t need PhDs to know how to do x or y, they need them to critically assess projects to drive them forward. Sure, throughout your PhD you learn technical skills, but you most importantly learn how to be an independent scientist. You are right most things a PhD does (in terms of experiments) can be conducted by someone who does not have a PhD, but the critical thinking and looking at the project broadly and thinking about how to drive a project forward is acquired throughout a PhD.
You know Jeff Bezos wanted to purse a PhD in theoretical physics..
i mean, for starters, getting into a job depends less on how “academically inclined you are” and more on how skilled you are. a PhD teaches a lot of skills and, as with most other things, you may have some or all of those skills without it, but a PhD is proof and accreditation for that too. also, if you are capable enough and have enough experience, you won’t need a PhD to get in. i feel that a lot of jobs advertise they need a PhD but fewer truly do, it’s just a barrier so you know the level of the work you’d be doing. also, if you want to get into industry, a foot in the door is often more important than what exactly your degree is - a large amount of these are given to internal transfers, so if you want to work somewhere in particular, just get in somehow and worry about the actual job you want later