Yes, and none of this has anything to do with science, which is the point of a PhD. It is not a path to a startup. Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia, as they should be.
A PhD is about science and learning. If you don't do science, or cannot do science, then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.
Having gone through it myself I will be the first to tell you of it's problems. But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke. Want to make a difference to science? Demonstrate an alternative implementation.
Beyond that, if you went into it for the money, it's your own mistake that you need to take responsibility for. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim. You were never promised riches, only knowledge in a subject of your own choosing.
>Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia
Yes but they compete for the same kind of people: Talented, persistent and technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of their lifes for their careers.
Should be goal of angel investors to "steal" those human resources from academia. Ergo, anti-academia bias in HN.
I'm sorry, but I've seen too many Startups hire friends--not
"Talented, persistent and technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of their lifes for their careers."
I wish Startups, Businesses, and Government would hire the best and the brightest, but nepotism and networking seem
to be more important factor. So many guys who got rich in
the Startup world--owe a lot to luck. They are usually in
deep denial, until the company is sold, or goes under. I
had a friend who got lucky with a gaming company. He went
from a humble guy to someone I just couldn't listen to.
What bothered me was he never let me in on the "game" early
on. I guess he wasn't much of a friend? And that's why I
never kept in touch. (This is not geared to you, but your
post got me thing about this industry.)
> then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.
> But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke.
Huh? I'm having trouble understanding why you think that the points you are making and the points aortega is making are incompatible. aortega is more or less agreeing with your original point and shows how the startup scene and academia could be seen to be competing for similar, I don't know, type of persons from the similar talent pools. One is public funded, one is private funded. Are you implying that academia is the only place that science is pushed forward? You seem to be and of course that is untrue.
And besides, to say that a PhD is about science is vague. Surely you mean that a PhD follows the scientific method and uses scientific methodology - its problem domain may not be in the sciences which is what you seem to be implying.
Isn't that exactly his point? HN is focused on startups, and will have an interest in things that benefit startups, like attracting smart people into business instead of pursuing a PhD. If HN was focused on academia, we'd probably see more articles about why starting a business is a bad idea, and why getting your PhD is a great idea.
> If HN was focused on academia, we'd probably see more articles about why starting a business is a bad idea, and why getting your PhD is a great idea.
You clearly don't read many academic blogs, or the Chronicle of Higher Education.
A PhD is about science and learning. If you don't do science, or cannot do science, then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.
Having gone through it myself I will be the first to tell you of it's problems. But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke. Want to make a difference to science? Demonstrate an alternative implementation.
Beyond that, if you went into it for the money, it's your own mistake that you need to take responsibility for. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim. You were never promised riches, only knowledge in a subject of your own choosing.