Ask Slashdot: Which Ph.D For Work In Applied Statistics / C.S.?

New submitter soramimo writes "I'm currently a Ph.D student in Machine Learning and Biology at a pretty good European university. As my lab is moving to the U.S., I have the chance to get my Ph.D from an Ivy League university instead of the one in Europe (without much additional work, as I'm close to finishing). However, I would be getting a Ph.D in Biological Sciences rather than Computer Science. As I'm planning to work as an applied statistician / computer-scientist / analyst in the U.S. after graduating, I'm wondering which path to take. Is a Ph.D in Biological Sciences frowned upon by technology companies, or is it out-weighed by the Ivy League tag? How big of a role does the type of Ph.D play in the hiring process in the U.S., compared to what you actually did (thesis focus, publication record, software)?"

Do you plan to work in the real world?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the world of business, what you did is much more important. Your experience and actual outputs are far more important then the kind of Ph.D you have.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[tixxit]

Usually jobs at the PhD level don't get hundreds of applicants and the resumes can be looked at a bit more carefully. Moreover, if someone is posting a position requiring a graduate degree, they're probably interested in your thesis and research, not what your degree says.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[nothousebroken]

That might be true at the bachelor level, but at the PhD level people hire you for your specialized expertise based on your degree. For example, no brokerage house is going to hire a biology PhD to do statistical analysis research. They're going to hire someone with a PhD in math/statistics. It might be somewhat different if you are going to work for a pharmaceutical or other biology-related company. But in general, don't expect to get a degree in biology and then get job offers from companies looking for a PhD statistician. In fact, I would suggest that you view the corporate PhD hiring process as being quite similar to the faculty hiring process.

A PhD is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, employers immediately assume you are mature, intelligent, and highly-motivated. On the flip side, they are generally not willing to pay PhD salaries to someone outside their field of expertise. Put yourself in the employer's shoes. Why would an employer pay PhD rates for someone who doesn't have a PhD in the required discipline.

Market Your Skills Appropriately

[Frightened_Turtle]

Most of the Biopharmaceutical companies in the Boston area are going to look at your Ph.D. to determine whether it is relevant to the work they do. But it won't be the only thing they look for.

Many biopharms are leaning very heavily on computer simulations to model various molecules they are pursuing as potential drug candidates. Having a an advanced degree in biology and the ability to prove strong computer skills might open vastly more doors for you than just having a Ph.D. in a relevant field. Having a programmer who can also intimately understand what the scientists are trying to accomplish is desperately needed by many companies.

But don't sell yourself as a programmer with a doctorate in biology. Rather, sell yourself as a biology doctorate with advanced computer skills. If they think you are a programmer, they'll treat--and pay--you like one. Sadly, there are still WAY too many CEOs (and CIOs, CFOs, and COOs) who are still under the 1980's notion that "high school kids could do this work," and treat computer engineers like they are unskilled labor. As a "respected scientist" you'll be treated far more appropriately by management/business types.

Re:A Ph.D is only a foot in the door

[Diss Champ]

My employer historically has hired lots of PhDs; we design mixed signal chips. My own PhD has basically nothing to do with my job, but the sort of person who can make it through the PhD process in a hard (science or engineering) field has tended to do well here. That high % of PhD folks is changing a bit as we have been growing way too fast lately to not hire a larger % of MS, but when your bread and butter is to do chips that are "hard" enough to get decent margins rather than being commodity priced the ability to go figure things out that everyone doesn't already know is quite useful. Actually FINISHING the PhD is a lot better predictor than STARTING a PhD BTW.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[Anonymous Coward]

if all that matter is "aptitude" why did you all have a PhD? You could hire a genius out of high school in that case.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[Anonymous Coward]

> That might be true at the bachelor level, but at the PhD level people hire you for your specialized expertise based on your degree.

Every PhD that I have ever seen just says "Doctor of Philosophy" on it. You can claim any specialization that you want afterwords. It wont matter if he was in a bio department if he studied stats. He just says his PhD was in statistics, and his thesis will back up that claim.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[nothousebroken]

Special cases are just that, special cases. Sure, there are lots of PhDs working outside their degree field. But the reality is that most employers hiring someone fresh out of school are going to too look at what that person did in school, both in terms of the degree field and the dissertation. Companies generally don't pay PhD salaries to new graduates for aptitude. They pay for somebody who is highly educated in the desired discipline and who can hit the ground running. If you don't believe that, just look at a bunch of PhD-level job postings. They don't say: Candidate should have an aptitude for, and ability to learn, statistical analysis". They say something more like: Candidate should have extensive experience in xxx analysis as applied to yyy systems. If someone is many years out of school and can show the requisite experience they might get the job. But even then they could easily lose out to someone with similar experience and PhD in the desired field.

So, yes you can switch fields. Lots of people do. But if you have a PhD in math, you can expect to have an uphill battle convincing people you have PhD-level expertise in biology. You're probably going to have to provide a lot more evidence than the guy with the PhD in biology.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[pigwiggle]

I second that - you are full of it. People are going to look at what a PhD did. I've personally seen brokerage houses recruiting out of computational labs at the University of Chicago. They were looking at people doing computer simulations of large biological systems, among other things. They wanted people with experience in statistical mechanics and and computer modelling. I had a former colleague with a PhD in Physical Chemistry go through the application process for a Quant position. His experience was that the prospective employers took his computational and mathematical aptitude on faith, given his schooling, and were only interested in asking question about what he had taught himself about economic and investment models.

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[idbedead]

A Ph.D. like all degrees has very little to do with genius. It is a signifier of your ability to work independently for long periods of time (3-6 years), and adapt to changing circumstances. This is the kind of aptitude that employers in nearly any field look for. A high schooler, even a genius, remains unproven in that area. This is why many genius people don't get any degree's yet companies still like to hire Ph.D.'s (even though most of them are not genius).

Re:Do you plan to work in the real world?

[kubernet3s]

I think what Anon was trying to say is that the PhD is not a vocational degree. It's actually sad how little people understand that. True, there are positions which require vocational experience, and employers will fill those positions banking on PhD applicants previous experience. However, the PhD is more than learning a set of specific skills: it is an experience which teaches a broad range of specific cognitive behaviors, many of which are extremely useful to many disciplines, not just the one on the degree. A PhD must by default be disciplined, skilled in problem solving, an excellent written communicator, and have modest experience giving presentations. STEM PhD's have to have experience with math up through linear algebra, possibly with partial differential equations, and often quite a bit more than that. They are able to think critically, organize projects, work in groups, solve problems, and moreover their degree now indicates that they have *expert level* capability in those skills. True, a pharmaceutical company isn't going to hire a philosophy major to fill a position requiring the experience of a PhD in biochemistry, but the facts are that industrial positions for specific PhD's are fairly few and far between: a lot of companies are just looking for PhD's in general. That would be the only explanation for Anon's English major friend, who I sincerely doubt was hired in the firm's "English department" before clawing his way over to financial analysis. That bloke was likely hired for his degree, and the aptitude it promises.

Re:biology degree...

[rwa2]

Meh, you can say the same thing about engineering... could be anywhere from a train conductor or someone who controls the thermostat for a building to someone who sits at a desk and writes papers about splitting atoms in deep space and everything in between.

I think if subby can get their work accepted in the "Quantitative Biology" section of arXiv, they'll probably do all right.

Re:Put yourself in their shoes

[ShakaUVM]

>>You're hiring a someone to be a computer scientist

No, he wants to work as a statistician. A biology degree is completely appropriate, as you basically have to be a SPSS whiz to do any research in biology these days. Undergrads actually handle the test tubes and mice, overseen by grad students. PIs get everything set up and then work mainly on the data analysis level. A lot also get involved in computer science for modelling and related reasons.

That said, if I was hiring a computer science computer science position (you know, to have someone refactor code for me or whatever), I'd definitely hire a person with a CS doctorate over a biology one (or a CS person without a doctorate over a bio person), because I can basically guarantee you that no Biology single-subject major will have the necessary classes in software engineering. As someone who spent years working with the code created by biology people... well, that's why they hired me and other CS grad students to do the actual software engineering side of things for them.

So, yeah. Basically it depends on what the ultimate nature of the job is. I'd hire a PhD in biology to do stats over a computer science guy, but I'd hire a computer science guy over a bio PhD for a software engineering job.