"Prestige" of University where gained PhD

[bigbadwolf]

I'm not screening anybody, just observing. Competency and knowing some syntax are two different things. There is no guarantee that anyone is competent in something just because they've spent time doing it. To become competent you need to push yourself, extend your boundaries, incorporate new ideas and techniques into your coding. Many people stop learning once they know how to write a function.

These are good and valid points. But the problem as I see it is that no-one has explicitly defined what coding competency is. In contrast, it can be defined for large chunks of math and for physics. If someone would bother to define it, then a road map could be constructed to get there. Just learning some C++ syntax doesn't constitute competency.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

I'm not screening anybody, just observing. Competency and knowing some syntax are two different things. There is no guarantee that anyone is competent in something just because they've spent time doing it. To become competent you need to push yourself, extend your boundaries, incorporate new ideas and techniques into your coding. Many people stop learning once they know how to write a function.

This can happen. Especially if you are _maintaining_ a software application/library. Think of s/w for pacemakers, medical devices and aviation.

In many case you explicitly don't want new untested ideas.

And of course, an academic dicussion on how people show function is pointless. It depends who is monitoring, e.g. client, line manager, project leader.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

We now have 3 u

These are good and valid points. But the problem as I see it is that no-one has explicitly defined what coding competency is. In contrast, it can be defined for large chunks of math and for physics. If someone would bother to define it, then a road map could be constructed to get there. Just learning some C++ syntax doesn't constitute competency.

e.g. Competent to maintain an undocumented OO 50KLOC production class library.

Developer effectiveness can be quantified.

 

[bigbadwolf]

We now have 3 u


e.g. Competent to maintain an undocumented OO 50KLOC production class library.

Developer effectiveness can be quantified.

This is patently not what I mean. What is the knowledge base and skill set every coder should have, regardless of what he works on? We have some idea of this in math -- hence the PhD qualifying exams. A PhD student who hasn't got real and complex analysis, algebra, and topology under his belt (probably) cannot make a research mathematician in today's environment.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

But software cannot be categorised like maths; it is much more complex and ill-defined than that.

But the problem as I see it is that no-one has explicitly defined what coding competency is. In contrast, it can be defined for large chunks of math and for physics. If someone would bother to define it, then a road map could be constructed to get there.

This is impossible.

 

[C S]

Yes, the quality of the dissertation research matters a lot more than the name of the university. But on the other hand, many people's research turns out to not be exceptional, but mediocre. Even people that end up getting good postdoctoral positions often have somewhat mediocre research and it's the influence/connections of their advisor or committee members that got them the job. And guess what, if you're at a prestigious university, the latter will be more likely to be maximized.

So unless you really, really think you are going to end up as one of the elite (hard to predict, I admit -- perseverance and courage to try new things, and your psychological makeup can be even more important than how sharp you are) I'd go for the prestige.

Lastly, you seem to have the idea that because you'll have a PhD that a nice, cushy quant job is waiting for you. Well, guess what. The field is super competitive now. Long gone are the days you could just walk off the street knowing a simple Black-Scholes derivation and get a Derman-type quant job. All a PhD in science, engineering, cs or math signifies to people doing the hiring is: 1) You managed to accomplish something that was difficult and took time 2) You have an above average level of intelligence in quantitative work. You'll still be competing with guys with only a Masters or Bachelors, and they still will win out a significant portion of the time because the selection criteria are how sharp you seem in interviews and your fit/personality. And after years grinding away at some esoteric field, you're not going to be that sharp anymore. Your soft skills might even deteriorate and you won't be able to explain something simply to some MBA without coming off as arrogant. The latter happens more than you might think. "PhD arrogance" is very common; you won't notice that in yourself until you interact more with regular people and then you'll realize, damn when did I become a jerk?

 

[Barny]

I wonder what kind of PhD people do that they lose "soft skills". I speak with people every day, sometimes for several hours. Oh, and then I have a social life and a girlfriend too, so I suppose that helps. And this PhD arrogrance is a load of bullshit. Basically, if you are already an arrogant nerd then a PhD might give you even more legitimacy in your own head, but it's symptom of the person, not the PhD.

 

[C S]

I wonder what kind of PhD people do that they lose "soft skills". I speak with people every day, sometimes for several hours. Oh, and then I have a social life and a girlfriend too, so I suppose that helps. And this PhD arrogrance is a load of bullshit. Basically, if you are already an arrogant nerd then a PhD might give you even more legitimacy in your own head, but it's symptom of the person, not the PhD.

Like all advice, you can take it or leave it, in whole or in part. As last parting advice, I'd say that if someone takes the time to give you advice from their experience, you should at least put a thanks somewhere before you say its bullshit.

 

[Barny]

Like all advice, you can take it or leave it, in whole or in part. As last parting advice, I'd say that if someone takes the time to give you advice from their experience, you should at least put a thanks somewhere before you say its bullshit.

Thank you for your bad advice.

 

[JesseLevermore]

I didn't think it was bad advice C S.

Kind of ironic, a guy arrogantly arguing that you don't become more arrogant as a result of a PhD.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

I didn't think it was bad advice C S.

Kind of ironic, a guy arrogantly arguing that you don't become more arrogant as a result of a PhD.

Quote:
"The latter happens more than you might think. "PhD arrogance" is very common; you won't notice that in yourself until you interact more with regular people and then you'll realize, damn when did I become a jerk? "