7 ms·

(Disclosure: I'm getting a PhD in CS now) > The hard part of startups is product: knowing what to build, and being able to build it Funny enough, this is why

by jspann 23d ago

(Disclosure: I'm getting a PhD in CS now) > The hard part of startups is product: knowing what to build, and being able to build it Funny enough, this is why I think a PhD is undervalued by many. You spend years focused on a single area, sometimes pivoting topics, and getting hands on experience with operating solo on the outskirts of a particular field. The overall point of the degree is you learn how to learn. The nice part is you have the padded walls of university equipment, funding, and time; So failure isn't terminal, just an opportunity to figure out what didn't work. There's a few reasons how and why this message got distorted and lost in modern academia (honestly it would be a great subject for a book). It's no mistake that better known programs and programs with ties to a stream of successful startups are also the ones where there's a culture of builders and makers.

yieldcrv 23d ago
> Funny enough, this is why I think a PhD is undervalued by many no, the opportunity cost is too great for this field, for people that saw the light in just undergrad or wound up building software for other people without an undergrad CS degree
- asa123 23d ago
  the moment you start talking about opportunity cost, I think you've already ducked the intent of the majority of startup-strategizers-for-exponential-gains-only, for which the carrot on the stick is "unbounded" gain
  - yieldcrv 23d ago
    can you repeat that in a different way? opportunity cost is prioritizing gains - or at least a window of opportunity for outsized gains - I don't see how "ducked the intent" fits in but yes I realize that any conversation with academics is going to be skewed from the market, I think its worth representing nonetheless since academics often interpret their privilege of choice as a nobler cause because they made that choice at all
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
glenngillen 23d ago
In hindsight it was quite early in my career, but a bit over 20 years ago I felt burnt out in tech and wanted to try something new. I was share trading quite a bit so thought maybe I'd become a stock broker (online trading was only just starting to become a thing, so being a broker was still a real job at the time!). I finished the degree and got qualified, and while I loved the learning I discovered I hated the industry and that it wasn't for me. But all of that discovery work, the financial planning, what their actual objectives were, having to dig into why someone wanted to buy a house, etc. proved to be some of the most invaluable and transferable skills I've learned (that, and SQL ;). A lot of that part of the course was learning how to ask questions, and learning how to follow-up to get past the superficial and often incorrect initial answers. To your point I feel like there's these kind of meta skills that are transferable to many domains, but are sadly lacking these days from a lot of education that is hyper-focused on very role-specific qualifications. The ones that immediately come to mind: - Learning how to learn (i.e., how to understand yourself, and improve) - How to ask good questions (similar to above, but about others) - And something I need a better label for because I just clumsily call it "sales", but in the Daniel Pink "To Sell is Human" style. Something like being able to structure a coherent and compelling narrative to other people. Clearly I fall short on this one.
- Animats 23d ago
  To sell is human; to scam, divine.
  - DiscourseFan 23d ago
    would've been a great tagline for Better Call Saul
- ErigmolCt 23d ago
  I wouldn't sell yourself short on the last one... the comment itself is a decent example of it :)
ErigmolCt 23d ago
Maybe the failure mode isn't the PhD itself, but environments where publishing becomes the objective rather than a byproduct of getting unusually good at understanding and building things
- cumshitpiss 23d ago
  [dead]
- locknitpicker 23d ago
  > (...) a byproduct of getting unusually good at understanding and building things A PhD is not about getting good at understanding something, let alone "unusually good". It's about being able to explore an uncharted area with little to no help, and write down your learnings so that those that come after you can build upon your work.
  - maleldil 23d ago
    In an ideal world, sure. In reality, a PhD[1] is about publishing papers in the hope that you learn something along the way. [1] My experience in ML in 2026.
    - bonoboTP 23d ago
      Your role is to publish papers so your PI is able to get grants, and to network, so the lab profile gets better known in the research community, and then as a more senior grad student you can help write grant applications, and you can build a track record of mentoring (e.g. master students). At the end of the day, you want to demonstrate that you can come up with projects and pursue the research up until publication in a top-tier venue, and the ultimate goal (from the point of view of hiring committees) is obtaining prestige and funding for the university. If you plan to go to industry, your incentives are somewhat misaligned with your PI. In that case you want to pursue multiple internships and getting networked with top companies in your field, and demonstrating practical output, well-released code, demonstrated downstream value for followup projects etc.
arunaugustine 19d ago
I once asked asked my professor for advice. I said, I am drawn to both doing a startup and doing a PhD. How do I do both? He advised me to choose one. “Either one will take the whole of your youth and all its energy”, he said.

by jspann 23d ago

yieldcrv 23d ago

> Funny enough, this is why I think a PhD is undervalued by many no, the opportunity cost is too great for this field, for people that saw the light in just undergrad or wound up building software for other people without an undergrad CS degree

asa123 23d ago
the moment you start talking about opportunity cost, I think you've already ducked the intent of the majority of startup-strategizers-for-exponential-gains-only, for which the carrot on the stick is "unbounded" gain
- yieldcrv 23d ago
  can you repeat that in a different way? opportunity cost is prioritizing gains - or at least a window of opportunity for outsized gains - I don't see how "ducked the intent" fits in but yes I realize that any conversation with academics is going to be skewed from the market, I think its worth representing nonetheless since academics often interpret their privilege of choice as a nobler cause because they made that choice at all
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]

glenngillen 23d ago

In hindsight it was quite early in my career, but a bit over 20 years ago I felt burnt out in tech and wanted to try something new. I was share trading quite a bit so thought maybe I'd become a stock broker (online trading was only just starting to become a thing, so being a broker was still a real job at the time!). I finished the degree and got qualified, and while I loved the learning I discovered I hated the industry and that it wasn't for me. But all of that discovery work, the financial planning, what their actual objectives were, having to dig into why someone wanted to buy a house, etc. proved to be some of the most invaluable and transferable skills I've learned (that, and SQL ;). A lot of that part of the course was learning how to ask questions, and learning how to follow-up to get past the superficial and often incorrect initial answers. To your point I feel like there's these kind of meta skills that are transferable to many domains, but are sadly lacking these days from a lot of education that is hyper-focused on very role-specific qualifications. The ones that immediately come to mind: - Learning how to learn (i.e., how to understand yourself, and improve) - How to ask good questions (similar to above, but about others) - And something I need a better label for because I just clumsily call it "sales", but in the Daniel Pink "To Sell is Human" style. Something like being able to structure a coherent and compelling narrative to other people. Clearly I fall short on this one.

Animats 23d ago
To sell is human; to scam, divine.
- DiscourseFan 23d ago
  would've been a great tagline for Better Call Saul
ErigmolCt 23d ago
I wouldn't sell yourself short on the last one... the comment itself is a decent example of it :)

ErigmolCt 23d ago

Maybe the failure mode isn't the PhD itself, but environments where publishing becomes the objective rather than a byproduct of getting unusually good at understanding and building things

cumshitpiss 23d ago
[dead]
locknitpicker 23d ago
> (...) a byproduct of getting unusually good at understanding and building things A PhD is not about getting good at understanding something, let alone "unusually good". It's about being able to explore an uncharted area with little to no help, and write down your learnings so that those that come after you can build upon your work.
- maleldil 23d ago
  In an ideal world, sure. In reality, a PhD[1] is about publishing papers in the hope that you learn something along the way. [1] My experience in ML in 2026.
  - bonoboTP 23d ago
    Your role is to publish papers so your PI is able to get grants, and to network, so the lab profile gets better known in the research community, and then as a more senior grad student you can help write grant applications, and you can build a track record of mentoring (e.g. master students). At the end of the day, you want to demonstrate that you can come up with projects and pursue the research up until publication in a top-tier venue, and the ultimate goal (from the point of view of hiring committees) is obtaining prestige and funding for the university. If you plan to go to industry, your incentives are somewhat misaligned with your PI. In that case you want to pursue multiple internships and getting networked with top companies in your field, and demonstrating practical output, well-released code, demonstrated downstream value for followup projects etc.

arunaugustine 19d ago

I once asked asked my professor for advice. I said, I am drawn to both doing a startup and doing a PhD. How do I do both? He advised me to choose one. “Either one will take the whole of your youth and all its energy”, he said.