American Professor to Chinese PhD Student: Go Make Money instead

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/stories/foreign-professor-to-chinese-student-go-make-money.html

by jeb • 16 years ago

92 36 16 years ago

Music isn't necessarily a rich man's game. Orchestra and band and concert piano certainly are, but music was born elsewhere. How rich must you be to play a harmonica in the evening?

starkfist• 16 years ago

Why are orchestra and band and concert piano a rich man's game?

rchi• 16 years ago

I guess because only a small minority can earn a living as a musician.

coryl• 16 years ago

I think he meant studying music at a high level, is a rich man's game.

thefool3• 16 years ago

Its either the rich man's, or the prodogies, game.

If you are good enough, it doesn't matter how much money you have, someone else will throw money at you to ensure that you keep doing what your doing.

erikpukinskis3• 16 years ago

Music is most definitely a man's game. The vast, vast majority of professional musicians are men.

And I don't have any stats, but I would guess that the vast majority of pros have a decent bit of class privilege to go along with their male privilege.

roel_v• 16 years ago

May I suggest you read the post you're replying to again...

narkee• 16 years ago

This could very appropriately generalized to all PhD students, and most undergraduate students as well.

Anecdotally, many post-secondary students view diplomas and degrees as simply documents certifying that they've put in their time, and paid their dues. In a sense, the whole academic infrastructure has been somewhat perverted from pursuit of knowledge to pursuit of dollars/fame/status.

timwiseman2• 16 years ago

I do not think this applies to undergraduates. The current lifetime earning difference between someone with a bachelors and someone with no degree was close to a million dollars last time I checked, that is strong monetary motivation to get the degree. I do not have the figures to compare for someone with a bachelors and someone with a PHD, but anecdotally it seems fairly small.

More than that, there are a great many non-research career tracks that are only open to someone with a degree, and a great many others that don't technically require a degree but go much more smoothly.

It only makes sense to pursue a PHD if you have both a passion for that field and at least enough money to handle the necessities. For most people, it makes sense to get a bachelors if you are able.

Rod3• 16 years ago

"... and most undergraduate students as well."

You are seriously out of touch with reality. Well, if you want to be a programmer, you can be a programmer right after high school, and there's no need to spend $30K per year to learn Java and Turing machines. Maybe you, too, have fallen under the spell of PG almighty and believe that "making something that people want" is sufficient to be a sucessful entrepreneur. After 10 years of trying and failing, you may come to the realization that playing the "all or nothing" game usually results in... nothing. Now you're on your late 20s, your high school friends who had more common sense are getting married and having kids, and you have nothing to show. Since you believe you're better than the ones who chose the easy path, you go "all in", hoping for that ever-elusive IPO that will make you rich enough to stick it to the system. In the process, you will have wasted your life chasing a dream.

Programmers tend to think that having coding skills is all that matters to make it big. Problem is, the barrier of entry is very low in programming these days, and if a high school kid can outcompete you, you're probably playing the wrong game.

People who live in the real world understand that universities sell credentials, not knowledge. Such people understand also that an undergraduate degree is little more than indoctrination, a process through which obedient employees are created. Most organizations need obedient employees, they don't need "creative" coders. Sorry, you're not a special & unique snowflake, and the world does not owe you a thing. It may suck, but being in denial won't help.

An undergraduate degree serves many purposes. For one, it indoctrinates you, which sounds evil, but is a necessary evil. Second, it allows you to find out what you like and what you don't. Third, by doing what you like and meeting like-minded people, you end up realizing who you are, not by introspection (fuck that new age BS), but through action. Fourth, it allows you to network with people from all walks of life and the most various fields. Fifth, it provides the skills necessary to accomplish something. You can stay 4 years at home studying by yourself, but you'll go crazy before you accomplish anything. Being in a structured environment for 4 years is a much gentler way of building a skill set that actually matters... just as long as you stay away from sociology, psychology, "womyn" studies and other such distasteful insanity.

todayiamme2• 16 years ago

I'll be applying for college this year. So, I am a would be undergrad and I think you are right in some ways but wrong in others.

You are right to say that;

>>>An undergraduate degree serves many purposes. For one, it indoctrinates you, which sounds evil, but is a necessary evil. Second, it allows you to find out what you like and what you don't. Third, by doing what you like and meeting like-minded people, you end up realizing who you are, not by introspection (fuck that new age BS), but through ?action. Fourth, it allows you to network with people from all walks of life and the most various fields. Fifth, it provides the skills necessary to accomplish something. You can stay 4 years at home studying by yourself, but you'll go crazy before you accomplish anything. Being in a structured environment for 4 years is a much gentler way of building a skill set that actually matters...<<<

Yet, in the longer run why are you doing that? It is corny to say that there is more to life than the pursuit of social prestige/money/luxury, but it's quite true.

I think of it this way; when I die I want to die knowing that I have lived life to its fullest potential, and for me that involves creating beautiful things. I might not be a special and unique snowflake, but my integrity is precious to me. If I rush down that path I have no doubt that I will lose myself, and what worth is a life like that?

For some people that path matches their core identity, but for me it simply doesn't. I don't know why, but I am just nuts about stuff like that.

You see, for me the beauty I see around me and the overwhelming beauty of the things I create is reality. It might starve me to death. Maybe not. I accept the risk as the price I shall pay for my freedom to create.

Oh and Sociology, Psychology, and women studies do matter, but the way they are currently taught is nothing but intellectual fraud.

vecter2• 16 years ago

People who live in the real world understand that universities sell credentials, not knowledge.

A good number of universities (especially if you study math, science, or engineering) sell much more than credentials. They sell you a lot of knowledge. I don't understand how you can seriously make that statement. I learned an unbelievable amount of stuff in my four years in college, and I'm sure many other studious students did also.

jey• 16 years ago

A degree is simply a certificate of minimal competency. There's other ways to demonstrate competency than spending $100k on a degree.

I'm speaking from experience. I quit college during my sophomore year, got multiple job offers, and took a high-paying job writing compilers. How'd I do it? Entirely because I had a portfolio of substantial projects under my belt.

thefool3• 16 years ago

The professor gave good advice, but i don't think the guy drew the right conclusions.

Science, like music or art, is one of those things that you do because you decide that you like the rewards it brings more than the struggle that is required to achieve success. If you are rich, the risks of doing it are lower, but being poor hardly stops you.

If you do any of those in order to produce finacial gain, it is pretty dumb, as there are easier ways to make way more money if you have the potential to be successful in those feilds.

The professor saw that the guy didn't have any real passion for science, and thus told him to do something else.

The real quote i disagree with is "This is the basic theory behind the practice of tenure of professors in American universities. First, a recent PhD graduate must first steel oneself and complete 5 years of hard work. Afterwards, if you are picked by the group of tenured professors and one day pass their requirements, then for the rest of your life you will never have to worry about making a living again. At that point you can wholeheartedly devote your time to research and study. Naturally the school also knows that the overwhelming majority of these tenured professors have no research potential left in them. Equally impotent are the lowly menial workers of the research laboratory. However, out of the vast numbers of tenured professors a few stand out from the crowd that actually have talent and contribute positively to the economy."

Science today needs a lot more menial laborers than professors directing research, because it works on grants and doesn't generate its own income, professors are perfectly happy to take people who are not really interested in the work, but will be methodical and will work for very low pay (like asian PhD students) because they need a lot of hands to run these tedious experiments. That doesn't mean that once a professor becomes a professor they are useless or lack talent. It seems as though he confuses positive economic contributions with positive intellectual ones (which might only be capatalized on decades later).

Lewisham2• 16 years ago

Completely agree.

The choice quote is:

"To be honest, I wasn’t familiar with the professor’s research methods whatsoever. Instead, I said I was interested because if I didn’t do this low-paying job the professor wouldn’t give me the position of assistant research fellow and then I wouldn’t have the money for school tuition."

The guy wasn't interested in research, just in money, and his professor (rightly) called him out. The PhD process is one of passion: if you don't have the passion for the subject you are studying, you are wasting everyone's time and money, not just your own.

greenlblue• 16 years ago

This is great advice. The market is supersaturated with graduate students that have no hope of getting any kind of tenure position anytime within the next 2 decades and I think the situation is getting worse because universities keep pumping out more and more PhD's.

geebee2• 16 years ago

Unfortunately, US immigration law makes it very difficult to come here to "make money." Once you get a green card, you can do that, but then it would be difficult to convince smart young people to spend years as research assistants in PhD programs. So the US has created a system that makes it easier for a smart young person to come here as a sci/eng PhD student (but not so much as a law, mba, or medical student), and get hired provided they do sci/eng for a big corp or university for a while. Eventually, they'll be free, but usually at an age where they have spouses, children, and other things that keep them from doing what they would have done had they had this freedom a decade earlier.

Ok, that's a big of an exaggeration, but only a bit.

timwiseman2• 16 years ago

You make good points. I can definitely see arguments for making it easier for bright, hard working, educated people to immigrate legitimately.

Personally, I think it might be wise for the US to consider providing a very fast and easy path to citizenship for people who earn PHDs here. In my current graduate studies I know many very bright students that could contribute tremendously to society in the US if they were actively encouraged to stay here after finishing their PHDs, and most of them would want that opportunity if they had it.

Lewisham2• 16 years ago

I know you know this, but I just wanted to clarify that international PhDs are not leaving because of a lack of encouragement, but that their F1 visas (which I also hold) stipulate that they must prove they have every intention of returning back to the home country.

Obviously, the F1 forces students to leave once they graduate.

The system is set up to actively discourage students to stay. I don't know which organization came up with the idea of using public money (because most will be funded this way) to educate people and then make them leave. It's somewhat bizarre, and doesn't seem to benefit the US at all.

geebee2• 16 years ago

I don't really like the idea of granting a fast track citizenship to people who have earned a PhD here, largely because I think it would provide the wrong kind of incentives. People should obtain PhDs because they are interested in PhDs, not because they are interested in citizenship. I also dislike the idea that professors and universities would have this kind of power over their students. Lastly, I think that this sort of immigration scheme may discourage people who already have citizenship from pursuing PhDs, since the working conditions will be determined by just how much crap someone who desperately wants us citizenship will put up with, rather than the value of the PhD itself.

That said, I do agree with you about the making it easier for bright, hard working, educated people. I just think that PhD programs need to clean up their act if they're going to lure us citizens out of law, med, mba (or no grad degree), and if they can essentially award citizenship (but these other programs can't), they won't experience the reckoning they so richly deserve.

vicaya• 16 years ago

Ever heard of EB1? Any PhDs (including candidates) worth their salt (have a few journal papers and good recommendations from their professors) can do it easily with some help from decent immigration lawyers. EB1 has no quota and waiting time (for priority date to become current). It's the fast track for these people.

Absolute0• 16 years ago

The Article makes so many mistaks! Here is the scenario: You have an intelligent who just passed out of his undergrad degree. He has following options: 1. Work in his country for a Max 10k$ Per Year Job (Extremely rare, most pay just 6k$ P.A)

2. Come to USA for PhD, get Paid Double the amount + save around 4k$ per year atleast. Get Prestigious degree after 5 years and then get a job that pays at least 70k$ or Join Academia which pays 40k$ +

3. Go to USA for Masters, Pay fees out of pocket or via loan, so total cost will be ~50k$b- 80k$ Get a job which pays 60k$ P.A. post graduation. And repay the loan in next 3-4 years, after which one can go for an MBA

Now Choice 1 is pointless, Choice 3 requires your parents to be waelthy enough to afford the loan. Hence an overwhelming number of them choose 2. Also there is nothing wrong with it, plus the whole make money instead argument is bullshit.

Unless you have god gifted green card, no one will give you a job in USA, and regarding working in China/India the Minimum Wage here 10404*12 ~ 19k is more than best starting salary in their country

American Professor to Chinese PhD Student: Go Make Money instead

Related Stories