Ask HN: Academia or Startup/Industry?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4472076

by davrosthedalek • 14 years ago

7 14 14 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

The title pretty much says it all. At some point in the life of a phd student or postdoc, one has to decide whether one wants to follow the academic path, or switch gears and work in the private sector.

I am a postdoc in nuclear physics at an renowned US institute, but my time there runs out. So I am in the same spot. It is easy enough to ask people who choose the academic path, but that is certainly one-sided. Since I, personally, wouldn't want to work for a big company but rather at a startup where I have some impact, I hope this is a good forum to get some insights.

So, who here had the same decision to make? What made you decide? Money? The possibility to create something by yourself? Did you feel a "calling" to start or work at a startup? Did anybody regret it?

The other question would be: Is there actually interest in physicists?

CyberFonic4• 14 years ago

For some people money is the primary motivator. But you have completed your PhD so I would guess that you are less motivated by money than the boyz on Wall St.

My experiences range from working in multinationals to startups and then returning to do my PhD. So I think my perceptions might be of some value to you.

Academia is all about money as well. You need to acquire grants to do more research. If you chose to teach then the tuition fees are part of the revenue that you help the institution acquire. If you want to be very successful in academia then you need to bring in lots of money which in turn means getting lots of publications, etc. In effect you run a startup within an institution and they take their share for providing the facilities, support, etc.

If you choose to create a startup, then you are in control but with that control comes the responsibility for making it work. You have more freedom to choose the path. Sooner or later you need to look at monetising your work and that requires marketing, sales, admin, etc.

You ask whether there is much interest in physicists. Yes and No. Depends on what specific skills you bring to the prospective employer. Due to your skill set it is probably some large corporation. So until you prove yourself, you are but a cog in a machine. Your PhD proves that you can perform original research and that you can effectively communicate the fruits of your labours. So it is how you plan to apply those skills that matter more than exactly what you are an expert in. In the past people with your skills found much demand on Wall St for their quantitative and reasoning abilities. These days, I think Wall St is not a good option.

Although I'm a serial startup person, I've never made it big. Was able to create comfortable living and enjoy the freedom of not working for The Man. But clients are The Man in disguise - so you still need to be wary about becoming a non-indentured slave. To answer your question, I don't regret it. But you have to be comfortable with insecurity - both financial and emotional. And it does limit the choices in relationships to those who too can cope with the ups and downs of entrepreneurship.

This is becoming a rather long answer. So to wrap up: I believe you need to feel "being called". You absolutely need to take stock of what your strengths and interests are and how and where they can be applied. If you can't create value in the eyes of others, then sooner or later you'll crash and burn. But that is pretty much par for the course on all three paths you are considering. So the bottom line question is how you cope when facing uncertain outcomes. Considering your background in nuclear physics you might already be at home with chaos and lack of certainity.

Good Luck !

davrosthedalek4• 14 years ago

Thanks for your long answer! I agree that Wall St. is not an option. I wouldn't want to develop risk analyses or the next ultra fast trading bot anyway. Not that I don't like thinking about finance, but not all day :)

I don't want to make this a "please hire me" post. But since you mentioned specific skills: I would say that I have a higher affinity to software development than most of my colleagues. For example, I am currently the "offline analysis coordinator", and it that role I wrote pretty much the entire analysis framework. I also dabbled into web applications: Our slow control, i.e. the experimental control software, is a web application with postgresql backend written in Python (Flask). I kind of liked that, and I think I will wrap this up and put it on github.

But I digress. You made an interesting comment about relationships, and you are certainly right there. On the other hand, academia doesn't make it easy there too. You are guaranteed to move a lot, and especially in experimental nuclear science, a lot of the places are in less than stellar areas.

What made you come back to make your PhD?

CyberFonic4• 14 years ago

Thanks for asking: I started my career as a "real" engineer - safety boots, hard hat, big SUV, million dollar a day decisions. I morphed into financial engineering guy (with engineering skills you can model and understand any complex system) and I've always been involved with ICT - SCADA & telemetry along with concrete footings and steelworks.

Over the years I became very frustrated about the lack of real engineering in what passes for software engineering - obviously by this time my exposure was to fund managers, insurance companies, merchant bankers and the software based systems there. So I decided to make a mark in that corner of the universe. I'm still working on my PhD, but also do consulting, involved in a startup and teaching SE courses at postgrad level.

I guess my point is that I really wanted to do something about a problem that wasn't being well addressed. Typical engineer personality - see problem - go about fixing it. Try to not make it worse!

abozi• 14 years ago

I finished my PhD in Comp. Sci. three years ago, majored in data mining - was tough, but enjoyed every bit of it.

Soon as I finished, I wanted a job that wasn't fully research-based (I was a little bit tired of experimenting, coding and writing paper cycle), and I stumbled upon my current job. We are a start-up doing a fraud detection. It was all quite fortunate, since towards the end of my PhD, I got caught up in all the startup hype.

Having said that, I think one of the main reason why I enjoy my current work environment was not because of the initial reasons of why I joined (I actually had to get this job, because it was in a different city where my fiancee lived, so job was just a good excuse to move) but the things that I have been able to do at work.

When I joined it was quite terrible - writing Java 1.2 based applet on the browser with old Swing components (shudder).

But I decided to scrap the entire platform and do the entire re-design and re-development of the platform during my spare time. I was able to get the prototype ready, using the latest Web stack and I presented to my CEO, which he loved.

And ever since then, I've slowly implemented my "hacker" way of development into my work place.

I do think about going back and researching some time in the future - I also just finished a journal paper with my previous supervisor and realised I missed it.

I also sometimes think I'm 'wasting' my research or skillset I've acquired.

But, I try to read up on research papers here and there, compete in data mining competitions here and there, enter hackathons, try to work with different people.

Anyway, sorry for extending this story, but all in all, I'm happy, not necessarily because of the decision I've made, but what actually happened AFTER I've made the decision.

French designer Pierre Cardin used to toss a coin to make a really really big decision and when someone said "why do you leave that to a chance?" and he replied - "so long as I commit to my decision, I'll be ok". (I think that's roughly how the story goes).

I'm not sure if I helped. :)

CyberFonic4• 14 years ago

Liked your Pierre Cardin anecdote. There is an art of knowing when to pivot and when to stay on course. Seth Godin has written a short book on "The Dip" which provides encouragement to persist and yet have the perception to cut the losses if that is the appropriate decision.

davrosthedalek4• 14 years ago

That was very interesting, thank you!

You mention this "wasting" thought, which I have too. But it's good to know that despite this, you are still very happy with your choice. I always wonder whether this thought is real, or implanted by interaction with all the people in academia. For them, of course, academia is "better". At least I hope it is :)

manglav2• 14 years ago

if you intend to work for a startup, I would go for FLiBe Energy, a startup devoted to developing a thorium reactor. That's where I'm hopefully headed after I graduate with a Chemical Eng. degree. To learn more about thorium reactors, you can go here http://energyfromthorium.com/. The story of thorium reactors could be made into a movie, it's that amazing.

davrosthedalek4• 14 years ago

Oh yeah, this is great! Also interesting: Traveling Wave Reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor). Bill Gates invested quite a lot in TerraPower.

manglav2• 14 years ago

Yes, both are super interesting, but it's a shame it's taken so long to pursue these technologies. Mind if we exchange email addresses? It's rare to meet someone who's knowledgeable about these technologies and also on HN. My professors don't even care about these, and I supposedly go to a very good school. My email is in my profile.

davrosthedalek4• 14 years ago

Follow up question: Anybody here managed to have both? That is, a career in academia, and some participation in startups?

001sky• 14 years ago

One limiting factor is geography, startups tend to be clustered geographically. That may entail a commute (via plane) if your appointment is not local. I have seen this done before, but it to deal with hypotheticals is hard here.

CyberFonic4• 14 years ago

There are several. Probably the most famous of them is David Cheriton: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/08/01/professor-bil...

thappycrop• 14 years ago

Hey davrosthedalek, I'm facing a similar decision as well. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm definitely leaning towards startups because there are simply more opportunities for me in that direction. That will be different for everyone but one way to figure this out is to contact both sides and see how much interests you get from them.

I'm a biostatistician and my switch to data analytics comes rather naturally but my biology background does cause some organizations / people to do a double take (generally a negative one), but still I'm getting more interest in industry than in academia because the academic landscape in general is contracting, some fields like mine more severe than others.

I've chatted with a whole bunch of startups and folks in the industry and it seems people with quantitative degrees plus coding skills tend to be welcomed. Of course job specific skills varies a ton, but chances are if you're coming from nuclear physics you'll find a good fit somewhere.

My decision was not just motivated by the number of opportunities and levels of interest expressed by both sides, but also the chance to work on project that has fairly immediate impact on people's lives. That search for relevance (academic work can be buried deep in obscurity) is a big motivating factor for me.

Good luck on your hunt. I'll be needing a bit of that too.

6paramitas• 14 years ago

I was a physicist, with a Ph.D. in condensed matter. Industry is more fun, at least you have more options to experience different things. And you can still read physics books for fun, if you like, at your free time.

Ask HN: Academia or Startup/Industry?

Related Stories