Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:404 misc.jobs.misc:1540
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs
From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: American Programmer (What's a Ph.D. worth?)
Message-ID: <5391@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 15:49:42 GMT
References: <555@psu-cs.UUCP> <1434@ur-tut.UUCP> <3415@bunker.UUCP> <3326@zeus.TEK.COM> <461@vsi.UUCP> <5775@bunny.UUCP> <2218@ttidca.TTI.COM> <5388@utah-cs.UUCP> <2524@orca.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Organization: PASS Research Group
Lines: 35

In article <2524@orca.TEK.COM> stank@orca.UUCP (Stan Kalinowski) writes:

>I think industry equates the time to earn a degree with equivilent
>time in the field because it is looking for results.  Having a PhD
>does not necessarily guarantee results, having a good track record of
>results usually does.  Industry tends to lay blame on our educational
>system.  The hiring policy makers say that PhD's with no industry
>experience have difficulty making the transition from theoretical
>science to applied science and that PhD's don't know how to translate
>ideas into dollars.

What's the definition of "results"?  Published papers or software profits?

There are at least two assumptions here: one, that PhDs do "theoretical
science", and that a PhD is necessary to do "applied science".  Of course,
people have differing ideas of theoretical vs practical - I've been
accused of being "too theoretical" and "too practical" at the same time
(but, fortunately, not by the same person :-) ).  As I said previously,
there is a habit of companies specifying "PhD" when they really want a
good person with a master's.  So let me ask this: does anybody actually
know why companies specify PhDs when they have no intention of letting
the employees do either basic or applied research?  Or is it that the
definition of "applied research" covers anything more creative than buying
a commercial software package?

>The only conclusion I can make from all this is: IF WE DON'T CHANGE
>THE WAY WE ARE DEVELOPING AND MARKETING TECHNOLOGY WE WILL ALL LOSE!

I don't understand who is going to lose what.  Technology transfer is
already incredibly efficient, so much so that many senior people in the
field worry about loss of academic freedom because of companies insisting
on funding only short-term work with clearly-defined goals.

							stan shebs
							shebs@cs.utah.edu