PhD enrollment is declining globally, driven by several factors. The demanding nature of doctoral programs, coupled with often-meager stipends and uncertain career prospects outside academia, is deterring potential applicants. Many are opting for higher-paying jobs in industry directly after their master's degrees. Additionally, concerns about work-life balance, mental health, and the increasing pressure to publish are contributing to this trend. While some fields, like engineering and computer science, remain attractive due to industry demand, the overall appeal of doctoral studies is diminishing as alternative career paths become more appealing.
The original poster is deciding between Physics PhD programs at Stanford and UC Berkeley, having been accepted to both. They're leaning towards Stanford due to perceived stronger faculty in their specific research interest (quantum computing/AMO physics) and the potential for better industry connections post-graduation. However, they acknowledge Berkeley's prestigious physics department and are seeking further input from the Hacker News community to solidify their decision. Essentially, they are asking for perspectives on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program, particularly regarding career prospects in quantum computing.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Physics PhD at Stanford or Berkeley" post largely revolve around the nuances of choosing between the two prestigious programs. Commenters emphasize that both are excellent choices, and the decision should be based on individual factors like specific research interests, advisor fit, and departmental culture. Several commenters suggest visiting both departments and talking to current students to gauge the environment. Some highlight Stanford's stronger connections to industry and Silicon Valley, while others point to Berkeley's arguably stronger reputation in certain subfields of physics. The overall sentiment is that the OP can't go wrong with either choice, and the decision should be based on personal preference and research goals rather than perceived prestige. A few commenters also caution against overemphasizing the "prestige" factor in general, encouraging the OP to prioritize a supportive and stimulating research environment.
The paper "PhD Knowledge Not Required: A Reasoning Challenge for Large Language Models" introduces "GSM8K," a dataset of 8.5K grade school math word problems designed to evaluate the reasoning and problem-solving abilities of large language models (LLMs). The authors argue that existing benchmarks often rely on specialized knowledge or easily-memorized patterns, while GSM8K focuses on compositional reasoning using basic arithmetic operations. They demonstrate that even the most advanced LLMs struggle with these seemingly simple problems, significantly underperforming human performance. This highlights the gap between current LLMs' ability to manipulate language and their true understanding of underlying concepts, suggesting future research directions focused on improving reasoning and problem-solving capabilities.
HN users generally found the paper's reasoning challenge interesting, but questioned its practicality and real-world relevance. Some pointed out that the challenge focuses on a niche area of knowledge (PhD-level scientific literature), while others doubted its ability to truly test reasoning beyond pattern matching. A few commenters discussed the potential for LLMs to assist with literature review and synthesis, but skepticism remained about whether these models could genuinely understand and contribute to scientific discourse at a high level. The core issue raised was whether solving contrived challenges translates to real-world problem-solving abilities, with several commenters suggesting that the focus should be on more practical applications of LLMs.
Summary of Comments ( 35 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43036428
Hacker News users discuss potential reasons for the PhD decline, citing poor academic job prospects, low pay compared to industry, and lengthy, often stressful, programs. Some argue that a PhD is only worthwhile for those truly passionate about research, while others suggest the value of a PhD depends heavily on the field. Several commenters point out that industry increasingly values specialized skills acquired through shorter, more focused programs, and the financial burden of a PhD is a major deterrent. Some suggest the "lustre" hasn't faded for all PhDs, with fields like computer science remaining attractive. Others propose alternative paths like industry-sponsored PhDs or more direct collaborations between academia and industry to increase relevance and improve career outcomes. A few commenters also highlight the potential impact of declining birth rates and the rising cost of higher education in general.
The Hacker News post "Are PhDs losing lustre? Why fewer students are enrolling in doctoral degrees" has generated a substantial discussion with a variety of perspectives on the declining PhD enrollment.
Several commenters point to the poor financial prospects of a PhD, especially compared to the opportunity cost of entering the workforce directly after a bachelor's or master's degree. They highlight the long years of relatively low stipends, followed by uncertain job prospects in academia with limited earning potential compared to industry roles. This financial calculation is seen as a major deterrent for prospective students, particularly in fields like STEM where lucrative industry jobs are readily available. Some commenters even label the PhD system as exploitative, with universities benefiting from cheap research labor while students incur substantial opportunity costs.
Another recurring theme is the perceived devaluation of the PhD itself. Commenters argue that an oversupply of PhD graduates has diminished their career prospects outside of academia, making the degree less attractive. The increasing prevalence of "PhD inflation," where doctoral degrees are required for positions that previously only needed a master's or even a bachelor's, is also discussed, with some suggesting it's a symptom of credential creep rather than a genuine need for highly specialized researchers.
The challenging and often stressful nature of PhD programs is also brought up. Commenters describe the intense pressure, long hours, and uncertain outcomes associated with doctoral research, leading to burnout and mental health issues. This, combined with the limited career prospects, paints a less than appealing picture of the PhD experience.
Some commenters offer alternative perspectives, emphasizing the intrinsic rewards of pursuing a PhD, such as intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction of contributing to knowledge. They suggest that the PhD is best suited for those with a genuine passion for research and a willingness to accept the associated challenges and uncertainties.
The discussion also touches upon the structural issues within academia, including the limited number of tenure-track positions, the increasing reliance on adjunct faculty, and the pressure to publish. These factors are seen as contributing to the precarious career paths faced by PhD graduates.
Finally, some commenters suggest alternative paths to research careers, such as working in industry research labs or pursuing a master's degree instead of a PhD. These options are presented as potentially more viable and less risky ways to engage in research without the drawbacks associated with the traditional PhD path. Several users specifically call out the value of a Master's degree as a more practical option for many aspiring researchers.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News paint a complex picture of the PhD landscape, highlighting both the challenges and the potential rewards. The discussion reflects the evolving perception of the PhD degree and the need for a more honest conversation about its value proposition in the current economic and academic climate.