@KarinaVoggel
I don't think there's nothing wrong with the original posters arguments. Extending them to academic careers (specifically, astronomy) the opportunity cost is huge.
My back-of-the-envelope estimate: Astronomy PhD (in the U.S.) takes 5-6 years, with stipends topping out at…
Attitudes like this irk me to no end because they imply that career & money is everything in life. Maybe spending three more years on something you are passionate about instead of slaving for the capitalism overlords is also valuable?
I'm often asked "should I do a PhD?"
I usually say no, because:
- a PhD doesn't prepare you for most careers
- a PhD isn't required for most careers
- the risk to your mental health is high
- the opportunity cost is high $$
How would you answer this question?
@mjuric
@KarinaVoggel
I agree with all of this except I’d be careful with the term “best years”. Opportunity comes at all stages in life and it only does us a disservice to think of our young adulthood as The Best Years. It’s true that it’s *easier* to find opportunities when you’re younger.
@mjuric
@KarinaVoggel
I would add that postdocs and to a large degree PhD time doesn’t count as experience in most circumstances, so after a PhD and two postdocs, you start where someone who just graduated from undergrad in terms of credentials. Except you’re a decade older.
@mjuric
@KarinaVoggel
Agree. The cost-benefit analysis would not point to pursuing a Ph.D. What would drive somebody to it is bigger than that, very individual, of course, but has to do with a sense of personal fulfillment, attitude, and higher intellectual ambition & ability that need to be realized.
@mjuric
@KarinaVoggel
Well summarized
@mjuric
. You mentioned data scientist positions which I think a lot of those with physical science bachelors can access. I think the delta is even larger for those with a comp sci degree since they can more quickly enter industry with less training..