Comparison industry vs. academia? 3

[LaxeyTom]

I have a good first MS degree, and quite a lot of experience as an 'applied' engineer, but have often liked the idea of research studies, and perhaps even becoming a researcher. This career dilemma has bothered me quite a lot, particularly as I like the very detailed and analytical end of engineering work, which tends not to be what industrial engineering organisations want (often, they send that stuff to Universities), although, paradoxically, industry has to solve problems on real applications, which often have serious complications requiring in-depth analysis.

However, when I look at actual PhD work, it often looks quite divorced from reality - obviously, it can only use open-source material - but also there often seems little effort made to make the link to industrial considerations, in terms of realistic design possibilities, analysing trade-offs etc. Perhaps this is the nature of engineering research. Theses often seem to be written primarily for personal/academic goals (unsurprising), which would not reflect my primary reasons for getting into it, as much as I would fulfil the requirements.

At the moment, I attempt to 'bridge the gap' by undertaking personal study work, to educate myself beyond what I did at university, in order to define my own career in a way that reflects my interest, however, it still feels a bit like I am in a 'no-mans-land'; wanting to do creative analytical work, but unsure whether to stick it out in industry, or make the big leap into a PhD programme. Does this make sense? Is this something others can recognise?

 

[zdas04]

When I was 17, I generated a list of life goals. I think it was part of some lame Social Studies class, but I took it seriously. There was a long list of things that I wanted to do before I died. 40 years later the only thing left undone on the original list is "get a PhD". It has always been on the list, so I've always sought out tasks that were WAY outside the job description of a middle-80% engineer. Those tasks are available in most any company, you just have to find and develop them. I had a job doing computer stuff for a while so I developed a unifying program (same family as Windows, but nothing like as ambitious) that integrated stand alone programs with (previously) stand alone data. It was a mainframe program that didn't work very well, but it satisfied my need to do "researchy" stuff at the time.

Later I was a facilities engineer and needed a way to predict the timing of a suite of capital expenditures. I approached it by writing a totally bizarre reservoir/wellbore/pipeline model that worked quite well. Along the way I ran into a bunch of things that the conventional techniques reached 70% of potential and I went looking (not always successfully) for ways to make that 90+%.

To have an thoroughly unconventional career in a totally conventional field (Oil & Gas in my case), requires that you personally take control of your activities. When you get an assignment ask yourself "how can I make this better, faster, cheaper, more productive, safer?". And then do what is expected of you very well, while developing (usually on your own time) a strategy to make it better. A few times being successful at that and you start getting first call on all the hard problems. It is a blast.

One last anecdote. Three years before I retired, a friend of mine at our research center was retiring and his boss called me to come to Tulsa to interview for the job and go house hunting. I went and they told me the job was mine if I wanted it, then they described the job (it was all consulting, training, and meetings), I asked "when do I do research?". My friend said "you are doing more research in the San Juan Basin than this whole group put together does, you'd be an idiot to come here". I thought about it and realized that my normal job responsibilities gave me an amazing amount of latitude to do the researchy stuff. I didn't take the job. I mention this because a disturbing number of people in formal research positions (either in colleges or companies) are just over-educated clerks who resent innovation so picking one over the other because of the "opportunities it offers you" is a dead end--you create your own opportunities.

Getting the PhD is still on my list and I expect to start on it when I turn 60 and can start drawing on my retirement savings. This is a long winded way of saying that work and academia do not have to be isolated from each other and neither one is going to give you a damn thing.

David

 

[IRstuff]

Traditionally, PhDs have been tasked with "fundamental" research, as opposed to "applied" research. However, I see in many theses, a more directed research, so it may just be a matter of finding an institution that's more open to applied theory.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[jpankask]

Does your company have a reasearch deparment with a few PhD's? Maybe you can work your PhD into your job and complete a project for your company, while staying employed and school at least partially paid for. At my first job, the corporate office had a few PhD level engineers that developed new products or improved on the old. I discussed working with them on my masters report for a new product line being developed, but nothing materialized out of it. If that's not an option, the professors at your chosen university may be in with some industrial company that is sponsoring their research. Maybe you can earn your PhD by working with them on your research project?