Advice to Startups

I just finished watching a talk by David Heineimeier Hansson, who is the creator of Ruby on Rails and a partner at 37signals.  The talk was part of Stanford's Entrepreneurship series and focused on Mr. Hansson's advice for starting a company and running a business

I was very impressed by Mr. Hansson's talk.  It has compelled me to download his book Rework to my Kindle.  Mr. Hansson and I share many sentiments about business: meetings can be helpful but are generally a waste of time; revenue doesn't matter as much as profit; quality of time working matters more than quantity; planning is guessing; and most importantly, you can do a lot with a small team.

Watching this video also got my entrepreneurship blood percolating -- both my parents were/are entrepreneurs.  I have often thought about starting my own venture, but so far I have not been able to get any traction. 

Was a PhD worth it?

I came across this article on The Economist that discusses the disadvantages of pursuing a PhD.  The last paragraph particularly resonated with me (emphasis mine):

Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. They will have amassed awards and prizes. As this year's new crop of graduate students bounce into their research, few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else. They might use their research skills to look harder at the lot of the disposable academic. Someone should write a thesis about that.

For me, I think the PhD was NOT worth it.  After my undergraduate degree, I started to work at Pratt & Whitney in the Combustion Department.  I was something of an anomaly in the Combustion Department: very few people "only" had their bachelor's.  The majority had either a Masters or a PhD.  It seemed to me that the way to advance and work on the most interesting projects was to get a PhD.  My boss at Pratt had a PhD.  My boss's boss had a PhD and an MBA.  Clearly, to advance I needed more education.

My decision to pursue a PhD was not straightforward.  I was considering either a PhD or an MBA.  Both had merits.  In the end, I obviously chose the PhD.  Jack Welsh the famous CEO of GE had a PhD in Chemical Engineering.  I reasoned that a PhD would not preclude corporate advancement and it left the "door open" to an academic job. 

So I left Pratt and finished a Masters in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Toronto, followed by a PhD in Aerospace Engineering at Purdue University.  I won a couple fellowships along the way, published a handful of papers, all the while maintaining a 4.0.  I should also point out that my PhD work was sponsored by a Fortune 500 company.  Now I have graduated and I have the exact same job I had at Pratt but with a different company and for a little more money.

I knew the PhD was a poor return on investment, and that the post-PhD salaries were paltry compared to post-MBA salaries.  I reconciled this reduction in earning power with the fact that I would perform interesting work (hopefully an R&D based career).  This did not happen. 

A few of the guys at Pratt who had PhDs warned me not to pursue a PhD.  I thought they were unjustly bitter, but now at the end of the road I see clearly.  Corporations are run by MBAs and most PhDs are under-valued and under-utilized.  I also think the price of an MBA is over-inflated and most of the subject material can be learned through independent study (Michael Burry provides a good example).

For those young engineers looking to get a second degree, I would discourage them from pursuing a PhD (unless it is in Computer Science or Computer Engineering) and look to other degrees.  Despite its high price, the MBA still offers a substantial return on investment.  

The Generalist

I stumbled across this blog post by a fellow named Noah Lorang who works over at 37signals.  Noah works as a "data scientist" but was educated as a mechanical engineer (just like yours truly).  Noah contends that "...mechanical engineering programs are really about teaching you how to think about solving problems."  He gives as an example a process that he learnt for solving thermodynamic problems.  The process can be generalized to logically solve any problem. 

I fully agree with Noah and I think this blog post is excellent.  Mechanical engineering is a very general degree.  During my education, I took courses in the bedrocks of mechanical engineering like dynamics and statics, but also courses in computer programming, chemistry, digital logic and micro-processors, electric machinery, quantum mechanics, rocket propulsion, etc...  A very diverse list.  What my education taught me was how to solve problems.  Even if I have no background in the problem field, I can learn the necessary material and tackle the problem.  I also think that my broad education allows me to have a fast learning curve for any type of problem. 

Mechanical engineering might not have the sex appeal as computer or nano engineering, but I think mechanical engineering can provide any student with the background to be successful in any field.