Someone needs to write a "why getting a job in industry is a waste of time" rebuttal to this tired argument to illustrate how ridiculous it is to evaluate everything with a single (and shallow) goal structure. After all, it typically doesn't contribute anything new or meaningful to scientific knowledge, therefore it is a waste of time (...).
I guess I shouldn't expect any better from The Economist, but not everyone in the world just does whatever they can to make the most money possible, ignoring all other considerations.
Assuming I'm making enough money to survive comfortably (which is essentially guaranteed with computer anything, including grad school itself), I don't care. What I get to work on, and what environment I get to work on it in, is far, far, more important. Overridingly important.
This mentality (though usually not so extreme) is pretty common among math and computing people, which is probably why industry is finally starting to notice that workplace perks are very important. There are plenty of extremely talented people who'd gladly take a 50% pay cut to work in a less shitty environment...
I guess I shouldn't expect any better from The Economist, but not everyone in the world just does whatever they can to make the most money possible, ignoring all other considerations.
Assuming I'm making enough money to survive comfortably (which is essentially guaranteed with computer anything, including grad school itself), I don't care. What I get to work on, and what environment I get to work on it in, is far, far, more important. Overridingly important.
This mentality (though usually not so extreme) is pretty common among math and computing people, which is probably why industry is finally starting to notice that workplace perks are very important. There are plenty of extremely talented people who'd gladly take a 50% pay cut to work in a less shitty environment...