I would back up and instead ask whether getting a PhD is a good idea. Unfortunately, academia is a minefield. PhD students are largely cheap labor. Getting a PhD can be a valuable apprenticeship, but often it's abusive and poorly paid. You might nominally get some freedom, but the grant funding wants you to do something you might not care for. The opportunity cost of a PhD is huge. You should consider as an alternative taking a more conventional job, maybe a part time one, and doing science on the side to figure out how to start your business. A part-time engineer making $50K/year is getting a much better deal than the vast majority of PhD students.
The problem-first vs. science-first framing sounds good on paper, but it would be difficult to accurately determine whether a particular lab has either focus ahead of time. What you see from the outside is mostly marketing. Most labs are really neither and instead are publication-first. Publications are the currency valued in academia.
Bingo. OP needs to do a lot more digging into what a PhD entails and why you get one, and hopefully not from the same sources of where they learned this terminology like "hard-tech" and "technology-first"
In my totally uneducated opinion as a founder working on winding down my software company that can't differentiate anymore and considering finding someone in hard tech to partner with, I think problem first is a mistake. Problem first is appropriate for a business, but for a lab, I think it should be organized around the art of possible, deep specialization and capabilities first. You never know what valuable things will come out of that process. Once you have something promising, you can match it to problems and make a business case working backwards from you. Generally startups are the opposite, you want to organize them around a customer and a problem, but fundamental R&D != startups.
How does R&D get revenue? I don't know how it is for hard tech, but from my understanding of these "researchy small team" labs in software, what ends up happening is that you find a bunch of small contracts to solve, throw really smart people at it, with the intent that you slowly build up internal core tools on the contract's dime. It's much less "hey someone gave us a bunch of money, let's explore this core thing" rather than almost "grifting" in a sense (well, it's not grifting because you provide value, you provide the service, but it's not the idea of "pure applied research" anymore on your end).
A PhD does not prepare you for a startup. I do not want to discourage you from doing a PhD if that is what you want to do (I wish I had gotten my PhD!), but do not go into it thinking it will prepare you in any way for a startup.
Find a problem that interests you, ideally one that is hugely impactful, and work on that.
First, not clear PhD is really needed, speaking as a PhD. Second, if you do a PhD, make sure your professor is ok with summer internship type things.
I think on net it's valuable to become a good problem solver and thorough thinker. Domain expertise is also good, especially if broadly applicable. The most important things for success in PhD regardless of desired path is 1) good advisor, background check them, ask current and former students 2) loving the problem and the problem having some reasonable chance of progressing 3) funding.
Now specifically to your question about the flavor of the lab, my gut says favor the one that's more about hard problems and good methodology and innovative "tool" use(especially ai) regardless of domain. I also would lean against something trying to prove a particular technology with the pi maybe thinking they can spin off a company. That's not the best use of PhD time unless the PI has a spectacular track record of startups and connections. Almost always PIs and labs don't exactly mimic the start up scene. Basically the idea that just one good invention that's technically a better solution than everything out there is almost never enough.
I guess my rambling point is that if you're going to do a PhD, do it for the skill set and differentiation. If you treat it as prep for a specific start up like a tech focused lab, you would be better off joining a startup in that sector.
I don't know what the VC is saying, I don't why a deep tech company wouldn't be technology first?
Re-reading again, sorry for the rambling: don't count on one particular approach to one technology yielding a good startup. There are exceptions, of course, especially if you're aiming directly for acquisition. But generally, a good tech startup isn't about a brand new technology, it's about integrating technologies and adapting academic knowledge practically to industry problems. Especially since you seem interested in heavy industry (where I went), look for places where no one knows anything about the tech and knowledge you bring, talk to the them, especially the operators, figure out how they really actually do shit now. Then reimagine it using your approach, always talking with actual operators.
Thinking out loud... I would say probably a good filter right now when AI in the near future makes the dirty translation/onboarding layers easier, look for places where startups have recently failed to penetrate an industry and take the second mover advantage.
Note I'm thinking mostly of heavy and dirty industries, primed by your message.
Edit, don't know why that thinking out loud section is formatted like that, not intentional.
Some good advice I once heard can't remember from who: if you're really smart, don't go where everyone else is really smart. But the caveat there is your personality must match, existing heavy industries have seen their share of arrogant geniuses who spend no time trying to understand how things actually work. Approach people openly and with curiosity, like they have something to teach you, because they do.
Can you elaborate on why you would _never_ recommend an MBA for a technical individual? I'm not opinionated here, despite recommending the opposite above, just curious on your reasoning. A "success story" is someone like Khan Academy founder Salman Khan who has an MEng and MBA.
I guess mainly opportunity cost, marginal gains, and relative abundance of MBAs. I could be dead wrong, completely open to it being bad advice.
You can learn as you go, and have someone more experienced and especially more interested handle a lot of the business side (i understand that handling everything by yourself is optimal in the limit of infinite capacity and time, because of lossy transmission).
One of the main things in MBA is case studies, right? No better case study-like info than talking to other founders and advisors you're going to find faster becoming a founder. I don't think learning the history of Amazon, for example, is not valuable. But time is limited.
Learn the business stuff as it comes, maybe front load info about cap tables, VC mechanics, basic accounting, DCF, basic marketing and gtm and such. Read some of the oft-recommended books on him. Also note in all of the above you can narrow in on material particular to your case, whereas MBA is more focused on larger corporations and established business and business types, because that's where most of the MBAs go.
Now you may ask why this doesn't apply to a PhD? Well it does to some extent. But the knowledge and experience from an MBA is much easier to gain outside of school than that of a PhD, assuming a good PhD program, advisor, and experience.
Maybe I'm discounting the value of MBA connections, but I think those are highly concentrated in the very top programs.
Edit- the question for a founder is largely what do you bring to the table few others can. But I admit you want as many edges and basic competencies in as many relevant domains as possible, if only to better understand what the people in charge of those domains in your company are saying. But you can't know it all, especially in the beginning. I just don't think 2 years in an MBA program is the most efficient route to gaining all of that.
I have a PhD in mechanical engineering.
I would back up and instead ask whether getting a PhD is a good idea. Unfortunately, academia is a minefield. PhD students are largely cheap labor. Getting a PhD can be a valuable apprenticeship, but often it's abusive and poorly paid. You might nominally get some freedom, but the grant funding wants you to do something you might not care for. The opportunity cost of a PhD is huge. You should consider as an alternative taking a more conventional job, maybe a part time one, and doing science on the side to figure out how to start your business. A part-time engineer making $50K/year is getting a much better deal than the vast majority of PhD students.
The problem-first vs. science-first framing sounds good on paper, but it would be difficult to accurately determine whether a particular lab has either focus ahead of time. What you see from the outside is mostly marketing. Most labs are really neither and instead are publication-first. Publications are the currency valued in academia.
Bingo. OP needs to do a lot more digging into what a PhD entails and why you get one, and hopefully not from the same sources of where they learned this terminology like "hard-tech" and "technology-first"
> What you see from the outside is mostly marketing. Most labs are really neither and instead are publication-first.
I've never heard it put so succinctly. Superb prose.
In my totally uneducated opinion as a founder working on winding down my software company that can't differentiate anymore and considering finding someone in hard tech to partner with, I think problem first is a mistake. Problem first is appropriate for a business, but for a lab, I think it should be organized around the art of possible, deep specialization and capabilities first. You never know what valuable things will come out of that process. Once you have something promising, you can match it to problems and make a business case working backwards from you. Generally startups are the opposite, you want to organize them around a customer and a problem, but fundamental R&D != startups.
How does R&D get revenue? I don't know how it is for hard tech, but from my understanding of these "researchy small team" labs in software, what ends up happening is that you find a bunch of small contracts to solve, throw really smart people at it, with the intent that you slowly build up internal core tools on the contract's dime. It's much less "hey someone gave us a bunch of money, let's explore this core thing" rather than almost "grifting" in a sense (well, it's not grifting because you provide value, you provide the service, but it's not the idea of "pure applied research" anymore on your end).
A PhD does not prepare you for a startup. I do not want to discourage you from doing a PhD if that is what you want to do (I wish I had gotten my PhD!), but do not go into it thinking it will prepare you in any way for a startup.
Find a problem that interests you, ideally one that is hugely impactful, and work on that.
First, not clear PhD is really needed, speaking as a PhD. Second, if you do a PhD, make sure your professor is ok with summer internship type things.
I think on net it's valuable to become a good problem solver and thorough thinker. Domain expertise is also good, especially if broadly applicable. The most important things for success in PhD regardless of desired path is 1) good advisor, background check them, ask current and former students 2) loving the problem and the problem having some reasonable chance of progressing 3) funding.
Now specifically to your question about the flavor of the lab, my gut says favor the one that's more about hard problems and good methodology and innovative "tool" use(especially ai) regardless of domain. I also would lean against something trying to prove a particular technology with the pi maybe thinking they can spin off a company. That's not the best use of PhD time unless the PI has a spectacular track record of startups and connections. Almost always PIs and labs don't exactly mimic the start up scene. Basically the idea that just one good invention that's technically a better solution than everything out there is almost never enough.
I guess my rambling point is that if you're going to do a PhD, do it for the skill set and differentiation. If you treat it as prep for a specific start up like a tech focused lab, you would be better off joining a startup in that sector.
I don't know what the VC is saying, I don't why a deep tech company wouldn't be technology first?
Re-reading again, sorry for the rambling: don't count on one particular approach to one technology yielding a good startup. There are exceptions, of course, especially if you're aiming directly for acquisition. But generally, a good tech startup isn't about a brand new technology, it's about integrating technologies and adapting academic knowledge practically to industry problems. Especially since you seem interested in heavy industry (where I went), look for places where no one knows anything about the tech and knowledge you bring, talk to the them, especially the operators, figure out how they really actually do shit now. Then reimagine it using your approach, always talking with actual operators.
Note I'm thinking mostly of heavy and dirty industries, primed by your message.Edit, don't know why that thinking out loud section is formatted like that, not intentional.
Some good advice I once heard can't remember from who: if you're really smart, don't go where everyone else is really smart. But the caveat there is your personality must match, existing heavy industries have seen their share of arrogant geniuses who spend no time trying to understand how things actually work. Approach people openly and with curiosity, like they have something to teach you, because they do.
If OP wants graduate school with the goal of founding a startup would you recommend a business/MBA path?
I'd personally recommend a dual masters in STEM and MBA--if possible for OP and they want to become heavily "educated" in ways similar to PhD.
I generally think people should pursue PhD only if they are strongly interested in research or want to stay in academia
I would never recommend an MBA for someone smart enough to get a technical degree, if their goal was a technical start up.
Maybe buddy up with some MBAs while in grad school, take something like a mini-mba program while there.
Can you elaborate on why you would _never_ recommend an MBA for a technical individual? I'm not opinionated here, despite recommending the opposite above, just curious on your reasoning. A "success story" is someone like Khan Academy founder Salman Khan who has an MEng and MBA.
I guess mainly opportunity cost, marginal gains, and relative abundance of MBAs. I could be dead wrong, completely open to it being bad advice.
You can learn as you go, and have someone more experienced and especially more interested handle a lot of the business side (i understand that handling everything by yourself is optimal in the limit of infinite capacity and time, because of lossy transmission).
One of the main things in MBA is case studies, right? No better case study-like info than talking to other founders and advisors you're going to find faster becoming a founder. I don't think learning the history of Amazon, for example, is not valuable. But time is limited.
Learn the business stuff as it comes, maybe front load info about cap tables, VC mechanics, basic accounting, DCF, basic marketing and gtm and such. Read some of the oft-recommended books on him. Also note in all of the above you can narrow in on material particular to your case, whereas MBA is more focused on larger corporations and established business and business types, because that's where most of the MBAs go.
Now you may ask why this doesn't apply to a PhD? Well it does to some extent. But the knowledge and experience from an MBA is much easier to gain outside of school than that of a PhD, assuming a good PhD program, advisor, and experience.
Maybe I'm discounting the value of MBA connections, but I think those are highly concentrated in the very top programs.
Edit- the question for a founder is largely what do you bring to the table few others can. But I admit you want as many edges and basic competencies in as many relevant domains as possible, if only to better understand what the people in charge of those domains in your company are saying. But you can't know it all, especially in the beginning. I just don't think 2 years in an MBA program is the most efficient route to gaining all of that.