4 ms·
Diverting resources sounds good, but obviously should come first. The research itself could and should have value. But a PhD must go all the way to the bottom,
by jmmcd 11y ago
Diverting resources sounds good, but obviously should come first.
The research itself could and should have value. But a PhD must go all the way to the bottom, in terms of detail. It's not a pop science book or a funding programme, which can delegate the details to someone else. Therefore, asking the PhD student to be a big thinker as well as taking care of the experimental details is just raising the bar -- it's not changing the focus, it's raising the bar. Fewer people will be able to start PhDs and fewer will be able to complete them. The article doesn't suggest that this has been recognised.
Instead, I suggest that a PhD is not a great vehicle for "big thinking", and instead serves as a training-ground for planning, executing and describing ordinary research. Maybe the big thinking should be done -- as it is currently -- by people who have already demonstrated that they can do all that very well.
- jamesrcole 11y agoI think you're conflating "ordinary research" and "applied research". "Big thinking" is often pure research, and pure research is just as valid a topic for a PhD as applied research is. There's not a lot of other opportunities to spend a significant amount of time working on the one thing. > Maybe the big thinking should be done -- as it is currently -- by people who have already demonstrated that they can do all that very well. I completely dispute this. I would bet that historically, the majority of "big thinking" has been done by people who are not already well established. In fact, I think there's a fallacy that "big thinking" somehow comes from accumulated experience. I would argue that "big thinking" is actually a different kind of thinking, one that requires you to have that kind of thinking rather than a wealth of experience. [EDIT: there seems to be empirical evidence that having a wealth of experience tends to prevent people from coming up with (good) "big ideas". And since this is Hacker News, think about this in terms of technology and startups. Is it usually older people or younger people who tend to come up with the game-changing tech developments?]
- jmmcd 11y agoNo, I think pure research can be and usually is ordinary research. I agree with your points about the young and non-established being good bets for big thinking. But I think the PhD is an unsuitable vehicle, partly because it's not well-designed to handle failure (your analogy with startups is great and instructive on this point).