3 ms·

>This new PhD would see students go out into the field and talk to practitioners from day one of their research I don't think this applies well to all fields o

>This new PhD would see students go out into the field and talk to practitioners from day one of their research I don't think this applies well to all fields of study. I have my Ph.D. in physics and there are loads of people researching problems that don't really have counterparts "in the field." I'm assuming "in the field" means industry or possibly a government service. I would think the same is true for mathematics at least. >I research how to mitigate the social impact of hydropower dams. Of course in this case, contact with people in the industry makes lots of sense. In fact, I'm not sure how this research would be conducted without this contact. I certainly have gripes with academia but I don't think there is a monolithic motivation for students. For me, I think of academia as having the goal of advancing human understanding of the universe. Whether or not that has a social impact is probably up to some debate. I believe that one of the cool things about academia is allowing some people the ability to pursue ideas and work on problems that don't have obvious, short-term impacts.

drb91 8y ago
> I certainly have gripes with academia but I don't think there is a monolithic motivation for students. Well, there is chasing funding. In your area of the universe, does the money follow worthwhile problems?
- chengiz 8y ago
  Funding is simple. It's all about experience and prior use. Funders fund what they did before, what the fundees did before, and did they use up the funds from last time.
  - drb91 8y ago
    My question stands. :)
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  During a PhD you don't have to chase funding- either you have funding (via a scholarship etc) at which point it normally lasts for the three or four years you're expected to finish your PhD, or you don't, in which case you probably don't start at all- unless you can pay the PhD fees and your expenses out of your own budget... in which case you don't need "funding" (in the sense of funds given to you from some source specifically to do research).
- wuliwong 8y ago
  No and I'm having a hard time articulating what I mean. First, I am no longer in academia. :) I left because it felt a lot like an extension of government. I am not a fan of how the funding operates at all. I was trying to say that I believe there is value or at least there can be value in the advancement of human understanding without it being tied to a social or business outcome. It seemed that the main thesis of this article was implicitly denying that value by stating that Ph.D.'s should be required to show the real-world impact of their work. As others said, the Ph.D. students themselves don't really "chase funding" but their options are a result of chased funding, I suppose.

drb91 8y ago

> I certainly have gripes with academia but I don't think there is a monolithic motivation for students. Well, there is chasing funding. In your area of the universe, does the money follow worthwhile problems?

chengiz 8y ago
Funding is simple. It's all about experience and prior use. Funders fund what they did before, what the fundees did before, and did they use up the funds from last time.
- drb91 8y ago
  My question stands. :)
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
During a PhD you don't have to chase funding- either you have funding (via a scholarship etc) at which point it normally lasts for the three or four years you're expected to finish your PhD, or you don't, in which case you probably don't start at all- unless you can pay the PhD fees and your expenses out of your own budget... in which case you don't need "funding" (in the sense of funds given to you from some source specifically to do research).
wuliwong 8y ago
No and I'm having a hard time articulating what I mean. First, I am no longer in academia. :) I left because it felt a lot like an extension of government. I am not a fan of how the funding operates at all. I was trying to say that I believe there is value or at least there can be value in the advancement of human understanding without it being tied to a social or business outcome. It seemed that the main thesis of this article was implicitly denying that value by stating that Ph.D.'s should be required to show the real-world impact of their work. As others said, the Ph.D. students themselves don't really "chase funding" but their options are a result of chased funding, I suppose.