4 ms·

Hoping that the degree will mask a lack of actual skills. I encounter this often, 'guy has phd but struggles with the decisions to make actual progress in pract

Hoping that the degree will mask a lack of actual skills. I encounter this often, 'guy has phd but struggles with the decisions to make actual progress in practical terms'. Is it possible to attain a phd and rely mostly on rote memorization? Are all phd candidates required to make an original contribution to their respective field?

roel_v 8y ago
"Is it possible to attain a phd and rely mostly on rote memorization?" No, but it's possible to just be a research serf to the professor, and the professor will carry you more or less to completion - very little indepenent thought needed. You do need to be able to do lots of (well defined, but tedious) work.
- pc86 8y ago
  It's a shame that completing a mountain of well-defined, but tedious work with little independent thought is considered an original contribution to the field.
  - roel_v 8y ago
    Well of course it isn't, and you won't see any job openings saying 'looking for a 4 year slave'. And you generally hire people expecting them to be capable of working independently. But sometimes it doesn't turn out that way, and instead of losing years of work and effort, things just turn out a certain way.
pmyteh 8y ago
It is not possible to rely solely on rote memorization, and to get a PhD is supposed to require making a substantive original contribution to a field. Having said that, the skills required to get a PhD are pretty specialised - it's absolutely not a given that people with PhDs are highly-functioning human beings, or even necessarily capable of holding down a conventional job. They will at a minimum have demonstrated the ability to self-organise, a high level of bloody-mindedness, and some very deep knowledge in a probably very obscure field. But unless you move straight into solo academic research in the same field, that's not the same thing as being trained in any strong sense.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> rely mostly on rote memorization What on earth would you be memorising and for what purpose?
- stealthmodeclan 8y ago
  For same reason for which we memorize alphabets.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Do people do PhDs in things similar to reciting the alphabet? What do you think the examination for a PhD involves? It's a thesis and oral example. You can't produce a thesis by memorising someone else's work.
    - tsumnia 8y ago
      My current research is on retyping coding examples because I believe we don't give enough repetition (or rote memorization) in CS and that initial frustration is a primary reason for the high attrition/failure rates. To shift the view, I don't need to be a kinesiologist or nutritionist to work out. By all means, they help, but are not necessary. The "memorization" of repeatedly going to the gym creates the motivation to get better, which motivates learning how nutrition and kinesiology impact performance. The point is there is some degree of "regurgitation of facts" that is necessary for progress. "To memorize" vs. "To understand" is the core difference in Eastern vs. Western education styles. You need both obviously, but when and where to "memorize" and when and where to "understand" are often debated. My research idea is that more foundation of facts is needed because then you can talk about theory without worrying someone doesn't understand. (To invoke Bloom Taxonomy) So while I'm not "just memorizing" all these different meta-cognitive theories of how people learn, I need to know them well enough that I can apply them. Once I can apply them, I can evaluate them, and eventually see enough patterns that I can create my own models and theories.
      - jrumbut 8y ago

roel_v 8y ago

"Is it possible to attain a phd and rely mostly on rote memorization?" No, but it's possible to just be a research serf to the professor, and the professor will carry you more or less to completion - very little indepenent thought needed. You do need to be able to do lots of (well defined, but tedious) work.

pc86 8y ago
It's a shame that completing a mountain of well-defined, but tedious work with little independent thought is considered an original contribution to the field.
- roel_v 8y ago
  Well of course it isn't, and you won't see any job openings saying 'looking for a 4 year slave'. And you generally hire people expecting them to be capable of working independently. But sometimes it doesn't turn out that way, and instead of losing years of work and effort, things just turn out a certain way.

pmyteh 8y ago

It is not possible to rely solely on rote memorization, and to get a PhD is supposed to require making a substantive original contribution to a field. Having said that, the skills required to get a PhD are pretty specialised - it's absolutely not a given that people with PhDs are highly-functioning human beings, or even necessarily capable of holding down a conventional job. They will at a minimum have demonstrated the ability to self-organise, a high level of bloody-mindedness, and some very deep knowledge in a probably very obscure field. But unless you move straight into solo academic research in the same field, that's not the same thing as being trained in any strong sense.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> rely mostly on rote memorization What on earth would you be memorising and for what purpose?

stealthmodeclan 8y ago
For same reason for which we memorize alphabets.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Do people do PhDs in things similar to reciting the alphabet? What do you think the examination for a PhD involves? It's a thesis and oral example. You can't produce a thesis by memorising someone else's work.
  - tsumnia 8y ago
    My current research is on retyping coding examples because I believe we don't give enough repetition (or rote memorization) in CS and that initial frustration is a primary reason for the high attrition/failure rates. To shift the view, I don't need to be a kinesiologist or nutritionist to work out. By all means, they help, but are not necessary. The "memorization" of repeatedly going to the gym creates the motivation to get better, which motivates learning how nutrition and kinesiology impact performance. The point is there is some degree of "regurgitation of facts" that is necessary for progress. "To memorize" vs. "To understand" is the core difference in Eastern vs. Western education styles. You need both obviously, but when and where to "memorize" and when and where to "understand" are often debated. My research idea is that more foundation of facts is needed because then you can talk about theory without worrying someone doesn't understand. (To invoke Bloom Taxonomy) So while I'm not "just memorizing" all these different meta-cognitive theories of how people learn, I need to know them well enough that I can apply them. Once I can apply them, I can evaluate them, and eventually see enough patterns that I can create my own models and theories.
    - jrumbut 8y ago