4 ms·

I disagree totally. A PhD should be about curiosity and asking the most interesting scientific questions you can think of, also known as 'basic research'. You h

I disagree totally. A PhD should be about curiosity and asking the most interesting scientific questions you can think of, also known as 'basic research'. You have the rest of your career to have as much impact on society and commerce as you want. Unfortunately, the social impact factor has been creeping in, in the form of more 'applied research' funding which is not fundamental and does not move scientific knowledge forward. The government has limited role in funding applied research, since industry is better positioned to understand what applied research is important and has a strong incentive to fund it. Academia is imperfect, but the genius of the system is that letting scientists chase down interesting things does end up improving society dramatically in the long run.

Someguywhatever 8y ago
I agree (with you). I think also it's not crystal clear what exactly 'benefits society', so what to research then? Let people research what they want to, at least they'll be passionate about it and maybe 'reach the end' when they otherwise wouldn't if that makes sense.
MrEfficiency 8y ago
I talked to Two advisers + 1 role model before deciding a PhD wasnt right for me. The professors wanted to push their own ideas rather than my own. I knew the problems I wanted to solve were highly desired as I was getting hundreds of people visiting my website a day. The two professors were pushing that the PhD process would teach me how to research, but I realized that I would be the professor's tool. I talked to someone I looked up to, while he wasnt incredibly successful, he told me that- I was ready to do something, I no longer needed school. I'm very thankful, I had a bachelors and masters degree in engineering fields with industry experience. I had products people were paying money for. The PhD didnt seem like it would be as valuable as 2-6 years of working on my website or other projects. My take- If you arent going to work, school can force you to work hard. If you are already inspired, you are ready for life, go go go.
fullshark 8y ago
Who is paying to support you while you explore some curiosity of yours? A PhD program is not a summer camp, it's a social tool and the public is paying money in order to grow the human knowledge base. I don't get this attitude, appreciate the fact that the public is giving you grants and funding because the alternative is you get nothing.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  >> A PhD program is not a summer camp, it's a social tool and the public is paying money in order to grow the human knowledge base. "letting scientists chase down interesting things" as per the OP's comment is how the "human knowledge base" grows in the first place. Besides, who would decide what research is useful to pursue, other than the experts in a given field? If you don't really understand a research subject, how can you figure out whether it's useful or not?
- shoguning 8y ago
  Perhaps you misunderstand. Scientists should study important _topics_ (virology, human genetics, materials science etc.), but within that, research direction should set by scientists not bureaucrats. Many people share your view, though, and it's a shame. We have all of private industry to focus on short term benefits. Grad school is one place where the grinding expectation of immediate return-on-investment can be suspended. PhD students take low compensation hoping they can use curiosity and passion to direct their research. Increasingly, that's not the case. >> appreciate the fact that the public is giving you grants and funding because the alternative is you get nothing. This is cutting off the hand to spite the face. Taxpayers get an _unbelievable bargain_ for the work of PhD students and postdocs. Gutting research funding won't hurt them for long, they'll easily move on to much higher paying work, it's future society that will suffer. I'd argue you get the best and most significant contributions to society in the long run with stable government funding of basic research. Don't believe me? Ask Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winner and energy secretary: https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/wsjoped.pdf https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/wsjoped.pdf

Someguywhatever 8y ago

I agree (with you). I think also it's not crystal clear what exactly 'benefits society', so what to research then? Let people research what they want to, at least they'll be passionate about it and maybe 'reach the end' when they otherwise wouldn't if that makes sense.

MrEfficiency 8y ago

I talked to Two advisers + 1 role model before deciding a PhD wasnt right for me. The professors wanted to push their own ideas rather than my own. I knew the problems I wanted to solve were highly desired as I was getting hundreds of people visiting my website a day. The two professors were pushing that the PhD process would teach me how to research, but I realized that I would be the professor's tool. I talked to someone I looked up to, while he wasnt incredibly successful, he told me that- I was ready to do something, I no longer needed school. I'm very thankful, I had a bachelors and masters degree in engineering fields with industry experience. I had products people were paying money for. The PhD didnt seem like it would be as valuable as 2-6 years of working on my website or other projects. My take- If you arent going to work, school can force you to work hard. If you are already inspired, you are ready for life, go go go.

fullshark 8y ago

Who is paying to support you while you explore some curiosity of yours? A PhD program is not a summer camp, it's a social tool and the public is paying money in order to grow the human knowledge base. I don't get this attitude, appreciate the fact that the public is giving you grants and funding because the alternative is you get nothing.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> A PhD program is not a summer camp, it's a social tool and the public is paying money in order to grow the human knowledge base. "letting scientists chase down interesting things" as per the OP's comment is how the "human knowledge base" grows in the first place. Besides, who would decide what research is useful to pursue, other than the experts in a given field? If you don't really understand a research subject, how can you figure out whether it's useful or not?
shoguning 8y ago
Perhaps you misunderstand. Scientists should study important _topics_ (virology, human genetics, materials science etc.), but within that, research direction should set by scientists not bureaucrats. Many people share your view, though, and it's a shame. We have all of private industry to focus on short term benefits. Grad school is one place where the grinding expectation of immediate return-on-investment can be suspended. PhD students take low compensation hoping they can use curiosity and passion to direct their research. Increasingly, that's not the case. >> appreciate the fact that the public is giving you grants and funding because the alternative is you get nothing. This is cutting off the hand to spite the face. Taxpayers get an _unbelievable bargain_ for the work of PhD students and postdocs. Gutting research funding won't hurt them for long, they'll easily move on to much higher paying work, it's future society that will suffer. I'd argue you get the best and most significant contributions to society in the long run with stable government funding of basic research. Don't believe me? Ask Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winner and energy secretary: https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/wsjoped.pdf https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/wsjoped.pdf