6 ms·

Here is a hand-wavy characterization that is hopefully useful. A bachelors degree in X is meant to take you from nearly zero to "thinking like an X", it is th

by ska 8y ago

Here is a hand-wavy characterization that is hopefully useful. A bachelors degree in X is meant to take you from nearly zero to "thinking like an X", it is the high points of sometimes centuries of thought in an area, summarized and you are handheld through the process. A masters degree will bridge the gap between the "nice" standard courses and the "messy" current research front. It's meant to get you to the point of reading current research effectively. A Ph.D. is mean to bridge you from understanding to contributing (as the focus of your work). When you've finished it, you should be expert in one or two very narrow areas, but also have the tools to make yourself expert in others. Of course you can learn things without this structure, but having a phd is a reasonable short hand for ability in independent innovation, perhaps companies lean on it a bit much, but that is not unique to phds. The main problem I've had bridging phd's to commercial work is hitting the right focus on skill development in areas that were deficient/missing in their course of study. A classic example, a lot of technical phds who have programmed every day for many years ... are not skilled programmers. They can become so, but have to want to learn (and not dismiss it as "trivial")

the_jeremy 8y ago
>Here is a hand-wavy characterization... I had never thought about degrees in those terms, but that feels like a surprisingly terse and accurate description. Thanks!
entee 8y ago
I'd add that a PhD in the sciences is like getting punched in the face by mother nature every day with a, "hah! try again!". The rigorous thought process that cultivates by the end is hard to replicate without those very hard constraints. It's possible to do, I've met tons of people who have that same rigor without having wasted the time in a PhD, but it's quite an effective method. When I've worked with non-PhDs in a science environment, it's the rigorous breakdown of experimental approach that's often missing. Unless the individual had a really strong track record demonstrating this skill, I'd heavily favor PhDs for biotech/science positions on a leadership track. That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :)
- veritas_veritad 8y ago
  > That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :) I dare you to write a study to excavate and delineate the potential effects of this bias on hiring.
- rxhernandez 8y ago
  I haven't seen that at all. To preface the rest, most of everyone I've worked with over the past 6 years had a PhD in electrical engineering, physics or chemistry from top 10 universities (about 20+ people). Maybe 30% had the ability to pick apart an experiment rigorously, most of them would hand wave themselves through the steps in experiments leaving obvious gaping holes that required unnecessary iterations on the experiment. I rarely trusted experimental results unless it came from those 30% of people. Frankly, I have come to see a PhD as expensive piece of paper that is unique in that it indicates you're not a complete idiot. Moreover, I only have a bachelor's, but I had 6 years of training and humiliating embarrassments from those 30% of people, which I believe strongly contributed to my experimental rigor. I dont know that every person with a PhD has dealt with that kind of pain and would be biased against people that haven't dealt with that pain.
  - hnuser355 8y ago
    I mean PhD might be a piece of paper but most people I know who do them in marketable fields don’t pay tuition and get paid assistantships
    - rxhernandez 8y ago
      When I say expense, I mean your time, your youth and the fact that you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time period; all of which are very expensive things to ask of anyone.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - 8y ago
Dragonai 8y ago
I like this characterization a lot. Thank you!
Waterluvian 8y ago
Interesting interpretation! In undergrad I had a really nice meta course called GEOG 100: On Becoming a Geographer. Loved it. One slide I remember was that a bachelor's was becoming acquainted with the discipline. A master's is to become an expert in a domain. And a PhD is to drill deep into a domain and uncover something new. Breadth vs. depth basically.

by ska 8y ago

the_jeremy 8y ago

>Here is a hand-wavy characterization... I had never thought about degrees in those terms, but that feels like a surprisingly terse and accurate description. Thanks!

entee 8y ago

I'd add that a PhD in the sciences is like getting punched in the face by mother nature every day with a, "hah! try again!". The rigorous thought process that cultivates by the end is hard to replicate without those very hard constraints. It's possible to do, I've met tons of people who have that same rigor without having wasted the time in a PhD, but it's quite an effective method. When I've worked with non-PhDs in a science environment, it's the rigorous breakdown of experimental approach that's often missing. Unless the individual had a really strong track record demonstrating this skill, I'd heavily favor PhDs for biotech/science positions on a leadership track. That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :)

veritas_veritad 8y ago
> That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :) I dare you to write a study to excavate and delineate the potential effects of this bias on hiring.
rxhernandez 8y ago
I haven't seen that at all. To preface the rest, most of everyone I've worked with over the past 6 years had a PhD in electrical engineering, physics or chemistry from top 10 universities (about 20+ people). Maybe 30% had the ability to pick apart an experiment rigorously, most of them would hand wave themselves through the steps in experiments leaving obvious gaping holes that required unnecessary iterations on the experiment. I rarely trusted experimental results unless it came from those 30% of people. Frankly, I have come to see a PhD as expensive piece of paper that is unique in that it indicates you're not a complete idiot. Moreover, I only have a bachelor's, but I had 6 years of training and humiliating embarrassments from those 30% of people, which I believe strongly contributed to my experimental rigor. I dont know that every person with a PhD has dealt with that kind of pain and would be biased against people that haven't dealt with that pain.
- hnuser355 8y ago
  I mean PhD might be a piece of paper but most people I know who do them in marketable fields don’t pay tuition and get paid assistantships
  - rxhernandez 8y ago
    When I say expense, I mean your time, your youth and the fact that you could have been getting paid a lot more in that time period; all of which are very expensive things to ask of anyone.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago

Dragonai 8y ago

I like this characterization a lot. Thank you!

Waterluvian 8y ago

Interesting interpretation! In undergrad I had a really nice meta course called GEOG 100: On Becoming a Geographer. Loved it. One slide I remember was that a bachelor's was becoming acquainted with the discipline. A master's is to become an expert in a domain. And a PhD is to drill deep into a domain and uncover something new. Breadth vs. depth basically.