3 ms·

I have a PhD. A PhD is just a certification that you have depth and breadth around a topic at an expert level. An expert of a topic is someone who has the skill

I have a PhD. A PhD is just a certification that you have depth and breadth around a topic at an expert level. An expert of a topic is someone who has the skills and knowledge to evaluate someone else's work on the topic, and who can themselves do novel work on that topic or nearby. As with all certifications from dog-training to fighter jet pilot, PhD certifications have both false positives and false negatives. Meaning, it is entirely possible to get expert levels on a topic without getting the PhD certificate. But the reason people insist that you get a PhD is because they don't want to get into the whole argument of whether you really are an expert. Otherwise, there is no reason to get a PhD. If you can convince people that you are indeed an expert without the PhD certificate, good for you. If not, sucks to be you.

ronilan 7y ago
If you can convince people that you are indeed an expert without the PhD certificate, good for you. If not, sucks to be you. Dude, chill, you can just be an expert on a subject without giving a damn about what other people think. It’s an option. Give it a try
- pm90 7y ago
  It really sucks to be an expert but then not be able to get others to take your expertise seriously. We can do a lot of things on our own, but we're all social beings who do need to interact with others around us. It does really suck to be an expert but then be ignored or shunned by the people you consider your peers.
- 4k05 7y ago
  Exactly! But that was the point made, right? Regardless of your credentials you should be able to convince people that you are an expert in a field. If you can prove your expertise only through credentials and not actual expert knowledge that is the "false positive" mentioned in the comment.
- hmwhy 7y ago
  I think the OP is pretty chill and doesn't mean that having a PhD is equivalent to being technically superior (see the following quote). > ... Meaning, it is entirely possible to get expert levels on a topic without getting the PhD certificate. If I'm not mistaken, for the part that you quoted, the OP is pointing out that there are many people who assess whether or not you are an expert they are looking for base on just a piece of paper, regardless of whether or not your skills in that area is that expected of an expert. When you are looking for a job, whether you give a damn or not doesn't matter, it's whether or not the interviewer gives a damn that matters—and I feel that most of them don't.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  As others have pointed out, I 100% agree with not giving a damn at an emotional level what other people think. I also think that proving how good you are is an essential part of getting a job, or being a intellectual leader etc.
diffeomorphism 7y ago
It also shows that you had the persistence and self-motivation to work hard on a big project for multiple years and are able to learn a new topic to mastery and further. Sure, you are then also the world's leading expert on <extremely narrow topic of your thesis>, but most of all a PhD shows that you are able to do research.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
> A PhD is just a certification that you have depth and breadth around a topic at an expert level. I have a PhD (in pure mathematics), and I disagree with this statement. It does not explicitly include the words "knowledge" or "learning" but I they're implied by "depth and breadth". But a masters is sufficient to show that you are capable of learning a lot of existing knowledge (and have actually done so). The key distinction about a PhD, in my mind at least, is that it is a certification that you are capable of inventing new knowledge. Generally, yes, you need to have learnt a lot of existing knowledge to do that but it is not strictly required and in any case certainly not the point.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  In a way I agree with what you are saying, that the differential new skills that a PhD provides over a Masters is the ability to invent new knowledge and/or assess the claimed new knowledge of others. But, to get a PhD, you have to get a Masters first (or do Masters equivalent work in the first 2 years of your PhD program). In effect, once someone has a PhD certificate, they can throw away their Masters certificate, since the PhD certificate guarantees that they also have sufficient breadth of knowledge + new-knowledge-invention skills.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    > since the PhD certificate guarantees that they also have sufficient breadth of knowledge + new-knowledge-invention skills. In Germany they will ask for your high school diploma before hiring you as a post doc, so keep hold of that masters, you might nedd it to get a job.
- jamessb 7y ago
  I disagree with both of you: having "learnt a lot of existing knowledge" is explicitly required; and the PhD does not just certify "depth and breadth" of knowledge - it also certifies that you have made an original contribution to knowledge. The General Regulations for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy [1] at the University of Oxford require the examiner's report to confirm that: "1. the student possesses a good general knowledge of the particular field of learning within which the subject of the thesis falls; 2. the student has made a significant and substantial contribution in the particular field of learning within which the subject of the thesis falls; 3. the thesis is presented in a lucid and scholarly manner; 4. in their opinion the thesis merits the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy; 5. the student has presented a satisfactory abstract of the thesis." Similarly, the regulations from the University of Cambridge [2] require both that "a candidate wishing to proceed to the Ph.D. Degree under these regulations shall be required to give proof of a significant contribution to scholarship" and that their oral examination will cover "the general field of knowledge within which it falls" (not just the thesis itself). [1]: https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2014-15/grftdodoctofphil/ https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2014-15/grftdodoctofphil... [2]: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2019/chapter07-section13.html http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2019/chapter07-section13....

ronilan 7y ago

If you can convince people that you are indeed an expert without the PhD certificate, good for you. If not, sucks to be you. Dude, chill, you can just be an expert on a subject without giving a damn about what other people think. It’s an option. Give it a try

pm90 7y ago
It really sucks to be an expert but then not be able to get others to take your expertise seriously. We can do a lot of things on our own, but we're all social beings who do need to interact with others around us. It does really suck to be an expert but then be ignored or shunned by the people you consider your peers.
4k05 7y ago
Exactly! But that was the point made, right? Regardless of your credentials you should be able to convince people that you are an expert in a field. If you can prove your expertise only through credentials and not actual expert knowledge that is the "false positive" mentioned in the comment.
hmwhy 7y ago
I think the OP is pretty chill and doesn't mean that having a PhD is equivalent to being technically superior (see the following quote). > ... Meaning, it is entirely possible to get expert levels on a topic without getting the PhD certificate. If I'm not mistaken, for the part that you quoted, the OP is pointing out that there are many people who assess whether or not you are an expert they are looking for base on just a piece of paper, regardless of whether or not your skills in that area is that expected of an expert. When you are looking for a job, whether you give a damn or not doesn't matter, it's whether or not the interviewer gives a damn that matters—and I feel that most of them don't.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
As others have pointed out, I 100% agree with not giving a damn at an emotional level what other people think. I also think that proving how good you are is an essential part of getting a job, or being a intellectual leader etc.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

It also shows that you had the persistence and self-motivation to work hard on a big project for multiple years and are able to learn a new topic to mastery and further. Sure, you are then also the world's leading expert on <extremely narrow topic of your thesis>, but most of all a PhD shows that you are able to do research.

quietbritishjim 7y ago

> A PhD is just a certification that you have depth and breadth around a topic at an expert level. I have a PhD (in pure mathematics), and I disagree with this statement. It does not explicitly include the words "knowledge" or "learning" but I they're implied by "depth and breadth". But a masters is sufficient to show that you are capable of learning a lot of existing knowledge (and have actually done so). The key distinction about a PhD, in my mind at least, is that it is a certification that you are capable of inventing new knowledge. Generally, yes, you need to have learnt a lot of existing knowledge to do that but it is not strictly required and in any case certainly not the point.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
In a way I agree with what you are saying, that the differential new skills that a PhD provides over a Masters is the ability to invent new knowledge and/or assess the claimed new knowledge of others. But, to get a PhD, you have to get a Masters first (or do Masters equivalent work in the first 2 years of your PhD program). In effect, once someone has a PhD certificate, they can throw away their Masters certificate, since the PhD certificate guarantees that they also have sufficient breadth of knowledge + new-knowledge-invention skills.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  > since the PhD certificate guarantees that they also have sufficient breadth of knowledge + new-knowledge-invention skills. In Germany they will ask for your high school diploma before hiring you as a post doc, so keep hold of that masters, you might nedd it to get a job.
jamessb 7y ago
I disagree with both of you: having "learnt a lot of existing knowledge" is explicitly required; and the PhD does not just certify "depth and breadth" of knowledge - it also certifies that you have made an original contribution to knowledge. The General Regulations for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy [1] at the University of Oxford require the examiner's report to confirm that: "1. the student possesses a good general knowledge of the particular field of learning within which the subject of the thesis falls; 2. the student has made a significant and substantial contribution in the particular field of learning within which the subject of the thesis falls; 3. the thesis is presented in a lucid and scholarly manner; 4. in their opinion the thesis merits the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy; 5. the student has presented a satisfactory abstract of the thesis." Similarly, the regulations from the University of Cambridge [2] require both that "a candidate wishing to proceed to the Ph.D. Degree under these regulations shall be required to give proof of a significant contribution to scholarship" and that their oral examination will cover "the general field of knowledge within which it falls" (not just the thesis itself). [1]: https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2014-15/grftdodoctofphil/ https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2014-15/grftdodoctofphil... [2]: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2019/chapter07-section13.html http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2019/chapter07-section13....