4 ms·

> 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

> 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....

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....