5 ms·

Well sure -- if you can afford to spend six years of your life dedicated to a hobby by all means do so. Most people aren't afforded that luxury and need to worr

by ng12 7y ago

Well sure -- if you can afford to spend six years of your life dedicated to a hobby by all means do so. Most people aren't afforded that luxury and need to worry about the practical applications of a PhD.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> Most people aren't afforded that luxury and need to worry about the practical applications of a PhD. Most qualified people at reputable institutions get paid to do a PhD. I bought a house and had a baby while doing a PhD. It needn't hold you back.
- ng12 7y ago
  The average PhD stipend is barely above the poverty line. You're financially better off doing just about anything else with your undergraduate degree. I'm glad you had the luxury of pursuing a passion PhD without sacrificing your personal life or worrying about future career prospects. Most students I've known did not have that privilege.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    I think chrisseaton is in the UK - here a lot of people work as researchers on short term contracts and do PhDs at the same time. While not competitive with private sector salaries they didn't use to be too bad - I got married and bought a flat in the 1990s while working as a Research Associate on EU funded projects. NB Traditional PhD studentships did get a pittance, but relatively few people seemed to do these (at least where I worked). Edit: Also I had no student debt, which definitely makes things easier.
    - ng12 7y ago
      The article above is about the American University system (and non-STEM degrees at that). If it's different in the EU it's not particularly relevant.
  - kxyvr 7y ago
    I've been through the Ph.D. process and while I agree that stipends should be larger, it is not insurmountable. Specifically, what you're missing is that stipends are a 9 month salary and that many students, including myself, take summer internships that make up the difference. I was paid $23k in stipend a little over a decade ago. I also worked for a technical employer for three months each summer that paid about $35/hr, which brought in about $17k in additional income. Occasionally, I would work a month in the winter as well to bring in additional income. That said, I was making about $40k a year at the time and I know for certain that salaries both at my university and for said employer have risen. And, yes, my final year I did not work the summer in order to finish my thesis. Yes, I understand that not everyone has the luxury of additional employment. However, it is not a truism that those of us who pursue a PhD must sacrifice their personal life or career prospects. It improved both of mine.
JoyousFailure 7y ago
I'm failing to understand what your point is. Like the parent comment said >After doing a PhD you can be a high school teacher, a soldier, an actor, start a company, go into politics, do whatever you want. Nothing’s stopping you! Most people don't go into debt for a PhD afaik. Failure to monetize a PhD directly just means falling back into the more traditional workforce. Stable job in a small city isn't enough of a practical application?
- ng12 7y ago
  The average PhD stipend is around 30k, even for high COL areas. If you have an undergraduate degree (especially if you've incurred debt to do so) it's not a particularly attractive option. Especially true considering how competitive and stressful most PhD programs are.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > it's not a particularly attractive option It obviously is attractive, since people chose to do it. Maybe they're thinking about more than money? Why do you care anyway? Are these people who take a reduced income to better themselves and others through learning a particular thorn in your side for some reason?
    - ng12 7y ago
      > Maybe they're thinking about more than money? My point is many people don't have the privilege to do so. The article specifically references individuals who sought higher education as a path to a better life -- so if I have a thorn in my side it's the tone-deafness of saying it's not about money.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > My point is many people don't have the privilege to do so. But I don't think this matches up with what I know from reality. People get a stipend for a PhD. Yes it's not massive, but it's enough. I think all student loan systems that I know of have repayments means tested, so you don't have to repay if your income is low. Maybe you lose some income opportunity, but I don't see how makes it less accessible as long as the stipend is enough to live on? A PhD seems particularly accessible to me, actually! More accessible than an undergraduate degree since it's all paid for!
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
6 years seems long? 3 years I think is standard in the UK, for example (https://www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/phd-study/what-is-a-phd https://www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/phd-study/wha...). Strikes me you should say your locality and field of study as doctorate length seems like it would be a function of both of those.
- ng12 7y ago
  The article is specifically about the American University system.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Well, it seemed to address wider societal issues and use USA more as an exemplar of what's failing, to me, though I didn't read it in depth. Even the article geographically contextualises its examples; which suggests to me they at least realise they address a global audience on the web.
- gipp 7y ago
  The structure of post-grad programs is fundamentally different between the two. In the UK you generally have a Master's already before beginning a PhD, while in the US you typically enter a doctoral program directly from undergrad and pick up a Master's "on the way". 6 years is probably pretty typical in the US for the sciences. For the humanities it's generally even longer (often due to the need to work to support oneself due to lack of funding). I recall seeing somewhere that the _median_ history PhD takes 11 years. Edit: seems I misunderstood the UK structure, perhaps I was confusing with continental Europe? Not sure about the time difference in that case.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - arethuza 7y ago
    "In the UK you generally have a Master's already before beginning a PhD" That's not my experience - you can generally go straight from an undergraduate degree to doing a PhD - I did and most of the people I knew did the same (and the people who had Masters either had done MEng as a first degree or had MSc conversion courses). NB There is also the weird thing where some UK institutions give you a MA for still existing after a few years....

by ng12 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

> Most people aren't afforded that luxury and need to worry about the practical applications of a PhD. Most qualified people at reputable institutions get paid to do a PhD. I bought a house and had a baby while doing a PhD. It needn't hold you back.

ng12 7y ago
The average PhD stipend is barely above the poverty line. You're financially better off doing just about anything else with your undergraduate degree. I'm glad you had the luxury of pursuing a passion PhD without sacrificing your personal life or worrying about future career prospects. Most students I've known did not have that privilege.
- arethuza 7y ago
  I think chrisseaton is in the UK - here a lot of people work as researchers on short term contracts and do PhDs at the same time. While not competitive with private sector salaries they didn't use to be too bad - I got married and bought a flat in the 1990s while working as a Research Associate on EU funded projects. NB Traditional PhD studentships did get a pittance, but relatively few people seemed to do these (at least where I worked). Edit: Also I had no student debt, which definitely makes things easier.
  - ng12 7y ago
    The article above is about the American University system (and non-STEM degrees at that). If it's different in the EU it's not particularly relevant.
- kxyvr 7y ago
  I've been through the Ph.D. process and while I agree that stipends should be larger, it is not insurmountable. Specifically, what you're missing is that stipends are a 9 month salary and that many students, including myself, take summer internships that make up the difference. I was paid $23k in stipend a little over a decade ago. I also worked for a technical employer for three months each summer that paid about $35/hr, which brought in about $17k in additional income. Occasionally, I would work a month in the winter as well to bring in additional income. That said, I was making about $40k a year at the time and I know for certain that salaries both at my university and for said employer have risen. And, yes, my final year I did not work the summer in order to finish my thesis. Yes, I understand that not everyone has the luxury of additional employment. However, it is not a truism that those of us who pursue a PhD must sacrifice their personal life or career prospects. It improved both of mine.

JoyousFailure 7y ago

I'm failing to understand what your point is. Like the parent comment said >After doing a PhD you can be a high school teacher, a soldier, an actor, start a company, go into politics, do whatever you want. Nothing’s stopping you! Most people don't go into debt for a PhD afaik. Failure to monetize a PhD directly just means falling back into the more traditional workforce. Stable job in a small city isn't enough of a practical application?

ng12 7y ago
The average PhD stipend is around 30k, even for high COL areas. If you have an undergraduate degree (especially if you've incurred debt to do so) it's not a particularly attractive option. Especially true considering how competitive and stressful most PhD programs are.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > it's not a particularly attractive option It obviously is attractive, since people chose to do it. Maybe they're thinking about more than money? Why do you care anyway? Are these people who take a reduced income to better themselves and others through learning a particular thorn in your side for some reason?
  - ng12 7y ago
    > Maybe they're thinking about more than money? My point is many people don't have the privilege to do so. The article specifically references individuals who sought higher education as a path to a better life -- so if I have a thorn in my side it's the tone-deafness of saying it's not about money.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > My point is many people don't have the privilege to do so. But I don't think this matches up with what I know from reality. People get a stipend for a PhD. Yes it's not massive, but it's enough. I think all student loan systems that I know of have repayments means tested, so you don't have to repay if your income is low. Maybe you lose some income opportunity, but I don't see how makes it less accessible as long as the stipend is enough to live on? A PhD seems particularly accessible to me, actually! More accessible than an undergraduate degree since it's all paid for!

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

6 years seems long? 3 years I think is standard in the UK, for example (https://www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/phd-study/what-is-a-phd https://www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/phd-study/wha...). Strikes me you should say your locality and field of study as doctorate length seems like it would be a function of both of those.

ng12 7y ago
The article is specifically about the American University system.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Well, it seemed to address wider societal issues and use USA more as an exemplar of what's failing, to me, though I didn't read it in depth. Even the article geographically contextualises its examples; which suggests to me they at least realise they address a global audience on the web.
gipp 7y ago
The structure of post-grad programs is fundamentally different between the two. In the UK you generally have a Master's already before beginning a PhD, while in the US you typically enter a doctoral program directly from undergrad and pick up a Master's "on the way". 6 years is probably pretty typical in the US for the sciences. For the humanities it's generally even longer (often due to the need to work to support oneself due to lack of funding). I recall seeing somewhere that the _median_ history PhD takes 11 years. Edit: seems I misunderstood the UK structure, perhaps I was confusing with continental Europe? Not sure about the time difference in that case.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- arethuza 7y ago
  "In the UK you generally have a Master's already before beginning a PhD" That's not my experience - you can generally go straight from an undergraduate degree to doing a PhD - I did and most of the people I knew did the same (and the people who had Masters either had done MEng as a first degree or had MSc conversion courses). NB There is also the weird thing where some UK institutions give you a MA for still existing after a few years....