3 ms·

> Doctoral students, should then have the option to hyper-specialize (as is necessary in some fields) or be allowed to focus more on broad interdisciplinary stu

by yid 16y ago

> Doctoral students, should then have the option to hyper-specialize (as is necessary in some fields) or be allowed to focus more on broad interdisciplinary studies focusing on problems faced by policy makers and other organizations. I believe you have some misgivings about what a PhD is. The mandate of the PhD is to create new knowledge (independent research) in a particular, self-chosen area. That's difficult to do when you're focusing on breadth rather than depth. Once you've proven that you can go deep, by all means, get a faculty position and start your own (broad) research program, or get a job in industry and go broad. The PhD is about proving that you can go deep, which usually also involves some breadth.

rflrob 16y ago
I can't agree more. If you want to go broad, get a masters (or two or three!), but a PhD is if you want to push the boundaries of what we know. I can't help but be reminded of this visual explanation of a PhD: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
hagy 16y ago
While I wouldn’t say I agree with it, I’ve heard the argument that high specialization strongly selects for a student’s technical proficiency. As a PhD student myself, I’ve seen examples of this phenomena with highly intelligent individuals leaving our program as they couldn’t foster the drive to learn the requisite highly specialized technical skills. In contrast, I’ve also met individuals who developed their technical skills with rabid obsession, but who had trouble grasping the general significance of major publications in their field when the paper didn’t fall exactly within their own line of research. The second type of individual makes for a wonderful post doc or research scientist, but only until the techniques they’ve master are automated or funding for their specific lines of work goes dry. Still, I’d say the best researchers/professors that I’ve met combined a deep understanding of the techniques in their own line of research with a broad understanding of their field and adjacent fields. Personally, I’d fear that removing technical proficiency as a requirement for a PhD would eliminate an essential bullshit detector that filters out certain people; people who do a great job speaking in broad generality but are incapable of formulating a path to accomplish these grand aims. (As a quick anecdote, I once saw a research presentation from a grad student who made broad claims about his project’s direct role in curing many forms of cancer. As he progressed, we learned he was only exploring strategies to synthesize a potential ligand that some other researchers would consider using in imaging a specific cancer within rat models. To this end he showed very little progress, but continued to speak at great lengths about the imminent eradication of cancer as he concluded his talked.)

by yid 16y ago

rflrob 16y ago

I can't agree more. If you want to go broad, get a masters (or two or three!), but a PhD is if you want to push the boundaries of what we know. I can't help but be reminded of this visual explanation of a PhD: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

hagy 16y ago

While I wouldn’t say I agree with it, I’ve heard the argument that high specialization strongly selects for a student’s technical proficiency. As a PhD student myself, I’ve seen examples of this phenomena with highly intelligent individuals leaving our program as they couldn’t foster the drive to learn the requisite highly specialized technical skills. In contrast, I’ve also met individuals who developed their technical skills with rabid obsession, but who had trouble grasping the general significance of major publications in their field when the paper didn’t fall exactly within their own line of research. The second type of individual makes for a wonderful post doc or research scientist, but only until the techniques they’ve master are automated or funding for their specific lines of work goes dry. Still, I’d say the best researchers/professors that I’ve met combined a deep understanding of the techniques in their own line of research with a broad understanding of their field and adjacent fields. Personally, I’d fear that removing technical proficiency as a requirement for a PhD would eliminate an essential bullshit detector that filters out certain people; people who do a great job speaking in broad generality but are incapable of formulating a path to accomplish these grand aims. (As a quick anecdote, I once saw a research presentation from a grad student who made broad claims about his project’s direct role in curing many forms of cancer. As he progressed, we learned he was only exploring strategies to synthesize a potential ligand that some other researchers would consider using in imaging a specific cancer within rat models. To this end he showed very little progress, but continued to speak at great lengths about the imminent eradication of cancer as he concluded his talked.)