2 ms·

I was more addressing the "you've got to be really smart to complete a PhD" trope. From what I saw, the primary qualification is the ability to jump through poi

I was more addressing the "you've got to be really smart to complete a PhD" trope. From what I saw, the primary qualification is the ability to jump through pointless hoops because an authority says you should. You're totally right that academia doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of bullshit. But few other places get away with it so much, and manage to maintain a (rapidly crumbling) reputation of not being 90% bullshit.

jvanderbot 5y ago
Yes, the "PhD's are smart" trope doesn't give enough air to smart non-phd's. But I think, at least around here, equivalent experience is just as useful as a PhD, but PhD's have the benefit of being extremely vocal / public about their experience in the form of state-sponsored projects and publications. I would suggest that your own rapidly crumbling opinion of academia is probably not endemic. The top universities still produce top-tier R&D, and top-tier candidates that go on to do top-tier work for large and small companies. It's definitely ok and understandable that some (or even many) people would feel differently, but my own opinion (coming from a mid-tier school) is that my training was absolutely of inestimable benefit to my job prospects, and was 100% enabling of my current career in robotics R&D. And I'm guessing that getting admitted to MIT would, without fail, make anyone happy in the entire world. (Though I didn't go to MIT obv)