5 ms·

If you do a PhD at 21, you’ve got 40 years of productive research ahead of you. If you do one at 40 you’ve only got 21 years. Less time to research, so missed o

If you do a PhD at 21, you’ve got 40 years of productive research ahead of you. If you do one at 40 you’ve only got 21 years. Less time to research, so missed opportunity.

bumby 4y ago
Thanks for replying. I think I would push back a bit on the idea that research generally only commences after a PhD. Maybe in academia, but in industry (engineering at least, I don't know on the CS side), an awful lot of research is done at masters or even bachelors levels. The people I know who've gone for a PhD later in life were already doing research and generally took the path because the credential opened professional doors (e.g., to become a supervisor or director), not necessarily facilitated greater amounts of research. To play devil's advocate, you could in theory increase the amount of research by opening avenues for non-traditional PhDs. There will still be those who start a program at 21, plus those starting at 40 who would normally not engage in a program.
- wombatpm 4y ago
  PhD programs exist to create new faculty members at other institutions. Other people hiring PhDs is a side benefit that has nothing to do with the purpose of the programs.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I disagree. I'm curious what you base this conclusion on? I've heard professors say similar, but it always seemed that it was because they were in an academic bubble. If this is true, then you almost have to concede the model is broken. There will be a glut of PhDs compared to faculty positions. One of the reasons so many PhDs are disgruntled is because of the false expectation that every PhD is on track for a professorship. I picked a random public school to see if their program states the intent is to produce faculty[1]. It seems like research is the other half of the goal along with teaching. Lots of research is done outside of faculty positions. "The doctoral degree, i.e. the Ph.D., is primarily intended for students desiring a career in research and/or collegiate teaching." [1]https://cse.engin.umich.edu/academics/graduate/phd-in-cse/ https://cse.engin.umich.edu/academics/graduate/phd-in-cse/
    - sampo 4y ago
      > If this is true, then you almost have to concede the model is broken. PhD training prepares people for the academic career and faculty positions. Less than half of PhD graduates actually end up in the academic career. So yes, you could say the system is ...not perfect.
      - bumby 4y ago
        If that's the case, "predatory" is probably a more apt description. Imagine if a trade school only had a 50% employment rate for their intended purpose and forced the students to work at a fraction of their market value for the privilege of attending, while profiting off that labor...I don't think imperfect would be the word used.
      - aqsalose 4y ago
        Many pre-modern apprentices never became journeymen and even fewer a master. In 17th century Leiden, 40% of surgeons' apprentices dropped out. In Utrecht's Coopers' Guild, only about 10% of apprentices became Masters. On the other hand, getting rid of the guilds in the 1820s and replacing it with less formalized vocational training during industrialization didn't change the system for better: >A lengthy contribution in the journal of the Dutch Society to Advance Industry in 1891 criticised the condition of Dutch training in detail: ‘Nowadays boys leave one boss after the other for the greatest triviality . . .. The boss continuously fears that the boy will leave him to use his acquired skills with another boss. Bosses therefore slow down training by putting boys to work at specialised repetitive tasks, so that they bring in the highest profits.’ https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391011 https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391011
    - wombatpm 4y ago
      My time as a graduate student at a major research institution with the #2 program for my engineering field , and two years as the President of the Graduate and Professional Student Association. What institutions say and what faculty actually do may differ in reality. CS programs may be different, but engineering and physics were definitely geared for academics
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If you didn’t need a PhD to do research then why do one at all? You can’t convince me people are taking four years out of their professional lives at their prime to get a simple promotion?
  - bumby 4y ago
    Because of the signal it provides. Let's face it, PhD is a social signal as much as it is a vocational toolset. And it also signals a specific value system, like putting a high value on educational credentials. So if the selection board for a lab director is made of similar directors who have PhDs, you've already got a self-selecting pool of people who value PhDs, regardless if they provide much value in practice. Cognitive bias is strong and it would be tough for someone who's put in the work for a PhD to admit it's of little value, even if it were the case. Occasionally, people will get promoted who do not have a "proper" PhD, and they are (rightly or wrongly) derided for it behind closed doors, even if it has no bearing on their research competence. As a side note of irony, in many cases that I've worked with, getting a PhD makes someone do less research, not more. Because of the status signaling, they get more administrative leadership duties, not unlike a dean at a university. And the PhDs that I know, who do it for a "simple" promotion, don't leave their job. (simple in quotes, because in my experience, they are rather large promotions).They complete their PhD as part of their job, in addition to their normal duties. It sounds like you are stuck in an academic mindset, where there is only one way to skin the PhD cat.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > It sounds like you are stuck in an academic mindset, where there is only one way to skin the PhD cat. Well you’re mistaken because I also did my PhD after working for a few years, and while employed for an industrial lab.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Why would you then assume people have to forsake their prime working years to pursue a PhD? Why propose that false dichotomy when you know firsthand that's not the case?

If you do a PhD at 21, you’ve got 40 years of productive research ahead of you. If you do one at 40 you’ve only got 21 years. Less time to research, so missed opportunity.

bumby 4y ago

Thanks for replying. I think I would push back a bit on the idea that research generally only commences after a PhD. Maybe in academia, but in industry (engineering at least, I don't know on the CS side), an awful lot of research is done at masters or even bachelors levels. The people I know who've gone for a PhD later in life were already doing research and generally took the path because the credential opened professional doors (e.g., to become a supervisor or director), not necessarily facilitated greater amounts of research. To play devil's advocate, you could in theory increase the amount of research by opening avenues for non-traditional PhDs. There will still be those who start a program at 21, plus those starting at 40 who would normally not engage in a program.

wombatpm 4y ago
PhD programs exist to create new faculty members at other institutions. Other people hiring PhDs is a side benefit that has nothing to do with the purpose of the programs.
- bumby 4y ago
  I disagree. I'm curious what you base this conclusion on? I've heard professors say similar, but it always seemed that it was because they were in an academic bubble. If this is true, then you almost have to concede the model is broken. There will be a glut of PhDs compared to faculty positions. One of the reasons so many PhDs are disgruntled is because of the false expectation that every PhD is on track for a professorship. I picked a random public school to see if their program states the intent is to produce faculty[1]. It seems like research is the other half of the goal along with teaching. Lots of research is done outside of faculty positions. "The doctoral degree, i.e. the Ph.D., is primarily intended for students desiring a career in research and/or collegiate teaching." [1]https://cse.engin.umich.edu/academics/graduate/phd-in-cse/ https://cse.engin.umich.edu/academics/graduate/phd-in-cse/
  - sampo 4y ago
    > If this is true, then you almost have to concede the model is broken. PhD training prepares people for the academic career and faculty positions. Less than half of PhD graduates actually end up in the academic career. So yes, you could say the system is ...not perfect.
    - bumby 4y ago
      If that's the case, "predatory" is probably a more apt description. Imagine if a trade school only had a 50% employment rate for their intended purpose and forced the students to work at a fraction of their market value for the privilege of attending, while profiting off that labor...I don't think imperfect would be the word used.
    - aqsalose 4y ago
      Many pre-modern apprentices never became journeymen and even fewer a master. In 17th century Leiden, 40% of surgeons' apprentices dropped out. In Utrecht's Coopers' Guild, only about 10% of apprentices became Masters. On the other hand, getting rid of the guilds in the 1820s and replacing it with less formalized vocational training during industrialization didn't change the system for better: >A lengthy contribution in the journal of the Dutch Society to Advance Industry in 1891 criticised the condition of Dutch training in detail: ‘Nowadays boys leave one boss after the other for the greatest triviality . . .. The boss continuously fears that the boy will leave him to use his acquired skills with another boss. Bosses therefore slow down training by putting boys to work at specialised repetitive tasks, so that they bring in the highest profits.’ https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391011 https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391011
  - wombatpm 4y ago
    My time as a graduate student at a major research institution with the #2 program for my engineering field , and two years as the President of the Graduate and Professional Student Association. What institutions say and what faculty actually do may differ in reality. CS programs may be different, but engineering and physics were definitely geared for academics
chrisseaton 4y ago
If you didn’t need a PhD to do research then why do one at all? You can’t convince me people are taking four years out of their professional lives at their prime to get a simple promotion?
- bumby 4y ago
  Because of the signal it provides. Let's face it, PhD is a social signal as much as it is a vocational toolset. And it also signals a specific value system, like putting a high value on educational credentials. So if the selection board for a lab director is made of similar directors who have PhDs, you've already got a self-selecting pool of people who value PhDs, regardless if they provide much value in practice. Cognitive bias is strong and it would be tough for someone who's put in the work for a PhD to admit it's of little value, even if it were the case. Occasionally, people will get promoted who do not have a "proper" PhD, and they are (rightly or wrongly) derided for it behind closed doors, even if it has no bearing on their research competence. As a side note of irony, in many cases that I've worked with, getting a PhD makes someone do less research, not more. Because of the status signaling, they get more administrative leadership duties, not unlike a dean at a university. And the PhDs that I know, who do it for a "simple" promotion, don't leave their job. (simple in quotes, because in my experience, they are rather large promotions).They complete their PhD as part of their job, in addition to their normal duties. It sounds like you are stuck in an academic mindset, where there is only one way to skin the PhD cat.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > It sounds like you are stuck in an academic mindset, where there is only one way to skin the PhD cat. Well you’re mistaken because I also did my PhD after working for a few years, and while employed for an industrial lab.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Why would you then assume people have to forsake their prime working years to pursue a PhD? Why propose that false dichotomy when you know firsthand that's not the case?