4 ms·

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 pri

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?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      I still did it very early in my career. If I’d left it another ten years I’d have wasted a lot of time, and wouldn’t have been able to get the career I have. And I recommend things because of my experience not despite it.
      - bumby 4y ago
        I'm assuming this recommendation comes because you were not doing research prior to your PhD and you wanted to? In other words, you think PhD is about building a skillset and not signaling? That may be where we're talking from two different angles. Much of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that you need a PhD to do research (i.e., it's vocational in nature). My claim is that you do not, but that it's possible people will pursue a PhD for other reasons (because it's more about signaling than many realize).
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > My claim is that you do not Yes, some people are naturally talented enough to do research without training, or with training other than a PhD. But if you aren't exceptional, then promoting this is not realistic and is setting people up for disappointment. Some people can learn to play an instrument without a teacher... most would be better served with some structure and guidance for an experienced tutor.
        bumby 4y ago
        You seem to imply that a PhD program is the only way to have researchers get tutored/trained. I.e., that PhD programs have a monopoly on developing the skillset; I'm saying they have a monopoly on the credential but not the skillset. Maybe I've had good employers but there's always been an emphasis on training junior employees in research, regardless if they had a PhD or not. Maybe that's the seat of our difference in opinion. I think the idea that a PhD program is the only adequate training for research is flawed. Most of the researchers (PhD and otherwise) have a fairly methodical approach to the endeavor. If there's a method/process, it can be taught. The non-PhDs that I know doing research did not have some innate talent for research, but were taught by other more senior researchers. IMO, most research is borne from the combination of a solid grasp of a problem that needs to be solved, taking the time to build deep understanding of the topic, and then following a methodical approach to testing a hypothesis. None of that takes exceptional talent or half a decade in a PhD program to learn. (I say this as somebody who's been through a PhD program that I enjoyed. It's not from any bitterness). The biggest hurdle for many seems to be funding and resources, rather than some exceptional talent. And to that end, I'd concede that a PhD credential can open up doors for resources, but I hold that as distinct from the skills required from research. If you're talking about the exceptional, once-in-a-generation breakthroughs, sure, I can see why a PhD program with an exceptional advisor may be necessary. The the vast, vast majority of research is small and incremental.

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?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I still did it very early in my career. If I’d left it another ten years I’d have wasted a lot of time, and wouldn’t have been able to get the career I have. And I recommend things because of my experience not despite it.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I'm assuming this recommendation comes because you were not doing research prior to your PhD and you wanted to? In other words, you think PhD is about building a skillset and not signaling? That may be where we're talking from two different angles. Much of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that you need a PhD to do research (i.e., it's vocational in nature). My claim is that you do not, but that it's possible people will pursue a PhD for other reasons (because it's more about signaling than many realize).
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > My claim is that you do not Yes, some people are naturally talented enough to do research without training, or with training other than a PhD. But if you aren't exceptional, then promoting this is not realistic and is setting people up for disappointment. Some people can learn to play an instrument without a teacher... most would be better served with some structure and guidance for an experienced tutor.
        bumby 4y ago
        You seem to imply that a PhD program is the only way to have researchers get tutored/trained. I.e., that PhD programs have a monopoly on developing the skillset; I'm saying they have a monopoly on the credential but not the skillset. Maybe I've had good employers but there's always been an emphasis on training junior employees in research, regardless if they had a PhD or not. Maybe that's the seat of our difference in opinion. I think the idea that a PhD program is the only adequate training for research is flawed. Most of the researchers (PhD and otherwise) have a fairly methodical approach to the endeavor. If there's a method/process, it can be taught. The non-PhDs that I know doing research did not have some innate talent for research, but were taught by other more senior researchers. IMO, most research is borne from the combination of a solid grasp of a problem that needs to be solved, taking the time to build deep understanding of the topic, and then following a methodical approach to testing a hypothesis. None of that takes exceptional talent or half a decade in a PhD program to learn. (I say this as somebody who's been through a PhD program that I enjoyed. It's not from any bitterness). The biggest hurdle for many seems to be funding and resources, rather than some exceptional talent. And to that end, I'd concede that a PhD credential can open up doors for resources, but I hold that as distinct from the skills required from research. If you're talking about the exceptional, once-in-a-generation breakthroughs, sure, I can see why a PhD program with an exceptional advisor may be necessary. The the vast, vast majority of research is small and incremental.