4 ms·
Would you rather be told you're not going to get a stable job as a researcher when you're 21 and first applying to grad school or at 28-35 when you're finally t
by xhkkffbf 3y ago
Would you rather be told you're not going to get a stable job as a researcher when you're 21 and first applying to grad school or at 28-35 when you're finally told you didn't get any interviews for a tenure track job?
- dbcooper 3y agoExactly. It's far better to get rejected early from the PhD track, for not being a high achiever, than to muddle through unable to secure a job. You would still be able to prove yourself in a masters degree.
- schnitzelstoat 3y agoKinda, some people I know who did poorly at undergraduate/masters did a lot better at the PhD level though and vice versa as research is very different to being taught. There is such a lack of permanent research positions compared to postdocs and PhD students that I'm not even sure it's selecting for the best people.
- mrguyorama 3y agoSociety needs way more than just a few "high achievers" ie people willing to work themselves to the death for vague rewards, doing science.
- currymj 3y agoright, this is the clear improvement. on the other hand, now it means science-oriented high schoolers lives get an extra helping of misery and stress. on top of this you also filter out anyone who doesn't perfectly stay on this high-stakes pipeline from age 14 to tenure, which is probably not good overall for science. economics is actually pretty close to working this way already. indeed, the job market for economics PhDs is much less dystopian than say life sciences. but there are tradeoffs.