3 ms·

> I also think that there needs to be a “non-professor” track in grad school. There is, it's called getting a master's degree. Typically, the first two years o

> I also think that there needs to be a “non-professor” track in grad school. There is, it's called getting a master's degree. Typically, the first two years of a US CS PhD are a mix of research and classes, and the remaining few years are pure research. Students that are good at classes but bad at research should be able to walk away with a master's degree after two years, whose requirements they have should be at least close to meeting. I'm sure this varies a bit between schools, though I hope not too much because it's an essential escape valve. Students that know up front that they just want to continue to be students should go for a master's degree, and one without a research requirement if possible. ("Bad at research" meaning "bad at research in combination with their advisor", which can be due to the student, or the advisor, or the way they interact.)

parpfish 3y ago
the master "release valve" is important, but it's an early escape rather than a parallel non-prof phd path. the non-prof path isn't for people that are 'bad at research', its for people that want to do research outside of universities. so their theses wouldn't be crafted around"what will get grants/be publishable" but instead focus on "what would an R&D department in my field find interesting/valuable".
- ramblenode 3y ago
  This is just getting a PhD at a less prestigious school. Advisors there know most of their students won't stay in academia and mentor them accordingly. Ultimately I don't think there is a need for something between a masters and a PhD. Any attempt to make an alternative PhD will just become "PhD-lite", and the best students (whether they want to stay in academia or not) will still funnel into the more prestigious traditional PhD program and will be more desirable hires in industry because they come from a more elite pedigree.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

parpfish 3y ago

the master "release valve" is important, but it's an early escape rather than a parallel non-prof phd path. the non-prof path isn't for people that are 'bad at research', its for people that want to do research outside of universities. so their theses wouldn't be crafted around"what will get grants/be publishable" but instead focus on "what would an R&D department in my field find interesting/valuable".

ramblenode 3y ago
This is just getting a PhD at a less prestigious school. Advisors there know most of their students won't stay in academia and mentor them accordingly. Ultimately I don't think there is a need for something between a masters and a PhD. Any attempt to make an alternative PhD will just become "PhD-lite", and the best students (whether they want to stay in academia or not) will still funnel into the more prestigious traditional PhD program and will be more desirable hires in industry because they come from a more elite pedigree.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]