4 ms·
This student makes some excellent points, and it's a bit scary how some things reinforce each other. Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact
by beloch 13y ago
This student makes some excellent points, and it's a bit scary how some things reinforce each other.
Some journals, Nature being the most notable, chase impact factor above all else. The only thing they truly care about is that the papers they publish get cited. This means highly original work, which frequently doesn't get cited much for a long time, is less desirable than a turn-the-crank paper from a respected name.
Researchers have been taught to prize Nature publications (thanks to the same flawed metric of merit) and spend a disproportionate amount of time submitting papers to Nature. When you write a paper you choose your target journal, and writing for Nature means you need to avoid rocking the boat too much, because they receive so many submissions that one minor criticism from a referee will torpedo your paper, even if that criticism is demonstrably wrong. Sometimes invalid criticisms are made by referees who are jealous, threatened, or merely lazy, but the editor has so many other submissions to deal with that he/she won't take the time to evaluate and understand the referee recommendations. Real science invites debate, but Nature's editors run screaming from it.
Why do researchers care so much about playing this game if it compromises their writing and even their research? Even a tenured prof needs to hustle for funding if he wants to do more than teach and sit in his office. PI's are salesmen even more than they're managers! The very language itself is twisted at the core when applying for grants. The average researcher or project must be superlative in every way on paper or no money is going to come. You can't say you're doing something out of pure curiosity and the chances of it spawning another silicon valley are remote. It has to be imminently commercializable with potential for massive, revolutionary impact! Honesty will destroy you. If every research proposal delivered what it promised the World would be one giant Palo Alto. We would all be better off if some better way to allocate resources were found, but that's no easy task!
As for the PhD student... There is more than meets the eye here. You don't walk away from 4 years of work in the last month without reason. Perhaps his thesis is a hopeless mess. Perhaps his relationship with his supervisor is hostile. Perhaps he's mentally ill. The last few months are ridiculously stressful after all! It's also very possible he or she is a lot more than one month from finishing. Hopefully there are people who care about this person and will help him/her get back on track and finish. The game is flawed, but the best way to ensure nobody wins is to refuse to play it.
- rthomas6 13y agoI'm not claiming you're wrong, but why isn't it possible for the student to simply no longer place any value in getting a PhD? That is what they claim, and intelligent people often make decisions on principle that make little practical sense.
- NhanH 13y agoIt's the same reason that people don't drop everything in their life to pursue their ideals: the odd of succeeding following the established path may be awful, but the alternatives' odds are even worse. Even without regard to the practicality of the choices (ie economic aspect of it) , you basically have two choices: go to grad school and have ~25-50% of getting somethings out of it (and I'm talking about knowledge/ skills, not the degree), or lock yourself in a room, hoping for the best? If you're on the caliber of, says Srinivasa Ramanujan or Galois, then I'm fairly sure you don't have to give a shit to PhD or any educational systems. Most of us aren't that type of geniuses though, and we do need help and coaching from advisors, grad schools or otherwise.
- rthomas6 13y agoAgain, I'm not saying you're wrong. I certainly would not make the decision of the article writer even if I hated my entire field. But intelligent (though not wise) people often make foolhardy decisions. Perhaps what the writer did is more unthinkable than I'm imagining; I only have a bachelor's degree, but I've seen smart, motivated people switch directions at inopportune times. Someone I know left a well-paying job that fit his (4 year STEM) degree with an amazing work environment for... well he didn't know what for. He just didn't like engineering after all and wanted to do something else in some other field.
- betterunix 13y agoEh... In theory, the PhD is this fantastic credential that opens all kinds of doors. In practice it might make a small difference in your starting salary in industry. The only place where having a PhD is truly important is in a research position, which basically means academia. Even then it is not the last word -- tenure track positions might be out, but there are a number of schools who are willing to hire a good researcher whose highest degree is an MS. Even with a PhD your prospects may not be all that much better than they are with an MS. I have seen people get a PhD with only one or two published papers, in a field where you need at least ten to even have a serious shot at a tenure track position. If you are the kind of person whose attitude is, "Screw it, I am in school to learn as much as I can and not just to publish a bunch of incremental improvements," you might not even get a shot at an academic job. Sure, someone can pad their CV as a postdoc -- but that is not all that much better than being a grad student, just moderately better pay.