5 ms·

"Oh, yes. I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19

"Oh, yes. I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited. In the end, they have this piece of paper which says they’re qualified, but it really doesn’t mean anything. The Ph.D. takes far too long and discourages women from becoming scientists, which I consider a great tragedy. So I have opposed it all my life without any success at all." I completely agree. And I would add that it's a filter that selects status-seekers over truth-seekers, who have no reason to tolerate it.

noobiemcfoob 12y ago
While, broadly speaking, these arguments against the Ph.D system can be valid, that has more to do with individual institutions watering down the true meaning of a Ph.D. This is a flaw with the implementation, not the system itself. But this is also why a Ph.D from MIT or others carries a much bigger weight than a Ph.D from University of <No one has heard of this place>. Those institutions are trusted to only hand Ph.D's to those who have earned them.
- physPop 12y ago
  > Those institutions are trusted to only hand Ph.D's to those who have earned them. I disagree. Even MIT and the highfalutin Ivey's have a lot of mediocre grad students to keep the cogs of the research machine running. This is especially true in the biomedical field because of the cheap labor supply of grad students - vs - the cost of highly trained lab techs. All of these students pass and earn PhDs. Inside your own little field in academia you are judged by your peers on both your work as well as who you work with, not where you sit or the stamp on the letterhead. Sadly, outside of our small fields we have very poor (if any) tools to assess researchers, and thus fall back on regular consumer judgements: brand recognition, familiarity and advertising.
thebooktocome 12y ago
Pray, tell us how a "truth-seeker" does highly technical research in any field without the resources and credentials of a university.
- jimrandomh 12y ago
  For fields that require expensive lab equipment, like physics and biology, I admit this is hard. But for fields like math and computer science, all you need is a computer and free time. A university can help you get time for research, by paying a salary so you don't have to do a non-research job, but there are other ways to handle that. A university can help you make connections and find collaborators, but it's not the only way to do that, either.
  - thebooktocome 12y ago
    > But for fields like math and computer science, all you need is a computer and free time. As someone who has been on both sides, it can be hard to impossible to research mathematics without access to a university library and credentials. Math books are prohibitively expensive and go out of print swiftly. Articles are behind paywalls. Few research mathematicians in my experience respond to requests for preprints or clarification from non-academic e-mails.

noobiemcfoob 12y ago

While, broadly speaking, these arguments against the Ph.D system can be valid, that has more to do with individual institutions watering down the true meaning of a Ph.D. This is a flaw with the implementation, not the system itself. But this is also why a Ph.D from MIT or others carries a much bigger weight than a Ph.D from University of <No one has heard of this place>. Those institutions are trusted to only hand Ph.D's to those who have earned them.

physPop 12y ago
> Those institutions are trusted to only hand Ph.D's to those who have earned them. I disagree. Even MIT and the highfalutin Ivey's have a lot of mediocre grad students to keep the cogs of the research machine running. This is especially true in the biomedical field because of the cheap labor supply of grad students - vs - the cost of highly trained lab techs. All of these students pass and earn PhDs. Inside your own little field in academia you are judged by your peers on both your work as well as who you work with, not where you sit or the stamp on the letterhead. Sadly, outside of our small fields we have very poor (if any) tools to assess researchers, and thus fall back on regular consumer judgements: brand recognition, familiarity and advertising.

thebooktocome 12y ago

Pray, tell us how a "truth-seeker" does highly technical research in any field without the resources and credentials of a university.

jimrandomh 12y ago
For fields that require expensive lab equipment, like physics and biology, I admit this is hard. But for fields like math and computer science, all you need is a computer and free time. A university can help you get time for research, by paying a salary so you don't have to do a non-research job, but there are other ways to handle that. A university can help you make connections and find collaborators, but it's not the only way to do that, either.
- thebooktocome 12y ago
  > But for fields like math and computer science, all you need is a computer and free time. As someone who has been on both sides, it can be hard to impossible to research mathematics without access to a university library and credentials. Math books are prohibitively expensive and go out of print swiftly. Articles are behind paywalls. Few research mathematicians in my experience respond to requests for preprints or clarification from non-academic e-mails.