7 ms·

The Ph.D. Problem

89 points by RyanMcGreal 17y ago

foldr 17y ago
This is just what professional disciplines tend to be like, as the author notes. You might just as well say that "the main product of structural engineering is not the production of bridges but the reproduction of structural engineering." It's probably true in the same sense that it's true of academia, but so what?
- Gupie 17y ago
  Structural engineers produce bridges, even if they are arguably just a side produce. In the worst case academics only produce academics.
  - mquander 17y ago
    Academics also advance humanity's knowledge in their field through research and writing, so that others may stand on their shoulders and see further. Perhaps you don't believe that things like critical literary analysis are providing us any actual benefit, but I disagree and I'm sure that any humanities professor would disagree too.
    - jjs 17y ago
      > Perhaps you don't believe that things like critical literary analysis are providing us any actual benefit, but I disagree and I'm sure that any humanities professor would disagree too. What they'll profess in public and what they'll admit "off the record" aren't always the same thing.
      - foldr 17y ago
        The same is true of scientists, though. I know plenty who will say disparaging things about the value of their own research "off the record."
        jjs 17y ago
        I believe it. Scientists at least have the advantage that, even if they can't see any practical application of their research, other people can (and do!).
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      I'm sincerely curious to hear your case in defence of critical literary analysis.
      - foldr 17y ago
        Why would it need any defense? Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be reading literature and analyzing it? It's been an important part of Western culture for a few thousand years. Seems like it would be a bit rash to give it up now.
        nkurz 17y ago
        Despite the literal intepretation, you might be mistaken in assuming that "critical literary analysis" is the same as "reading literature and analyzing it". Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring to something closer to "postmodern critical theory". There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be interested in hearing a defense.
        foldr 17y ago
        Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any, so I'm not sure how to give a defense of work which people haven't read. I expect that most of it is rather low in quality, but most of the work done in every discipline is rather low in quality. And in any case, not all literary criticism in the academy is "postmodern" in the invidious sense. >Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here as a term of the art, There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you, so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.
        nkurz 17y ago
        I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right! But in my old fashioned manner, I still think intentionality counts for something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the world around me. So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
  - Agathos 17y ago
    In the worst case, structural engineers don't produce bridges. I'm sure you could find some poor soul who spent a career drawing up proposals for bridges that were never built.
    - btilly 17y ago
      I knew an architect whose job was designing buildings that never got built. He worked for a company that would buy residential land, he'd design a commercial building for that land, the company would take the plans to the local city council and get it rezoned, then the company would flip the newly rezoned land at a significant profit. I liked him, but not his job or employer.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Well... The absolute worst case here is a structural engineer producing something that looks like a bridge for some time, then becomes a very dynamic and contorted structure of concrete, metal, automobiles and mostly dead primates.
- gruseom 17y ago
  There's a principle associated with some famous sociologist that says "The purpose of any institution is first to perpetuate itself, and only secondarily to pursue its specified goal." I wish I could remember who said this. It's an idea with explanatory power.
  - amichail 17y ago
    In a related way, the purpose of a student is to maximize his/her grades and in so doing learn a few things along the way.
    - gruseom 17y ago
      Totally disagree. I had contempt for students like that when I was in school. Probably still do, if I thought about it.
      - amichail 17y ago
        If you don't want students to think in that way, you need to change the system.
        gruseom 17y ago
        Much easier to just avoid people who don't like learning.
    - ejames 17y ago
      I would call that the pathological case rather than the average one. Maximizing grades against learning as little as possible is the lowest hurdle you can cross while still technically being successful as a student. It's also worth remembering that "student" does not always mean "child currently undergoing mandatory education". I would think that adults who return to complete their diplomas/degrees or add a graduate-level program on top of the undergraduate one are comparatively more likely to choose to maximize knowledge rather than just grades. It's mostly commonly expressed as "now that I'm personally paying for it, I want to get my money's worth".
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  You could make the corresponding argument for structural engineering, but it would be harder. The corresponding statement for academia would be: "the main product of academia is not the production of ___ but..." But what do we fill in the blank with? With structural engineering, the answer is obvious. With academia, particularly humanities academia, not so much.
  - foldr 17y ago
    It's true that research in the humanities tends to have less definite "results" than research in the sciences, but it's daft to use that as a criticism. _Of course_ literary analysis produces less definite results than chemistry. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
    - krakensden 17y ago
      Why is it worth doing? What are its results?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
scott_s 17y ago
"Academia" is not shorthand for "Humanities Academia." Maybe this author's argument is true for the humanities, but I know some academic researchers in science and engineering can move into industry. That is, their skills are valued by people outside of their academic circle.
- amichail 17y ago
  But maybe humanities academia has the benefit of giving you more freedom as your research is not evaluated as objectively as in science and engineering?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Maybe. That makes it less interesting to me, but I wasn't trying to make a value judgment. Although the rest of the article is worth reading. I don't think the author confuses humanities academia with science or engineering academia - I think the submitter did. I think the assumption with his essay is that what he says applies to the humanities, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
- msluyter 17y ago
  Well, the author's credentials and the preface do suggest a focus on the humanities.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I agree, the confusion is with the submitted title.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  > "Academia" is not shorthand for "Humanities Academia." Good point. Unfortunately, I was squeezed by the 80 character title constraint. :)
- bbgm 17y ago
  In fact, in the life sciences, the back and forth is getting more common, and will increasingly get so as the models for research, esp in large scale biology change. On the CS side there are any number of examples as well.
philk 17y ago
Academia in the humanities field is particularly calcified and corrupt because it's so hard to measure the quality of the output (or even if anyone wants it at all). At least with things like maths or computer science research can be verified and has utility to the broader world.
- foldr 17y ago
  On the other hand, the claim that the humanities are not "practical" has become virtually a tautology, because "practical" has become almost a synonym for "scientific". Nowadays, people don't seem to think that work on love or ethics or aesthetics has practical value. I am not sure why, since actual human lives are intimately concerned with these topics.
miloshh 17y ago
Focuses very much on a Ph.D. in English, which is in some ways the worst rather than the average case. However, the argument that getting a Ph.D. is getting harder while its (financial) value is decreasing seems correct to me. That might not actually be a bad thing, and is very much to be expected - the market value of doing cool and interesting things goes down as the value of tedious or dangerous jobs goes up. I think we will see even more of that in the future. We keep complaining about people maximizing their profits rather than happiness. But then, when some choose to pursue their interests and get PhD's in areas that aren't so hot in the industry, we criticize them for bad career decisions. Maybe everything's OK with the system, after all.
- m0th87 17y ago
  Thank you! IMO, the smartest thing to do in life is to pursue the options that maximize happiness. Money has a weak causal relationship with happiness[1]. Consequently, those getting a Ph.D. in English, for example, should do so if that's what makes them happy, but they should know there will be little returns from it. It's the same reason why many of us on HN pursue independent employment: there's been plenty of articles here indicating entrepreneurialism means lower incomes than employment, and it most certainly has higher risk. But the real satisfaction comes from being independent! [1] http://www.physorg.com/news70817137.html http://www.physorg.com/news70817137.html
oldgregg 17y ago
The academy is really no different from mega-corporations like Wal-mart, both revolve around money and power. Both are government subsidized. The republicans fund their pet industries (military complex, healthcare, corporate interests) until democrats seize power, yank their government subsidies, and routes all that money into the academy, unions, etc (and doing a pretty damn good job of catching up to republicans in terms of being corporate shills).
chasingsparks 17y ago
The article briefly touched on something I find more dangerous: systemic conformity in academia. If you want to be influential, your best bet is to become allied to academia. As the article notes, "independent" researchers are viewed with suspicion, if viewed at all. Since there are incentives to conform (albeit loosely) to some norms while perusing a PH.D. there is a lot of hill climbing and not a lot of long jumps.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  P.S. Can someone with sufficient Karma post a poll asking level of education completed. Or maybe level of education desired would be more interesting. I'm curious about HN's academic demographics.
  - daniel-cussen 17y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=917219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=917219
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- Alex3917 17y ago
  I think you are right that this is the real story. The article itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the reason you are getting a Ph.D. is because you want to teach college kids or get a 'BGN' job, you are doing it for the wrong reasons. The only reason to get a Ph.D. is because you want to publish academic research. And if you show up without already knowing what you want to be researching, you're probably not ready to get a Ph.D. yet. That's not to say that academia isn't horribly broken, it is, but in some places it really seems like the author is going off in the wrong direction.
- miloshh 17y ago
  Which independent researchers did you have in mind? One example I can think of is in politically sensitive areas, where think-tanks bypass the peer-review process and try to get their "research" straight into media, through good connections. I think that is rightfully viewed with suspicion. If your point was that researchers unaffiliated with universities have a harder time to get through the peer-review process - I don't think that's true at all. Often I do not even remember if a paper I read in the past came from a university or an industry lab. For example, in computer graphics, one of the most prolific institutions when it comes to publishing papers is Microsoft Research Asia.
stcredzero 17y ago
The argument that they need the training to be qualified to teach undergraduates is belied by the fact that they are already teaching undergraduates. But often: badly. (I was perhaps a prime example.)
Shana 17y ago
This is a conversation dominated by science majors. I'm an art major. As in studio. Classic humanity major. If I said "You should worry about what Adorno thinks about cultural production when you make a web object, since it means potnetially you end up with a more passive than active population: When you build an object on the web, how do you plan on activating the population, because of his critique?" Most people here would go huh? by the sound of this conversation. In Practice, what humanities students say, especially when they sit down with engineers, is important. It is a pity that there is no practical humanities anymore. It is really useful to learn to think critically in that way about the world.

89 points by RyanMcGreal 17y ago

foldr 17y ago

This is just what professional disciplines tend to be like, as the author notes. You might just as well say that "the main product of structural engineering is not the production of bridges but the reproduction of structural engineering." It's probably true in the same sense that it's true of academia, but so what?

Gupie 17y ago
Structural engineers produce bridges, even if they are arguably just a side produce. In the worst case academics only produce academics.
- mquander 17y ago
  Academics also advance humanity's knowledge in their field through research and writing, so that others may stand on their shoulders and see further. Perhaps you don't believe that things like critical literary analysis are providing us any actual benefit, but I disagree and I'm sure that any humanities professor would disagree too.
  - jjs 17y ago
    > Perhaps you don't believe that things like critical literary analysis are providing us any actual benefit, but I disagree and I'm sure that any humanities professor would disagree too. What they'll profess in public and what they'll admit "off the record" aren't always the same thing.
    - foldr 17y ago
      The same is true of scientists, though. I know plenty who will say disparaging things about the value of their own research "off the record."
      - jjs 17y ago
        I believe it. Scientists at least have the advantage that, even if they can't see any practical application of their research, other people can (and do!).
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    I'm sincerely curious to hear your case in defence of critical literary analysis.
    - foldr 17y ago
      Why would it need any defense? Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be reading literature and analyzing it? It's been an important part of Western culture for a few thousand years. Seems like it would be a bit rash to give it up now.
      - nkurz 17y ago
        Despite the literal intepretation, you might be mistaken in assuming that "critical literary analysis" is the same as "reading literature and analyzing it". Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring to something closer to "postmodern critical theory". There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be interested in hearing a defense.
        foldr 17y ago
        Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any, so I'm not sure how to give a defense of work which people haven't read. I expect that most of it is rather low in quality, but most of the work done in every discipline is rather low in quality. And in any case, not all literary criticism in the academy is "postmodern" in the invidious sense. >Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here as a term of the art, There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you, so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.
        nkurz 17y ago
        I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right! But in my old fashioned manner, I still think intentionality counts for something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :) Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even read any I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the world around me. So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
- Agathos 17y ago
  In the worst case, structural engineers don't produce bridges. I'm sure you could find some poor soul who spent a career drawing up proposals for bridges that were never built.
  - btilly 17y ago
    I knew an architect whose job was designing buildings that never got built. He worked for a company that would buy residential land, he'd design a commercial building for that land, the company would take the plans to the local city council and get it rezoned, then the company would flip the newly rezoned land at a significant profit. I liked him, but not his job or employer.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Well... The absolute worst case here is a structural engineer producing something that looks like a bridge for some time, then becomes a very dynamic and contorted structure of concrete, metal, automobiles and mostly dead primates.
gruseom 17y ago
There's a principle associated with some famous sociologist that says "The purpose of any institution is first to perpetuate itself, and only secondarily to pursue its specified goal." I wish I could remember who said this. It's an idea with explanatory power.
- amichail 17y ago
  In a related way, the purpose of a student is to maximize his/her grades and in so doing learn a few things along the way.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    Totally disagree. I had contempt for students like that when I was in school. Probably still do, if I thought about it.
    - amichail 17y ago
      If you don't want students to think in that way, you need to change the system.
      - gruseom 17y ago
        Much easier to just avoid people who don't like learning.
  - ejames 17y ago
    I would call that the pathological case rather than the average one. Maximizing grades against learning as little as possible is the lowest hurdle you can cross while still technically being successful as a student. It's also worth remembering that "student" does not always mean "child currently undergoing mandatory education". I would think that adults who return to complete their diplomas/degrees or add a graduate-level program on top of the undergraduate one are comparatively more likely to choose to maximize knowledge rather than just grades. It's mostly commonly expressed as "now that I'm personally paying for it, I want to get my money's worth".
yummyfajitas 17y ago
You could make the corresponding argument for structural engineering, but it would be harder. The corresponding statement for academia would be: "the main product of academia is not the production of ___ but..." But what do we fill in the blank with? With structural engineering, the answer is obvious. With academia, particularly humanities academia, not so much.
- foldr 17y ago
  It's true that research in the humanities tends to have less definite "results" than research in the sciences, but it's daft to use that as a criticism. _Of course_ literary analysis produces less definite results than chemistry. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
  - krakensden 17y ago
    Why is it worth doing? What are its results?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

scott_s 17y ago

"Academia" is not shorthand for "Humanities Academia." Maybe this author's argument is true for the humanities, but I know some academic researchers in science and engineering can move into industry. That is, their skills are valued by people outside of their academic circle.

amichail 17y ago
But maybe humanities academia has the benefit of giving you more freedom as your research is not evaluated as objectively as in science and engineering?
- scott_s 17y ago
  Maybe. That makes it less interesting to me, but I wasn't trying to make a value judgment. Although the rest of the article is worth reading. I don't think the author confuses humanities academia with science or engineering academia - I think the submitter did. I think the assumption with his essay is that what he says applies to the humanities, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
msluyter 17y ago
Well, the author's credentials and the preface do suggest a focus on the humanities.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I agree, the confusion is with the submitted title.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
> "Academia" is not shorthand for "Humanities Academia." Good point. Unfortunately, I was squeezed by the 80 character title constraint. :)
bbgm 17y ago
In fact, in the life sciences, the back and forth is getting more common, and will increasingly get so as the models for research, esp in large scale biology change. On the CS side there are any number of examples as well.

philk 17y ago

Academia in the humanities field is particularly calcified and corrupt because it's so hard to measure the quality of the output (or even if anyone wants it at all). At least with things like maths or computer science research can be verified and has utility to the broader world.

foldr 17y ago
On the other hand, the claim that the humanities are not "practical" has become virtually a tautology, because "practical" has become almost a synonym for "scientific". Nowadays, people don't seem to think that work on love or ethics or aesthetics has practical value. I am not sure why, since actual human lives are intimately concerned with these topics.

miloshh 17y ago

Focuses very much on a Ph.D. in English, which is in some ways the worst rather than the average case. However, the argument that getting a Ph.D. is getting harder while its (financial) value is decreasing seems correct to me. That might not actually be a bad thing, and is very much to be expected - the market value of doing cool and interesting things goes down as the value of tedious or dangerous jobs goes up. I think we will see even more of that in the future. We keep complaining about people maximizing their profits rather than happiness. But then, when some choose to pursue their interests and get PhD's in areas that aren't so hot in the industry, we criticize them for bad career decisions. Maybe everything's OK with the system, after all.

m0th87 17y ago
Thank you! IMO, the smartest thing to do in life is to pursue the options that maximize happiness. Money has a weak causal relationship with happiness[1]. Consequently, those getting a Ph.D. in English, for example, should do so if that's what makes them happy, but they should know there will be little returns from it. It's the same reason why many of us on HN pursue independent employment: there's been plenty of articles here indicating entrepreneurialism means lower incomes than employment, and it most certainly has higher risk. But the real satisfaction comes from being independent! [1] http://www.physorg.com/news70817137.html http://www.physorg.com/news70817137.html

oldgregg 17y ago

The academy is really no different from mega-corporations like Wal-mart, both revolve around money and power. Both are government subsidized. The republicans fund their pet industries (military complex, healthcare, corporate interests) until democrats seize power, yank their government subsidies, and routes all that money into the academy, unions, etc (and doing a pretty damn good job of catching up to republicans in terms of being corporate shills).

chasingsparks 17y ago

The article briefly touched on something I find more dangerous: systemic conformity in academia. If you want to be influential, your best bet is to become allied to academia. As the article notes, "independent" researchers are viewed with suspicion, if viewed at all. Since there are incentives to conform (albeit loosely) to some norms while perusing a PH.D. there is a lot of hill climbing and not a lot of long jumps.

chasingsparks 17y ago
P.S. Can someone with sufficient Karma post a poll asking level of education completed. Or maybe level of education desired would be more interesting. I'm curious about HN's academic demographics.
- daniel-cussen 17y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=917219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=917219
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Alex3917 17y ago
I think you are right that this is the real story. The article itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the reason you are getting a Ph.D. is because you want to teach college kids or get a 'BGN' job, you are doing it for the wrong reasons. The only reason to get a Ph.D. is because you want to publish academic research. And if you show up without already knowing what you want to be researching, you're probably not ready to get a Ph.D. yet. That's not to say that academia isn't horribly broken, it is, but in some places it really seems like the author is going off in the wrong direction.
miloshh 17y ago
Which independent researchers did you have in mind? One example I can think of is in politically sensitive areas, where think-tanks bypass the peer-review process and try to get their "research" straight into media, through good connections. I think that is rightfully viewed with suspicion. If your point was that researchers unaffiliated with universities have a harder time to get through the peer-review process - I don't think that's true at all. Often I do not even remember if a paper I read in the past came from a university or an industry lab. For example, in computer graphics, one of the most prolific institutions when it comes to publishing papers is Microsoft Research Asia.

stcredzero 17y ago

The argument that they need the training to be qualified to teach undergraduates is belied by the fact that they are already teaching undergraduates. But often: badly. (I was perhaps a prime example.)

Shana 17y ago

This is a conversation dominated by science majors. I'm an art major. As in studio. Classic humanity major. If I said "You should worry about what Adorno thinks about cultural production when you make a web object, since it means potnetially you end up with a more passive than active population: When you build an object on the web, how do you plan on activating the population, because of his critique?" Most people here would go huh? by the sound of this conversation. In Practice, what humanities students say, especially when they sit down with engineers, is important. It is a pity that there is no practical humanities anymore. It is really useful to learn to think critically in that way about the world.