A PhD is a huge waste of time- aibu

[Bluffysummers]

I’d quantify this and say in the humanities.

I did one, worked hard to complete it, stress, time and money. I was totally duped into it, lecturers telling me how good I was and blowing smoke up my arse and implying I’d get a job at the end of it… in my subject there were 3 jobs nationwide when I graduated none full time…and god knows how many candidates.

I left academia and guess what, no one cares if you have a PhD, in fact I think it’s more of a hinderance than an asset. I spent 10 years in education and all it did was delay my industry and career experience, so basically hinder me.

Aibu to say If you’re thinking of doing a humanities PhD don’t.

If a recruiter wants someone committed and engaged, why do they automatically reject someone who's proved they're prepared to learn multiple new languages, put their life on hold and move half way across the world for their job for a terrible salary?

There's a lot of committed and engaged people. If you're up against equally committed and engaged people, the advantage is to those with the most relevant experience and track records.

I can't help feeling that the only reason is that we've got pretty highly tuned bullshit detectors after reviewing so many dodgy papers, which doesn't go down well in the corporate world.

Why would anyone hire someone who thinks this way about them?

@stodgystollen

I should say don't regret the phd though! It was great, I learnt a lot and I moved to the country I now live in which has a massively better quality of life than the UK. I wouldn't have done that without the PhD. I do massively resent the post-doc years, even though they taught me a lot.

I really really resent that I'm viewed as flakey and inexperienced. If a recruiter wants someone committed and engaged, why do they automatically reject someone who's proved they're prepared to learn multiple new languages, put their life on hold and move half way across the world for their job for a terrible salary? I can't help feeling that the only reason is that we've got pretty highly tuned bullshit detectors after reviewing so many dodgy papers, which doesn't go down well in the corporate world.

I've learned multiple languages and moved round the world. I don't have a PhD. Just a Masters. But I do have lots of corporate experience which is far more useful work wise than a well-written humanities thesis. I would also hazard a guess that my language skills are better than most who have a PhD with a language component.

Unless you are very fortunate and in the right place at the right time, that time is better spent gaining experience beyond academia.

why do they automatically reject someone who's proved they're prepared to learn multiple new languages, put their life on hold and move half way across the world for their job for a terrible salary?

Learning new languages isn't a requirement for most jobs, and not everyone thinks it's a good thing to put your life on hold for bad pay.

Oh, and I know several people who've got a PhD, worked in academia as a postdoc on temporary research contracts, then found in their 40s that they are too expensive/niche/ inadequate, that's me and gone into something entirely unrelated and not requiring a PhD at all. Such a lot of talent lost by the unis.

we've got pretty highly tuned bullshit detectors after reviewing so many dodgy papers, which doesn't go down well in the corporate world.

What do you mean?

@MiSimit

we've got pretty highly tuned bullshit detectors after reviewing so many dodgy papers, which doesn't go down well in the corporate world.

What do you mean?

I don't get this either.

If anything gave me ninja bullshit-detecting skills it's MN.

Very true @SarahAndQuack

@stodgystollen

I should say don't regret the phd though! It was great, I learnt a lot and I moved to the country I now live in which has a massively better quality of life than the UK. I wouldn't have done that without the PhD. I do massively resent the post-doc years, even though they taught me a lot.

I really really resent that I'm viewed as flakey and inexperienced. If a recruiter wants someone committed and engaged, why do they automatically reject someone who's proved they're prepared to learn multiple new languages, put their life on hold and move half way across the world for their job for a terrible salary? I can't help feeling that the only reason is that we've got pretty highly tuned bullshit detectors after reviewing so many dodgy papers, which doesn't go down well in the corporate world.

You would not believe the number of people who can speak multiple languages and have moved across the world to the UK and there's no mention of a PhD - they've just done it, along with their degree and their years of experience - not many from the UK but every international applicant we get can speak at least three languages. Which is lovely for them but the languages are not needed for our work and so they are not on the job description and they do not score extra brownie points - being able to bake doesn't either! Someone who can analyse documents is very valuable to us - but as yet we haven't come across a PhD grad who comes across as savvy - we've clearly been sent the dross.

If it helps (it probably doesn't, and this is utterly anecdotal) grad schemes are ludicrously competitive and I've spent the past couple of years being rejected from them. Public sector or private, you name it and I've applied for it and been rejected! It's definitely not the case that they actually take grads with "at least a 2:1 in any subject" as they claim - I reckon public sector want a relevant Masters and private sector you need loads of work experience with your parents' friends. Admittedly I'm part of a post-covid cohort so the grad job market is full of backlog but it's definitely not the case that everyone with a BA/BSc graduates into a £28k fast-track grad scheme and is leaps and bounds ahead of PhD holders by the time they're 23. Most of my grad friends have either moved back in with their parents to work min wage jobs or started graduate entry conversion degrees.

I'm finishing what I suppose is probably somewhat regarded as a hobby degree for the independently wealthy (I'm not remotely wealthy, sadly!) - think along the lines of theology, classics, art history, liberal arts - at a redbrick RG uni. My subject's department is great and I've enjoyed my undergrad but I have to say I could never be persuaded to do an MA or a PhD, nor to beg for a badly-paid job in the cultures sector. I'm trying to use my degree to get onto a graduate-entry conversion program or a professionally-accredited MSc. I'm sorry that your PhD didn't work out as you'd hoped - I definitely agree that high-performing undergrads are encouraged to specialise in their subject without any real explanation as to where this would lead.

We have an ongoing debate about whether to raise the bar on our grad programme to Masters applicants only. The argument for - the best candidates are specialising and selling themselves as premium masters grads - argument against is that only the grads who have failed to get onto a grad programme do a Masters - the clever organised grads get with their career and get onto a grad programme..so the Masters grads are all the runners up. I expect it's a bit of both so we keep an open mind.

If it helps (it probably doesn't, and this is utterly anecdotal) grad schemes are ludicrously competitive and I've spent the past couple of years being rejected from them. Public sector or private, you name it and I've applied for it and been rejected! It's definitely not the case that they actually take grads with "at least a 2:1 in any subject" as they claim - I reckon public sector want a relevant Masters and private sector you need loads of work experience with your parents' friends. Admittedly I'm part of a post-covid cohort so the grad job market is full of backlog but it's definitely not the case that everyone with a BA/BSc graduates into a £28k fast-track grad scheme and is leaps and bounds ahead of PhD holders by the time they're 23. Most of my grad friends have either moved back in with their parents to work min wage jobs or started graduate entry conversion degrees.

YY, I think this is so true. Easy to say a PhD is a waste of time because someone newly graduated from a first degree could get the same jobs - but those jobs are competitive for everyone and there's no guarantee of anyone getting one.

I agree. It’s better to get a trade IMO, ever since Tony ruined it….

you need loads of work experience with your parents' friends This is not necessarily the case anymore. Loads of internships are noew offered publicly and are advertised on University careers websites, if your dcs are not aware of this get them to have look - they will get paid properly too - we're even getting our intern funded by the university. We have been approached by "friends" to give their dcs an internship - but I don't think that reflects well on the dc - that they need their parents to get them a job - we need self starters, real talent who can achieve on their own merit (as far as that goes - it's not perfect) not relying on their parents for a leg up.

I know the OP's post is about Humanities PhDs, but as others have mentioned STEM along the way I thought it worth pointing out that another advantage of post-grad STEM study is the opportunity to get involved in cutting-edge research and using technology that you probably wouldn't get any other way.

DD2 hasn't started her PhD yet, but did a STEM Masters last year at a 'top' university and was researching mRNA vaccines (not for Covid! another field), and was using gene-splicing tech to do so. There's not a hope in hell that a teenage under-grad would get anywhere near that technology, and none of her friends who have gone into big pharma/tech companies been allowed to use it yet either, so in her field at least she is actually getting direct work-related experience she couldn't have got anywhere else at 22.

Just for old times sake, I'd like to point out if a English degree ruins reading than a doctorate must totally fry your brain. You bunch of academic crack heads xxx (I'm off to nethuns)

My son's doing a funded PhD and also getting paid to tech undergrads. He's enjoying it but it's in a stem subject

@DrTastic

Just for old times sake, I'd like to point out if a English degree ruins reading than a doctorate must totally fry your brain. You bunch of academic crack heads xxx (I'm off to nethuns)

Oh that made me happy.

@KeepAgnusSafe

We have an ongoing debate about whether to raise the bar on our grad programme to Masters applicants only. The argument for - the best candidates are specialising and selling themselves as premium masters grads - argument against is that only the grads who have failed to get onto a grad programme do a Masters - the clever organised grads get with their career and get onto a grad programme..so the Masters grads are all the runners up. I expect it's a bit of both so we keep an open mind.

It's interesting to encounter this POV as I've found grad job application to be more of a lottery than anything, from the perspective of an applicant. Obviously I don't know your organisation's size or hiring process but certainly the big schemes (eg Civil Service, Big 4, Tesco) use things like Hirevue video interviews or personality multiple choice tests which boot you at the first stage before you've had a chance to actually demonstrate your intelligence/organisational skills etc. I do understand that they have to be somewhat ruthless due to the volume of applications! I've found it quite frustrating and futile and it's one of the reasons I'm looking to gain specific professions qualifications rather than using my BA to repeatedly be rejected from marketing/policy etc schemes

“I think you probably can also fail fail and walk away with nothing but I imagine that’s for explicit plagiarism”

Not necessarily. I have known two people who attempted PhDs and came out with nothing. They both felt that their failures had as much to do with the internal politics surrounding their supervisors as their own undoubted naivety. The basis for their papers was in both cases fatally flawed and should have been strangled at birth, and it’s notable that both supervisors mysteriously left academia shortly afterwards.

@ThomasinaGallico

“I think you probably can also fail fail and walk away with nothing but I imagine that’s for explicit plagiarism”

Not necessarily. I have known two people who attempted PhDs and came out with nothing. They both felt that their failures had as much to do with the internal politics surrounding their supervisors as their own undoubted naivety. The basis for their papers was in both cases fatally flawed and should have been strangled at birth, and it’s notable that both supervisors mysteriously left academia shortly afterwards.

I think this is referring to the final defence and grading (although not grade as such, more feedback). If you've reached the point where you're defending, you're basically done and to fail at that point would be devastating. In my uni, the defence was just a formality. It was expected that your supervisor and committtee would not put you forward for a defence if you had a glaring issues, these would have been expected to have been resolved before defence. Literally, they would send you out the room, have a little discussion, then welcome back Dr. Teapacks to the room (which was a nice touch as that would be the first itme you're a Dr) and give some feedback. There'd even be a little reception arranged to celebrate as no one ever failed at that point.

@duchampsbride have you tried asking your career service for advice on applications?
Grad schemes are very easy to get if you know how the process works.
The only people I know who repeatedly fail to get grad jobs aren’t trained in the process.
Caveat being this is for mass hiring grad schemes. ‘Grad jobs’ are different from ‘grad schemes’

Source : got multiple offers myself after failing all summer schemes , and coached numerous students through

[quote LegMeChicken]@duchampsbride have you tried asking your career service for advice on applications?
Grad schemes are very easy to get if you know how the process works.
The only people I know who repeatedly fail to get grad jobs aren’t trained in the process.
Caveat being this is for mass hiring grad schemes. ‘Grad jobs’ are different from ‘grad schemes’[/quote]
I agree, I have coached a few people (friends and relatives) successfully through the process - for context @duchampsbride our company is small, founded by Big 4 Partners and Directors - we are looking for the same kind of people, with similar attributes. Candidates make very similar mistakes. They don't seem to understand what we are looking for in a person, and one big clue - it isn't someone who is fond of blowing their own trumpet, who presents themselves as the big I am...we are not looking for the alpha male who has the loudest voice and talks over the top of everyone else. It's all a delicate balance of diplomacy and assertiveness. And leadership at grad level is self-leadership (leading others professionally takes years to develop, it also does not mean managing them) - taking ownership of your personal development - understanding where your gaps are (being self aware) and seeking help to address them - taking and giving feedback in the spirit it should be given and received. Presenting yourself as flawless - will convince no one. Eg "Every project I have ever worked on has been a huge success" They will give you their attributes - understand them, live and breath them but do not try to shoe horn all of them into every sentence you utter - I had some do this - I didn't believe a word she said.
But it isn't for everyone - the big four leave quite a few dead bodies behind in the process, you will need spadefuls of resilience. People come to us utterly delusioned with the way they and others have been treated.

@Teapacks, I've known someone fail during viva. He didn't plagiarise but there was a big flaw in his thesis and his examiners tried to see if he could understand how to deal with it. He couldn't - and couldn't be brought to understand it was a flaw - so he failed. If he'd been able to see it was a problem, and say what to do, they said he could have passed.

I have also known colleagues go into a viva unsure whether they'd pass or fail the candidate, usually for that sort of reason.

[quote SarahAndQuack]@Teapacks, I've known someone fail during viva. He didn't plagiarise but there was a big flaw in his thesis and his examiners tried to see if he could understand how to deal with it. He couldn't - and couldn't be brought to understand it was a flaw - so he failed. If he'd been able to see it was a problem, and say what to do, they said he could have passed.

I have also known colleagues go into a viva unsure whether they'd pass or fail the candidate, usually for that sort of reason.[/quote]
@SarahAndQuack
OMG! That's shocking.
Where was his supervisor? His committee? How could they allow him to defend knowing there was such a flaw in the thesis? This reflects far more badly on them than on him. Would never happen where I studied . They just wouldn't allow the candidate to go forward to defence.