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.

The trouble with capitalism as a system is that the only value to personal education, which also adds to the vast bank of human knowledge, is seen as whether or not it gets you a job.

Your PhD night be used by someone else in their work which is used by someone else in their work which creates a new care system that improves people's lives, or pinpoints something incredible in the practical education of children, or interprets something in history that changes the way we do things in the future.

Sure, it's at a personal cost, bit that's why society ought to pay for it.

I think very few PhD lead to anything groundbreaking to be honest. It's the path to which you might begin such research but definitely not the norm for PhDs.

@Teapacks - they'd already tried pretty hard with him; he'd resubmitted previously, and I do think there's a point at which you can't do more.

I think it's a good thing, TBH. It shouldn't be ok to just shove someone over the finish line if they really, really, really can't do the work. I know that happens, though.

@TeaPacks

I think very few PhD lead to anything groundbreaking to be honest. It's the path to which you might begin such research but definitely not the norm for PhDs.

Sure but it is still adding to the bank of knowledge we have as humans which other groundbreaking work needs in order to happen. That was my point. Unfortunately that's not necessarily measurable.

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

And this is the kind of snobbery that means some people get stuck in academia. Having done a DPhil then a postdoc at two world famous institutes before moving to the corporate world where I still have to work with academics I'd say that I have encountered far less bullshit and office politics in my corporate life than in my academic life. I may have been lucky with my employers but I suspect it's an output of academia being so competitive and my work being so collaborative.

Sure, it's at a personal cost, bit that's why society ought to pay for it. Which budget do you suggest it comes from? Should we take money from healthcare, defence, the arts, social security...where? what's worth less?

YANBU

I know several people who did them and they are incredibly proud and enjoy being able to use Dr as a title etc. So I always assumed they did it more as a personal achievement than to further their careers. To me the output isn't worth the time and effort invested, but then I spend time and money doing things others probably consider pointless (music and playing in orchestras as a hobby rather than a profession) so I guess it's horses for courses!

To me the output isn't worth the time and effort invested, but then I spend time and money doing things others probably consider pointless (music and playing in orchestras as a hobby rather than a profession)

There's a lot of wisdom on here. If I had my time again I would have been a musician!

@SarahAndQuack

I agree you shouldn't just shove someone over the finish line. But they equally shouldn't have even allowed him to go to defence with those flaws. It's the supervisor's job to tell the student if they're not going to cut it. Not allowing him to defend and to fail. Obviously the supervisor knew he'd fail.

At my Uni they simply would not have been approved for defence as the supervisor needs to sign off on it. But I studied in the US and I think the US approach is more seen as an apprenticeship with much more hand holding than in the UK. If someone wasn't meeting the requirements, they'd have been counselled out way earlier (better for everyone concerned), not least because we all received a relatively generous stipend and full funding.

@KeepAgnusSafe

Sure, it's at a personal cost, bit that's why society ought to pay for it. Which budget do you suggest it comes from? Should we take money from healthcare, defence, the arts, social security...where? what's worth less?

Right well this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, in the current system we have where corporations and profits are seen as the most important thing and a few people are allowed to have literally more money than they could ever ever spend, you would have to talk about which budget line would need reducing in order to fund the advancement of human knowledge. Of course eating is a basic need and comes first but as humans we are perfectly capable of creating enough wealth and resources to value our own intellectual advancement (which is what turns into practical advancement) over how many yachts one guy should buy. We just don't.

And I'll add that undervaluing humanities/arts is what gets you in the position of having incredible technological advancement and middle income people in the richest countries unable to pay their bills.

[quote TeaPacks]@SarahAndQuack

I agree you shouldn't just shove someone over the finish line. But they equally shouldn't have even allowed him to go to defence with those flaws. It's the supervisor's job to tell the student if they're not going to cut it. Not allowing him to defend and to fail. Obviously the supervisor knew he'd fail.

At my Uni they simply would not have been approved for defence as the supervisor needs to sign off on it. But I studied in the US and I think the US approach is more seen as an apprenticeship with much more hand holding than in the UK. If someone wasn't meeting the requirements, they'd have been counselled out way earlier (better for everyone concerned), not least because we all received a relatively generous stipend and full funding.[/quote]
Hmm, I don't know. I think if you have someone who has already resubmitted once, and you've told them there are problems - what can you do? It's not ethical to keep saying 'well, if you just take another year and rewrite this bit' if you know that they aren't capable of grasping that there's something badly wrong.

Whether he should have been accepted on the programme in the first place is perhaps a better question.

I don't honestly know the supervisors (we all had two) did know he'd fail - it was a situation where he'd been told there was a problem, and it'd been discussed, and the examiners gave him the chance to talk about what he'd change and how he'd approach it - and he couldn't or wouldn't do that.

I do like the sound of the US approach in some ways. But I think in any system, there has to be a point where the student takes responsibility for what they're doing.

FWIW I also know, as I say, examiners who've honestly not known whether they'd pass or fail a candidate, and who've been convinced to pass them because of what they were able to say in the viva. I think that's the right thing.

@ThePlantsitter, there is funding for PhDs though. Maybe there should be more, but funding exists, right? And I'm not sure of the ethics of funding more humanities PhDs in the current climate.

I think in the long term more research about what it means to be human and how we place value on that is the route out of the current climate. I'm not suggesting that should be funded over emergency heating payments etc though.

@Inkanta

To me the output isn't worth the time and effort invested, but then I spend time and money doing things others probably consider pointless (music and playing in orchestras as a hobby rather than a profession)

There's a lot of wisdom on here. If I had my time again I would have been a musician!

And yet the teaching of music is dominated by passing exams and jumping through hoops. I had a battle in my hands to convince teachers not to test my kids - but rather to inspire them and nurture their love of music.

[quote SarahAndQuack]**@ThePlantsitter, there is funding for PhDs though. Maybe there should be more, but funding exists, right? And I'm not sure of the ethics of funding more humanities PhDs in the current climate.[/quote]
Yes, let's stop critical thought altogether, right? I am sorry Sarah but this is a completely non argument. So - what about pure maths that has no practical applications, shall we stop funding for that one too? And then, shall we leave PhD in theoretical subjects without funding so that they become monopoly of the wealthy?

Connecting thought to economical profit is a very dangerous preposition.

Huh? I don't understand why you think I'm suggesting stopping critical thought at all. Nor do I agree pure maths has no practical applications; nor do I think practical applications are all that matters; nor did I connect thought to economic profit.

What on earth did you read that made you jump to all of those conclusions?

It tends to grate on me that some people view a PhD as a guarantee of competence and authority is a field.

Of course it shows dedication and commitment, but:

1. commitment means a narrowing of focus which means that some PhDs have a lack of worldly knowledge/application
2. there are many pathways that require just as much dedication and provide more experience
3. if you don't continue to apply the same rigour, over time your knowledge becomes less relevant anyway
4. all the qualifications in the world don't make up for being a dick/having poor communication skills

This is especially the case in technology. I have had horrendous troubles with PhD wielding morons who think that their fifteen year old study is more relevant than my ten years of active practice in the industry.

I'm equally fed up with the lazy stereotype about PhDs lacking worldly knowledge.

I have dealt with plenty of people in all sorts of careers who lack worldly knowledge, generally because they presume the way things are done in their line of work is universal, and they don't have the imagination to recognise it's not.

Doing a PhD is not some kind of monastic practice where you shut yourself in a cell for four years. It's just another form of work, and probably more sociable and involved with 'the world' than a lot of people's experiences of working from home.

@SarahAndQuack

I'm equally fed up with the lazy stereotype about PhDs lacking worldly knowledge.

I have dealt with plenty of people in all sorts of careers who lack worldly knowledge, generally because they presume the way things are done in their line of work is universal, and they don't have the imagination to recognise it's not.

Doing a PhD is not some kind of monastic practice where you shut yourself in a cell for four years. It's just another form of work, and probably more sociable and involved with 'the world' than a lot of people's experiences of working from home.

I could not agree more!

@thecatsthecats

It tends to grate on me that some people view a PhD as a guarantee of competence and authority is a field.

Of course it shows dedication and commitment, but:

1. commitment means a narrowing of focus which means that some PhDs have a lack of worldly knowledge/application
2. there are many pathways that require just as much dedication and provide more experience
3. if you don't continue to apply the same rigour, over time your knowledge becomes less relevant anyway
4. all the qualifications in the world don't make up for being a dick/having poor communication skills

This is especially the case in technology. I have had horrendous troubles with PhD wielding morons who think that their fifteen year old study is more relevant than my ten years of active practice in the industry.

@SarahAndQuack it depends on the field, but the above is very true in tech. Mainly because PhD’s are in computer science. At it’s core theoretical, scientific, it might as well be a physics degree. Software development OTOH is a craft. What’s ‘best’ in the textbook nearly always makes no sense industry. It’s a bit like saying a Theatre Critique PhD holder who has only directed a couple of productions as part of earlier courses,has the same skill set as someone who has directed several commercial productions.

The question isn’t whether a PhD is ‘worldly’, but whether the 5 years of a PhD is indeed equal to 5 years of work experience in the field. Again, much variance. But for a humanities degree going into an unrelated job. PhD doesn’t necessarily add more value than someone who spent the same 5 years doing, say, admin work in a large company. They may have taught, written papers etc tec but it’s not necessarily ‘better’ than competitors’ work experience.

@SarahAndQuack and @Teapacks I’m intrigued by this failing.

I’m used to the viva being largely a formality, it’s an atrocity if a student submits and there is a legit possibility of an outright failure ie no mPhil no R&R just … nothing.

I’ve never heard of just nothing.

The only instance I’ve heard of practically a failure was someone who got an R&R, then resubmitted, re viva-d got major corrections, submitted them and then the corrections were rejected and they were offered an mphil. I mean that in itself was pretty scandalous:

Also to add tech is v diff. Lots of ‘self-taught’ (like myself) earning much more than PhD’s. I can see why they’re salty but the point of a computer science PhD is really NOT to to get an ‘ordinary’ programming job. Professional qualification + experience are more valuable. If they didn’t understand that, they don’t understand the industry and that’s a major red flag.

I'm equally as frustrated when an application comes in from a PhD and it's really poor quality. And I also notice when I approach a phd on LinkedIn with the offer of employment - the response, if I get one, is always abrupt, it's hard to fight the pedjudice that phds are not commercially aware when all the interactions with them have been challenging. We work with two contractors who have PhDs and they are both a bit difficult...one left the Big 4 because she felt she wasn't recognised enough - her ego has to be handled very delicately. The other is very clever but highly strung. Might again be a coincidence - I don't think it's the PhD that's the problem - more the type of people who chose that route.

@ThePlantsitter @DomusAurea
Ultimately knowledge is infinite. It makes no sense to say ‘all fields of study’ are ultimately as valuable. Because then you’d need an infinite amount of money!
Of course STEM , is by itself not ‘more valuable’ than humanities. But the question is do we need more research in every single things?

The issue with the world isn’t a lack of ‘research’ in philosophical questions about the meaning of humanity. We KNOW what it means to be human. We’re born, we have feelings and stuff when we see other people smile and cry. People may be angry, rude, blah2 in the internet but IRL few people would spew venom, or deny things to someone standing in front of them.

What we need is money and resources, for people to connect, for the world’s wealth to be distributed. Honestly? If you had money it would be better spent bribing the Taliban to let girls go to school. Or lobbying for government to take the right action, etc etc.
It isn’t going to be better spent ‘researching’. We already know what the problem is!