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.

Also - the other issue here is that ‘knowledge’ and ‘research’ == PhD.
There are many other paths to find knowledge, and many ways to be enlightened.
Is a FT PhD, requiring years of sacrifice, the best option?

@LegMeChicken, I wasn't taking issue with the claims about what computer science PhDs might or might not know as it's not something I know anything about. All I took issue with was the claim PhDs are not 'worldly'. So, actually, yes, that is the issue, thanks.

[quote LegMeChicken]**@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![/quote]
Not really sure where to start with this post. If we knew everything there is to know about humanity as you suggest we wouldn't need to redistribute wealth would we. Money is not useful if you're not thinking about how people interact to achieve the things we want for ourselves as a species.

[quote Bluffysummers]**@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:[/quote]
Well, the case I know of was not a situation where the student had submitted and then failed with nothing else on offer - he'd already been told to resubmit, and I would assume he'd been offered the MPhil option. He was very, very, very determined he was going to submit and he simply did not want to believe his supervisors when they had reservations.

I don't think it's scandalous; I think it's the system working exactly as it should. If someone can't or won't believe their research is faulty despite multiple people telling them that it is, what can you do?

[quote LegMeChicken]**@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![/quote]
I agree we can't fund everything, and it is certainly possible to think of things that got funding which, really, were not the best place for that money to go.

But I disagree with you about not needing research in philosophy (or, I guess you're saying, the humanities in general? Or am I misunderstanding?).

If you bribed the Taliban, it's pretty obvious they'd take the money and continue merrily oppressing women and girls. There's a reason people don't negotiate with terrorists; they are a terrorist government.

But aside from that ... research is necessary because you never know what is going to contribute to solving a difficult problem until you have solved it. You could start researching something that seemed entirely dry and irrelevant to modern life, and find it had direct potential to improve modern medicine or housing or whatever.

IME the viva can be formality when the PhD is essentially a sound one, and it's a matter of deciding between no corrections or minor corrections.

I've known or 3 cases though where it very much wasn't:

• PhD student 1: submitted a meagre PhD after 5 years self-funded, with the approval of their supervisor. Was given major corrections and 18 months in which to make them. Took feedback on board and eventually got awarded the PhD. Left academia after a few years on hourly paid teaching contracts.
• PhD student 2: submitted a presumably solid PhD after 3 years on a scholarship. External examiner had an axe to grind with the student's supervisor and gave the student a very hard time during the viva. Refused to pass it. Was eventually persuaded to offer student an MPhil instead. Student felt entirely unsupported by their department, went off sick with stress and changed careers.
• PhD student 3: submitted PhD against the advice of their supervisor. Got Major Corrections and 18 months in which to make them. Submitted almost exactly the same PhD after 18 months. Failed. Now works in a different sector.

@SarahAndQuack l was referring to more to PP’s comment on needing ‘research into what makes us human’.
But yes, wasn’t really about the details r.e specific fields of research. Just that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

For all I’ve said on the thread, I’m a humanities person at heart 😏 my best A-Level subject was English lit, and it’s my arts background that gives me the edge even over more ‘technical people’.

It’s just that I used to believe more formal education = more intellectual, more
Good. That has changed after seeing my father, an academic and many relatives struggle through PhD’s, plus my own experience at a prestigious university. Which I expected to be a beacon of intellectual inspiration. Sadly not.

Maybe there will have to be new ways of thinking about it. Encouraging more PT PhD’s, that people can fit in alongside other commitments. But I don’t know much about this.

[quote Bluffysummers]**@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:[/quote]
To be honest it's very rare. Far more common is simply not submitting because it takes a heck of a lot of resilience to complete and many simply just drop out.

[quote LegMeChicken]@SarahAndQuack l was referring to more to PP’s comment on needing ‘research into what makes us human’.
But yes, wasn’t really about the details r.e specific fields of research. Just that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

For all I’ve said on the thread, I’m a humanities person at heart 😏 my best A-Level subject was English lit, and it’s my arts background that gives me the edge even over more ‘technical people’.

It’s just that I used to believe more formal education = more intellectual, more
Good. That has changed after seeing my father, an academic and many relatives struggle through PhD’s, plus my own experience at a prestigious university. Which I expected to be a beacon of intellectual inspiration. Sadly not.

Maybe there will have to be new ways of thinking about it. Encouraging more PT PhD’s, that people can fit in alongside other commitments. But I don’t know much about this.[/quote]
I can definitely agree some people have a worrying tendency to fetishise formal education and/or qualifications. I find this really interesting within my own family. Both my parents have doctorates and are extremely invested in the idea that academia is some kind of gold standard of how valuable you are as a person. I find it quite disturbing.

@SarahAndQuack by scandalous I mean, the first time that I and some of my other post grad friends (which included some seasoned lecturers) hadn’t encountered before.

Now the person in question who got offered the lesser qualification would argue it’s political but I’ve not read the thesis, nor the corrections

Sometimes I think it is political. Or just to do with the match between the student and the examiner, or the student and the supervisor. I've just been reading a thesis for a former student of mine prior to her viva and I really love it, but am quite conscious that the things I would like/not like about it are very different from the things her supervisor would like and not like - and I don't know about her examiner!

@Bluffysummers

The system might be different in the US (I've never experienced academia in the UK beyond my undergrad and a short fellowship). There you just don't fail a defence. Obviously, you can in theory, but if you did, it would look REALLY bad on your supervisor for having allowed you to do this and not having prepared you properly. Not sure I could even submit my thesis without the agreement of my supervisor.

If I wasn't making the cut, then they would have encouraged me to leave. This did happen, we had a cohort of six and two dropped out without finsihing. And this is was in a rich ivy league university which had plenty of faculty to support students, very little teaching requirements on grad students and gave a generous stipend to all PhD students - i.e. the best possible conditions for a student to succeed once admitted.

@SarahAndQuack

Sometimes I think it is political. Or just to do with the match between the student and the examiner, or the student and the supervisor. I've just been reading a thesis for a former student of mine prior to her viva and I really love it, but am quite conscious that the things I would like/not like about it are very different from the things her supervisor would like and not like - and I don't know about her examiner!

But to have your corrections rejected? And to fail? It’s so hard to know in this specific instance because I’ve not seen the thesis, suggested corrections or the submitted corrections so I can’t really comment on if it was political and unfair or arrogance on behalf of the student.

That being said, the caliber of international students who passed minor corrections was truly shocking and entirely political. I’m talking to the extent of justifications of female circumcision to control women, certain religions inventing the idea of marriage, i could go on

My friends that had corrections were spelled out in explicit detail. I know if you had questions on the corrections then you contact the examiner for clarification.

You have two examiners for that reason though don’t you.

TBF, I nearly had my corrections rejected. I was my external's second PhD examinee and he admits he wasn't very clear. I asked him for clarification on something and bounced off to make all sorts of changes to my arguments, which he'd actually intended for me to do after the PhD ... but I didn't manage to correct my horrendous dyslexic typos! My internal had a fit of pique over it (she was a rather odd woman) because she thought I was deliberately refusing to correct them, but my external and my supervisor were both much more sane and understood it was just total confusion on my part.

I get the impression it's actually much more common than people let on, that things go a bit wobbly - I've often found once I say what happened to me all sorts of colleagues come forward with stories of their own about what went wrong, and presumably there's also a tiny minority of people for whom the things that went wrong went really wrong!

I wasn't talking about fetishising formal qualifications if you were referring to my post with that remark.

I do think paying people to spend time on thinking and researching is a good thing (and currently that tends to start with a PhD) I certainly don't agree that we've 'solved' what being a human is andeven if we had we certainly haven't found ways of living together peacefully and in equality have we? You don't just fall upon knowledge.

Actually, thinking about the difference between US and UK PhDs, in the US you have to take qualifying exams to proceed to PhD candidacy, so at that stage you need the content knowledge and research skills. It was at this point where the two people in my cohort who dropped out did so.

The other key point is your PhD proposal. You submit that only once you've had your candidacy approved. And that's another point where, if your proposal isn't strong enough and you don't manage to turn it around in a reasonable amount of time, you may be asked to leave.

@ThePlantsitter

I wasn't talking about fetishising formal qualifications if you were referring to my post with that remark.

I do think paying people to spend time on thinking and researching is a good thing (and currently that tends to start with a PhD) I certainly don't agree that we've 'solved' what being a human is andeven if we had we certainly haven't found ways of living together peacefully and in equality have we? You don't just fall upon knowledge.

No, I was referring to the post I'd quoted. She was describing what she used to believe about formal education, and I was agreeing.

Social sciences PhD here. I agree that my PhD was largely a waste of time. There were very few academic jobs available in my field when I finished, and I now work in market research. While the PhD means that I have quite advanced technical research skills compared to others in my field, the extra time in academia also meant that I had no project or people management experience when I joined the industry.

Most market research companies would rather have someone with adequate research skills and lots of project and people management experience. I am still playing catch up on this aspect, and my career would be in far better shape if I had joined the industry after my Master's.

I did a PhD (not in humanities), plus a postdoc for several years. Both were unnecessary for my current job.

However, the PhD was fully funded and I had a ball. Loved going to conferences, visiting different cities and countries, the nights out, met lots of interesting people, and enjoyed the extended student lifestyle.

Career wise, I don't think that it's disadvantaged me. I would probably be in the same position if not worse without the PhD.

@MidnightMeltdown

I did a PhD (not in humanities), plus a postdoc for several years. Both were unnecessary for my current job.

However, the PhD was fully funded and I had a ball. Loved going to conferences, visiting different cities and countries, the nights out, met lots of interesting people, and enjoyed the extended student lifestyle.

Career wise, I don't think that it's disadvantaged me. I would probably be in the same position if not worse without the PhD.

Absolutely- same here! I had a fantastic time during my PhD (in humanities- fully funded). But then experience is important to me and I care less about salary and career progression.

Yes, I was a few years older than my peers when I started my 'doesn't need a PhD' job and had children later than my friends who didn't do PhDs but I wouldn't have missed on those years for the world.

Ultimately it depends on what you want from life.

I'm glad to read the posts from @MidnightMeltdown and @Helocariad. Some people on here seem to think PhD students sit in ivory towers for 4 years thinking about abstract research and being all unworldly – my goddaughter travelled all over the world to lectures, conferences and carry out research during her PhD and is about to move to a Scandinavian country (no connection) for a job directly related to her study.

My DD was sufficiently taken by the cutting-edge tools and tech she used in her Masters that she wants to take it further. I think linking academic qualifications to a sense of self-worth as a person is a dangerous business and best avoided, but the attitude that you wouldn't want to employ a PhD because they are going to be somehow lacking in people skills seems very strange to me, and certainly isn't true of the members of my family who have one.

@ThePlantsitter there's a lot of cross-quoting going on
There's no point in thinking, and coming up with great ideas, if nobody's going to implement them. And again - not all PhD's are created equal, and not all 'things to think about' are either. Anyway I digress

also @ThePlantsitter my point was also - how do you know that people haven't come up with ways to 'solve' what being a human is. But nobody else listens to them?

Competent disagree with this. I work in policy and we love phd candidates. They get to start a grade higher and are excellent.

Higher level skills are essential for the future economy we're currently working towards, and we're likely to see a big expansion on phd programmes moving forwards.

The fact some people don't do their research before starting a phd and assume they can easily work in academia is not the fault of the phd!!!

I've just started my PhD and I love it. Have spent nearly 15 years working in big organisations though and being given the freedom to think and research as I choose is very liberating

I'm funded, have had to take big salary cut but this hasn't been too bad with childcare flexibility needed anyway, and I can do some work on the side from my old job (this needs thinking about, even with funding and stipend and doing full time research every student I know is working on the side

I've had to do a compulsory masters to get here but that was funded too

I'm very aware of the unhappiness of many academics, for good reason, and am being open minded about next career steps but policy or research elsewhere may be an option and failing that I have a career to fall back on.

I've already had my brain opened up, Met some like-minded people and feel very privileged. I'm enjoying the process and trying to see it as an amazing opportunity rather than necessarily leading somewhere specific.

Have plenty of mates who have suspicious views of career academics in their organisations- but also know many PHD types who have excelled, not just academically but as successful well-rounded types. It shows tenacity and self-direction surely. Also have heard many stories of people dropping out and it all becoming too much!

Ask me again when I'm trying to write it all up mind...