PHDs are a waste of time and money!

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

I feel sorry for anyone who has invested time and money into such a worthless piece of paper. PHDs were useful in the past when very few people were able to afford or have the time to get such a valuable piece of paper. Nowadays that people are willing to go into debt and burn lots of time, almost any idiot can get a PHD.



Likely a PHD student pictured above.

It makes sense to get into debt if you're likely to get bigger return, so in that case the debt is merely an investment. However, a PHD is a horrible investment because the chances of it giving back what you invested are unlikely. There is simply too few jobs and the competition is fierce, you might as well play the lottery, at least you'll lose a lot less money and the prize is bigger anyways.

However, if you are going for a PHD because you love what you are studying and can't imagine doing anything else, then go for it.



Don't expect it to be a walk on the park though.

[Beautiful sky]

These things are stated as though they were a matter of FACT. We're getting closer to your type.

[JWC3]

There are no grades in grad school?

[Begoner]

People at reputable Ph.D programs needn't go into debt to earn their degree, as stipends can be sufficiently generous. Moreover, people who pursue a doctoral degree generally aren't the type of people who are concerned with maximizing their income -- members of the species Homo economicus usually get an MBA instead.

[Crispy]

However, if you are going for a PHD because you love what you are studying and can't imagine doing anything else, then go for it.

Why else would someone get a PhD? You are calling out people who don't exist.

[Creepy-male]

Meh I don't really care about any systematized education, I care about the content and mastery one has in their field.

Traditionally PhDs were meant to be a recognition of one's mastery over a certain subject intellectually. Presently I think this is not the case, as it has become to "cut and dry" and systematized. It's more like an assembly line -- any fool can follow the instructions and force themselves through the process.

Although I still think its good to acquire one cheaply and quickly when possible in order to have the credentials to work fluently within the system.

I think the same about a college degree, I'd suggest to anyone to spend the first 2 years in a cheap community college, take classes at a pace you know you can handle to get A's, then transfer to a big university... potentially having a strong foundation from community college, burn through the classes as quick as possible, collect your degree and get out.

This is the most economical method, also don't fall for prestige schools... instead focus on internships and networking as a building block for your career, instead of prestige.

[Park]

Meh I don't really care about any systematized education, I care about the content and mastery one has in their field.

Traditionally PhDs were meant to be a recognition of one's mastery over a certain subject intellectually. Presently I think this is not the case, as it has become to "cut and dry" and systematized. It's more like an assembly line -- any fool can follow the instructions and force themselves through the process.

Although I still think its good to acquire one cheaply and quickly when possible in order to have the credentials to work fluently within the system.

I think the same about a college degree, I'd suggest to anyone to spend the first 2 years in a cheap community college, take classes at a pace you know you can handle to get A's, then transfer to a big university... potentially having a strong foundation from community college, burn through the classes as quick as possible, collect your degree and get out.

This is the most economical method, also don't fall for prestige schools... instead focus on internships and networking as a building block for your career, instead of prestige.

At the time being, I agree. But it's a lot easier to set a strategy than to follow it. I planed to study what I love at a prestigious university, which I technically began doing, but ended up dropping out and going to a low(er) profile college to study something I never wanted and could have sworn I'd never do. I took that step because at the time it seemed like the most practical and future-proof solution given my current circumstances. My inflexibility and resistance towards external pressure (and change) were probably the crucial factors that led to me cutting off my "good" options and having to choose something I don't like.

My point is, you never know where life can take you, and no matter what your current views and plans are, you cannot expect to rely on them forever. What seemed undesired or even unimaginable at one point in your life, can turn to be your every day reality. You may think a PhD is totally not worth the effort, but end up pursuing and gaining great benefit from one. You may think a certain schooling strategy will work flawlessly, just to find out otherwise, etc. I think what's important here is to learn to adapt and make the best of what life throws at you. And I feel very unfortunate to say that I have mostly been failing at that myself.

[silke]

In my field any sort of movement up the career ladder requires that you have something more than just a masters, though it doesn't have to be a PhD but MBA or a degree from law school also open up interesting options. And I completely agree that it has to be something that you're fully dedicated to to throw 5+ years of your life at it.

Traditionally PhDs were meant to be a recognition of one's mastery over a certain subject intellectually. Presently I think this is not the case, as it has become to "cut and dry" and systematized. It's more like an assembly line -- any fool can follow the instructions and force themselves through the process.

It is more like an endurance test from what I know of the process in my area of specialization. Not dry and systematized at all, but quite open ended with unexpected twists and turns, and if you don't have your shit together and cannot provide yourself with some structure and exercise discipline on your own then likely you won't make it through.

[Creepy-male]

It is more like an endurance test from what I know of the process in my area of specialization. Not dry and systematized at all, but quite open ended with unexpected twists and turns, and if you don't have your shit together and cannot provide yourself with some structure and exercise discipline on your own then likely you won't make it through.

Lol that's exactly what I mean, its a test of endurance... not ability. It doesn't put your intellect to the test necessarily, its more guteral in a workworld-ish kind of way, how much paper work can you handle... how much digesting papers and shuffling academia based work etc.

That's what I think about all school, not just PhD programs.

[Creepy-male]

Meh I don't really care about any systematized education, I care about the content and mastery one has in their field.

Traditionally PhDs were meant to be a recognition of one's mastery over a certain subject intellectually. Presently I think this is not the case, as it has become to "cut and dry" and systematized. It's more like an assembly line -- any fool can follow the instructions and force themselves through the process.

Although I still think its good to acquire one cheaply and quickly when possible in order to have the credentials to work fluently within the system.

I think the same about a college degree, I'd suggest to anyone to spend the first 2 years in a cheap community college, take classes at a pace you know you can handle to get A's, then transfer to a big university... potentially having a strong foundation from community college, burn through the classes as quick as possible, collect your degree and get out.

This is the most economical method, also don't fall for prestige schools... instead focus on internships and networking as a building block for your career, instead of prestige.

At the time being, I agree. But it's a lot easier to set a strategy than to follow it. I planed to study what I love at a prestigious university, which I technically began doing, but ended up dropping out and going to a low(er) profile college to study something I never wanted and could have sworn I'd never do. I took that step because at the time it seemed like the most practical and future-proof solution given my current circumstances. My inflexibility and resistance towards external pressure (and change) were probably the crucial factors that led to me cutting off my "good" options and having to choose something I don't like.

My point is, you never know where life can take you, and no matter what your current views and plans are, you cannot expect to rely on them forever. What seemed undesired or even unimaginable at one point in your life, can turn to be your every day reality. You may think a PhD is totally not worth the effort, but end up pursuing and gaining great benefit from one. You may think a certain schooling strategy will work flawlessly, just to find out otherwise, etc. I think what's important here is to learn to adapt and make the best of what life throws at you. And I feel very unfortunate to say that I have mostly been failing at that myself.

I don't know, I'm just saying what I said after experiencing it personally and I think its good advice. I could elaborate but this isn't really the place for elaboration, because everyone gets pissssy about it.

I personally know its easier to plan than execute a plan also, but recently I've been investing more effort into the "execution" process of planning. From strategy games and life experience, I've realized one fatal flaw people make is strategizing in too much detail to far ahead. Ideally the further you go out, the more vague and general your goals should be. Over constraining yourself to a particular thing is unwise, because its very typical for people to over fixate on a particular thing they desire and then discover when they arrive there its not what they wanted, it was something more vague and notional and not so earthy or real or something. Think of it like a girlfriend.... every lonely guy wants a girlfriend, then they get one, and they hate it, she annoys them and they like other girls and so forth. People are really after love and connection in that sense and not after the physical thing, they are after the meaning/feeling/whatever. Early in people's developments they make this mistake, over-fixating on objects of desire, maybe a girl you had a crush on or something. But really those people are injecting something from their imagination onto reality that doesn't exist there necessarily.

Anyways I'm saying that to make a point that strategizing in too much detail too far out, is a bit naive. It's better to focus on the next logical step and seeing it as a movement forward imho. The idea is to influence or drive reality to your goals, bring out the realization/manifestation of your imagination, instead of delusionally seeing something there that isn't. In relationships that means working with people to create an ideal relationship, not seeing one there that doesn't exist because it satisfies yourself. The same goes with career or anything else, people have to make their own path. Imho it starts with a notional vision/imagination of something very vague and you build up in small steps and processes, trusting in the process, and adapting and evolving where necessary.

[Wynch]

He lives in Canada though, so I guess that helps (free college being a very attainable thing there).

Not really. Cheaper, yes. Free only in exceptional circumstances.

[tcaudilllg]

I think PhDs will eventually be replaced with two distinct "master qualifications", one for natural leaders and another for non-natural leaders. Granted "key author" is a de facto post created by the natural sorting of PhD-holding peers (Meged, for example, lacks the stature of Gulenko), but there still seems value in creating a clear demarcation between leader and follower. Traditionally, candidates have been asked to defend their theses against criticism. Apparently this is less and less common, or else far fewer people would actually get their PhDs. It is steadfastness in the case of criticism that is the defining trait of a leader, for good or ill. I think the lack of such an officially differentiating factor is making academia more competitive, and that of course is bad for the conduct of research. If people were more focused on discovering the true nature of the world and applying this nature in optimal ways, they would be less subject to pressure.

I have a friend who is a paleontologist/geophysicist (an LII-LSI to be exact). She describes constant pressure from to submit journal articles describing her research. As anyone knows, such work is tedious and boring. I was ultimately stricken by the phyrric nature of paleontology, something that belongs quite frankly in a museum and nowhere else. There seems very little need for peer review in that sense... I mean really, how bad could a person twist their findings and be believed? Given the nonsense that makes it into journals anyway, I don't see what the hubbub is.

[tcaudilllg]

He lives in Canada though, so I guess that helps (free college being a very attainable thing there).

Not really. Cheaper, yes. Free only in exceptional circumstances.

If you want to keep it that way, you had better stand up to your government.

[olduser]

Er, you may be misinformed. This depends very much on the subject of the Ph.D. I've just enrolled to pursue a PhD in Chemistry and it will provide a lot of job opportunities(professorial track, post-doc, or industry), that would be EXTREMELY hard to pursue without a PhD. Really, my undergraduate was such a basic look at the field of chemistry that it didn't really pertain to the real work or current research.

To put it into more perspective. We don't have access to $100k+ instruments for learning at my university. However, if i pursue a PhD I can work in an academic lab and easily master these instruments making me invaluable as an employee. Nobody with a bachelors is going to know how to operate an HPLC tandem Mass spectrometer unless they did HARDCORE undergrad research. It is this way in a lot of hard sciences. The research is obviously gruntwork, all research is, and some of it may be esoteric, but some of it may be vital. My research in particular is very biochemistry/biomedical(imaging tissues), and could lead to implementation for diagnosis that is typically done more invasively, or that takes more time. Or it might not? That's a scientific risk.

and in my regard, money is ephemeral. Debt sucks yeah, but I'm not going to let money hold me back from pursuing honest research and dreams.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

Er, you may be misinformed. This depends very much on the subject of the Ph.D. I've just enrolled to pursue a PhD in Chemistry and it will provide a lot of job opportunities(professorial track, post-doc, or industry), that would be EXTREMELY hard to pursue without a PhD. Really, my undergraduate was such a basic look at the field of chemistry that it didn't really pertain to the real work or current research.

To put it into more perspective. We don't have access to $100k+ instruments for learning at my university. However, if i pursue a PhD I can work in an academic lab and easily master these instruments making me invaluable as an employee. Nobody with a bachelors is going to know how to operate an HPLC tandem Mass spectrometer unless they did HARDCORE undergrad research. It is this way in a lot of hard sciences. The research is obviously gruntwork, all research is, and some of it may be esoteric, but some of it may be vital. My research in particular is very biochemistry/biomedical(imaging tissues), and could lead to implementation for diagnosis that is typically done more invasively, or that takes more time. Or it might not? That's a scientific risk.

and in my regard, money is ephemeral. Debt sucks yeah, but I'm not going to let money hold me back from pursuing honest research and dreams.

I think science is one of the few PHDs worth pursuing if your goal isn't to become a professor. To be a legit scientist one usually requires a PHD in their choice of study because with a masters degree one will usually be limited to research work. This thread is directed mostly towards PHDs in liberal arts.

[olduser]

Er, you may be misinformed. This depends very much on the subject of the Ph.D. I've just enrolled to pursue a PhD in Chemistry and it will provide a lot of job opportunities(professorial track, post-doc, or industry), that would be EXTREMELY hard to pursue without a PhD. Really, my undergraduate was such a basic look at the field of chemistry that it didn't really pertain to the real work or current research.

To put it into more perspective. We don't have access to $100k+ instruments for learning at my university. However, if i pursue a PhD I can work in an academic lab and easily master these instruments making me invaluable as an employee. Nobody with a bachelors is going to know how to operate an HPLC tandem Mass spectrometer unless they did HARDCORE undergrad research. It is this way in a lot of hard sciences. The research is obviously gruntwork, all research is, and some of it may be esoteric, but some of it may be vital. My research in particular is very biochemistry/biomedical(imaging tissues), and could lead to implementation for diagnosis that is typically done more invasively, or that takes more time. Or it might not? That's a scientific risk.

and in my regard, money is ephemeral. Debt sucks yeah, but I'm not going to let money hold me back from pursuing honest research and dreams.

I think science is one of the few PHDs worth pursuing if your goal isn't to become a professor. To be a legit scientist one usually requires a PHD in their choice of study because with a masters degree one will usually be limited to research work. This thread is directed mostly towards PHDs in liberal arts.

eh? who gets a job with a bachelors in a liberal arts? Better chances w/ a graduate degree.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

I think science is one of the few PHDs worth pursuing if your goal isn't to become a professor. To be a legit scientist one usually requires a PHD in their choice of study because with a masters degree one will usually be limited to research work. This thread is directed mostly towards PHDs in liberal arts.

eh? who gets a job with a bachelors in a liberal arts? Better chances w/ a graduate degree.

Bachelor in a liberal arts is just a stepping stone to add something more practical afterwards. A graduate degree in liberal arts is just more debt and increased job insecurity.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Conversation I had with a younger relative the other day:

Me: So do you know what you want to "do" yet?
Him: I want to be a doctor.
Me: ... You know that requires a PHD, right?
Him: Yeah.
Me: Aren't you afraid of blood?
Him: Yeah, but I'm gonna get over it.
Me: So... what inspired you to choose 'Doctor'?
Him: I donno, just sounded like a good idea.
Me: *facepalm*

Is he in high school? Most people I know have no idea what they want to be, they've only really considered what actual job they want this year, since we have to go for work experience. Before then it was all "oh, I'd be a lawyer... cos it sounds interesting."

[Park]

Anyways I'm saying that to make a point that strategizing in too much detail too far out, is a bit naive. It's better to focus on the next logical step and seeing it as a movement forward imho. The idea is to influence or drive reality to your goals, bring out the realization/manifestation of your imagination, instead of delusionally seeing something there that isn't. In relationships that means working with people to create an ideal relationship, not seeing one there that doesn't exist because it satisfies yourself. The same goes with career or anything else, people have to make their own path. Imho it starts with a notional vision/imagination of something very vague and you build up in small steps and processes, trusting in the process, and adapting and evolving where necessary.

[olduser]

Er, you may be misinformed. This depends very much on the subject of the Ph.D. I've just enrolled to pursue a PhD in Chemistry and it will provide a lot of job opportunities(professorial track, post-doc, or industry), that would be EXTREMELY hard to pursue without a PhD. Really, my undergraduate was such a basic look at the field of chemistry that it didn't really pertain to the real work or current research.

Oh noes, another one! We chemists are way overrepresented on this forum.

PhDs are free for citizens in Australia. They can also be completed in 3.5 years.

what is your area in chem? 3.5 years? typical entitlement education PhD!!!!! jk.

[Park]

I am getting my PhD in surviving without a vacation and rest this summer. My life is kind of a mess, so I occupy myself with work (technical, painstaking work) to keep myself sane.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm too rebellious and independent for school honestly. I usually get good marks, but when I think something is retarded, I'm not really afraid to stand up to the person and refuse to do what they're saying I have to do.

That's why I don't want a normal job, I hate being told what to do too much. Either I'm the boss, or my own boss- or it doesn't work.

I've always disobeyed authority anyway. When somebody thinks they are the boss of me, they have another thing coming. =)

So yes, most college homework is just busywork and not really fun at all and I'm like 'what's the point of this assignment, all this useless data you're making us do? Not applicable in the real world in the slightest, go away im not your dog to jump through hoops.'

I'd rather live off Social Security. It's more respectable than that bullshit!!! I know I'm probably in the minority there, but if this is 'independence' count me out.

And a lot of it has to do with my artistic INFp nature as well.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

What was really annoying was when these cute str8 jocks in college would want me to do their homework for them because I came across as smart, and easily taken advantage of....cuz I'm shy.

Man I felt like Willow a lot growing up. =(

"would you tutor the dumb str8 jock." NO I WILL NOT. I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM NOT TEACH HIM BORING SHIT.

I don't like the world. It's not sammy-ish enough. *cry*

edited to add: I just try to apply this myself. I don't mean to degrade anybody who enjoys the college experience. I just don't think college is the answer/solution for everybody, and I think it's weak to see how many people go like lemmings in school.... it just can't be the solution for everybody. A lot of the famous celebs we know either dropped out of college or never went in the first place anyway. It's about knowing the right kinda jews that can hook you up really good man, that's what its about- not that pointless busy ratwork.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm too rebellious and independent for school honestly. I usually get good marks, but when I think something is retarded, I'm not really afraid to stand up to the person and refuse to do what they're saying I have to do.

That's why I don't want a normal job, I hate being told what to do too much. Either I'm the boss, or my own boss- or it doesn't work.

I've always disobeyed authority anyway. When somebody thinks they are the boss of me, they have another thing coming. =)

So yes, most college homework is just busywork and not really fun at all and I'm like 'what's the point of this assignment, all this useless data you're making us do? Not applicable in the real world in the slightest, go away im not your dog to jump through hoops.'

I'd rather live off Social Security. It's more respectable than that bullshit!!! I know I'm probably in the minority there, but if this is 'independence' count me out.

And a lot of it has to do with my artistic INFp nature as well.

That's what I love about Ashford. Professors are evaluators based on a strict rubric. They cannot tell you what to do. All assignments are designed by committee and evenly applied to all. All you have to do is show that you've read the standardized material and given it serious thought. There are no professors abusing the term "critical thinking", not in this school.

What these assignments do, by forcing you to think about them, is assimilate yourself to the mainstream. And it's natural... it's not something you have to do... it's just a natural process given reflection on the information they give you. Everything is tightly scripted, even your intellectual development along the course. It's actually somewhat like brainwashing, but that's not uncommon in college courses. Besides, most people need/want to be brainwashed by trained professionals. (that's what they call "education", of course

Or, take a science-based curriculum at another school. It'll come down to multiple choice tests and little else.

[olduser]

Synthetic organic bleh. I mainly do peptide stuff though, so I'm looked down upon by both biochemists and hardcore synthesis people

whaaa? as an analytical i can't look down on anyone, but i have tons of respect for anyone in synthetic. It is so much labwork and glassware and waiting and recrystallizing and all that truly awful shit. What do you use to characterize, a bad-ass nmr?? Synthesizing novel peptides for proteomic analysis or smthg? We do a lot of proteomics in my lab via mass spec(looking at cleavage, oo lala, and other things).

In winter I'll be starting this research in Montreal( from my professor, Pierre Chaurand's blurb), this doesn't go into the specifics of the work at all really:

"
Our research efforts are aimed at the development of the imaging mass spectrometry (MS) technology. Imaging MS allows to simultaneously map the localization of hundreds of different biocompounds present in thin tissue sections. The maps are obtained by integrating the intensities of the signals observed throughout the course of data acquisition as a function of the tissue spatial coordinates. The resulting molecular images are therefore produced with an exact correlation with the histology of the sections. Different types of cells comprising tissues have been shown to clearly express specific subsets of signals. Experiments can be designed to selectively map peptides, proteins, lipids and other metabolites as well as administered pharmaceuticals. We primarily utilize matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization as means of ion production and time-of-flight mass analyzers for ion detection. The proteomic content of fresh frozen and formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues can be analyzed. The latter opens the possibility to investigate clinical samples stored for decades in tissue banks.

The imaging MS technology can be used to query the molecular content of tissues for a wide range of applications. One of the most exciting is the study of disease related biomarkers (proteins, lipids…). The resulting molecular profiles and images are indeed correlated with the health status of the tissue biopsies and can therefore be used as an aid to diagnosis. The expression of specific subsets of signals within the recovered profiles and images can also be linked with the resistance to existing therapies and, in some cases, patient outcome. The clinical potential of the technology for cancer research in particular is therefore enormous. In a broader context, imaging MS can be employed to investigate the molecular content of tissues for a wide range of applications from normal tissue, organ and body development, to pharmaceutical compound uptake in targeted organs and related toxic effects. Beyond mammalian tissues, imaging MS can be employed to investigate the molecular composition and organization in tissues from a wide range of organisms, including mollusks, insects and plants.
"

Actually pretty glamorous research haha! the images can be quite beautiful!

[FDG]

Can't you just do that in your own backyard?

[Pa3s]

Can't you just do that in your own backyard?

LOL

[silke]

Oh noes, another one! We chemists are way overrepresented on this forum.

PhDs are free for citizens in Australia. They can also be completed in 3.5 years.

MSM is in chemisty too if I remember correctly, so yeah there seems to be some weird connection between being a chem major and socionics

3.5 years for a PhD is amazing! here is the states it's 5-6 years, bleh ...

[blackburry]

I wanna hear about chemistry. sounds repetitive. maybe exciting, if i understood what the hell you guys were talking about..

[Birdie]

EddieMorra, I've noticed that your goal seems to be to come across as offensive and rude as possible. For once, I agree with your points here, though. I just really think you should work on your tact, or you know, utilize it.


In the US I agree that PhDs are more of a hinderance than a help. I'm not sure about other countries. In the US because of the economic standpoint currently, no employers want to pay the wage that a PhD "should" entitle someone to earn when they can pay an employee with a lesser education much less to do the same job just as effectively.

People spend $300,000 on their PhDs and then spend the rest of their lifetime trying to pay off the student loans which in essence should help the economy except these people aren't getting jobs in order to pay back their debts. It's a big circle of financial no-no. But most do not seem to realize this.

[Wynch]

A former co-worker of mine once said that if someone else isn't willing to pay for you to get your PhD, then you shouldn't be doing it.

[silke]

I wanna hear about chemistry. sounds repetitive. maybe exciting, if i understood what the hell you guys were talking about..

sneak preview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organic_reactions

People spend $300,000 on their PhDs and then spend the rest of their lifetime trying to pay off the student loans which in essence should help the economy except these people aren't getting jobs in order to pay back their debts. It's a big circle of financial no-no. But most do not seem to realize this.

In US for PhDs in chemistry/biology are practically free though I'm not sure about other disciplines. You don't need an employer to pay you for it. The first two years you're covered by the department and you TA (teach class sections for your university) in return. The following years the professor covers for you out of his or her funding and/or you get some scholarships. I don't know anybody who came out with student loans. It is, however, a big time investment, so before committing you have to be absolutely sure that this is what you want to do with your life. The salaries are just enough to make ends meet while workload frequently surpasses 50+ hours a week.