Yes, I can attest that nowadays, in some fields, research has become a 'game', where:
- people torture data until it yields unreproducible results;
- people choose venues that maximises their chances of getting published (and pay for publication sometimes, I'm looking at you, APC);
- little concern given to excellence, rigour, and impact;
- the chase for a 'diploma' from a renown institute without putting the effort;
I could go on and on, but I'll stop now.
Perhaps something changes, I am waiting for this to happen for some time now (10y and counting).
It's a bad system but that's what we have (at the moment).
> - people choose venues that maximises their chances of getting published (and pay for publication sometimes, I'm looking at you, APC); > > - little concern given to excellence, rigour, and impact;
It's because the kpis of assessment are built like this. Goodhard's law. I know lots of good researchers who get frustrated with the system and end up giving up and faltering to those 2 points. If within a uni 2 research groups are putting out research at different rate at different quality, the one with higher quality, lower frequency, and higher standard and ambition gets heavily penalized. Seen it in action.
Yes it's horrifying indeed. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that there are many that fall into this rat race and treat it as another type of MSc credential.
You don't need a PhD to push the boundaries. You need a PhD to make others believe you pushed the boundaries!
You got it backwards. You need to push the boundaries to get a PhD.
Yes, because so many contemporary breakthroughs have come from some guy in his garage.
I'm considering getting a masters or PhD (in PL) under a professor I work with now for my undergrad thesis. The main reason being getting a standard corporate job tends to nullify all impact you could have (with a few rare exceptions). And after that I could get a job, become a professor, turn my research into a startup etc. The pros are 1) I know my professor and he's a solid guy
2) Pays decently well, money isn't too much of a concern
3) I get paid to do research, university provides generous grants if turned into a startup
Cons
1) Hear a lot of bad things about the academic rat race, pressure to public even at masters/PhD level
2) I could probably hack out some paper into journals but whether I could have any real impact "on demand" (versus say spontaneously coming up with something) is a big question mark, especially within the deadlines given in the program
Any thoughts on this? Especially heuristics, methods or ways to increase impact?
I would show this to all prospective PhD students, and then again on their first day if they were selected.
It’s a nice idea that you’re going to help the boundary of human knowledge expand but I don’t think infinite progress is the right model.
All the evidence shows that fields are completely ignorant of each other and reinvent the basic solutions. This coincides with the theory that cohorts of experts develop expertise which is not transferrable.
Watch as ML rediscovers harmonic analysis while awarding plenty of Phds to those involved.
Rediscovery is a great thing. You bring new meaning and context. I’s just not “expanding circle of knowledge”
More likely is you will dig further down the track of the fads your advisor is into. The trend will be forgotten in a few decades, with a small change of unforeseen utility later. And its contribution will be to your personal life.
The model proposed is also lacking in ambition because historically PhDs were significant.
For example
PhDs' unfortunately have lost much of their value.
- There aren't enough post-doc and tenure positions for the glut of PhDs.
- Plagiarism scandals have reduced the public's perception of a PhD to become almost something unprestigous.
Thankfully not everyone feels this way, and humanity continues to benefit from the work that PhD holders do.
That certainly would be nice, but the risk to the individual that they are just exploited on a meagre salary for 3-6 years to only benefit their advisor has become so large that I don't recommend doing a PhD to anyone (or at least think very hard and very diligently investigate the prospective advisor and the faculty). Even if this means we as a society are losing out on scientific discoveries.
As AI becomes better the quality of plagiarism should improve.
So there's that.
Yes exactly. If you’re not a plumber are you even really contributing to human progress.
I also like what Dyson had to say about the PhD
Can't find it now
I just pray that everyone denigrating PhDs is making even greater contributions to humanity.
Since a PhD makes no intrinsic contribution, even greater than nothing is easily done.
Posting rude comments is worse than nothing, though.
This comment is the equivalent of people doing their own research on vaccines.
If you don't pick your lab/PI wisely you might end up stroking you PI's ego without accomplishing anything of value. Or you might end doing four years of work that ends up obsolete before you even graduate.
For most (nowadays), the journey is about becoming a competent researcher.
Not in here Australia.
At many of our leading institutions in the hard sciences, rehashed work, data stolen from other teams, photoshopped images and a bit of plagiarism is enough to get you by.
Once you get to the social "sciences", it is much worse.
Karma cannot be denied and the result is that work outcomes with a PhD are derisible, since employers have worked out that something does not compute about the quality of freshly minted PhDs.
A phd ist not a phd. A phd in medicine is like a Bachelor thesis. While a phd in engineering can become a 10 year nightmare
That's not right. A PhD is a PhD.
An MD (Medical Doctorate) is like a master's degree. It's not like a bachelor's because many MD programs start out with or require a BSc, biology is a popular choice but a lot of STEM majors are possible.
But MD+PhD programs exist and those are definitely PhDs.
You are right that an MD is not a PhD, though. Notice how they don't call it a PhD.
MDs are also obsessed with calling each other “doctor”. It always comes across as imposed authority from people who are essentially body mechanics.
> It’s not like a bachelor’s because many MD programs start out with or require a BSc
In many countries, the degree you must obtain to qualify as an MD is indeed a bachelor’s degree, the “Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery” (often abbreviated MB ChB or MBBS).
It's still a 5-6 year degree, as opposed to a 3-4 year bachelor's.
I agree it's not a research degree though... But some master programs don't include writing a research thesis either.
And now imagine this as a hypersphere in 10 dimensions. The choice of two dimensions in the post is arbitrary, isn't it?
See also this previous discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29138570 (158 points | Nov 7, 2021 | 121 comments)
I can do better, the one line guide to PhD.
``` For safety and well being of you and your family, EVACUATE NOWWW. ```
This is most likely a very American perspective. There are countries where you get paid like a normal employee (not much worse than an entry-level job) with unemployment benefits, building up pension, etc. and where you can focus on doing your research (only a lightweight teaching obligation).
I really treasure my (non-US) PhD time. I had a great adviser, was decently paid, and had a lot of time/opportunity to explore things, which I think lead to interesting research. And when I retire, it provides part of my pension. Also when I look back I often realize how relaxed my PhD time was compared to the much more stressful life after doing a PhD.
The field really changed after doing my PhD (I'm in NLP/CL and when I did my PhD, HPSG-like grammars and maxent models were still reigning), but I think I still benefit a lot from the methodologies I learned while doing my PhD.
Or the UK perspective where again it is becoming unaffordable to live on the striped, definitely so in London where I am doing my PhD.
I just completed my PhD at an American university, and I had a great time. Granted, my institution's stipend was on the higher side for the social sciences and I lived in an affordable city, which helped a lot, as did the kind and supportive faculty. I often feel the negative voices dominate discourse on this topic --- which is maybe fair given the many structural issues --- but it is possible, sometimes, to enjoy it.
(to clarify I'm not disagreeing with you, US academia does have lots of issues that lead to many having a bad time. But still, getting paid to learn is a dream)
Even in America I've seen similar opportunities. Engineering PhDs at state schools have offers where you get paid a small but livable amount and get your tuition paid for. I think the big difference is that in industry you can just get paid way more in America compared to engineering elsewhere.
250K in student loan debt?
You don't typically pay for a PhD. You're accepted into a program and the schools pays for you, sometimes even with a stipend to help with living costs
And on the Nordic countries you are employed and given a living wage while doing a PhD.