Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right, and not derive its value solely from the possibility of remaining in academia.
I saw enough of it to make me question ethics and morality in that space which is more akin to investment banking than the sort of ideal young students are led to believe in.
It's not all for the lofty goal of broadening knowledge. That's merely a side effect. It's really about grants and impact scores because that's how scientists make a living.
E.g. the mental gymnastics I have seen to make data fit enough for that Cell publication are possible because the enormous complexities of microbiology allow for it and these possibilities are actively exploited because that's how you make money and talent flow. Otherwise, impact scores would also benefit from science that finds out how thing's don't work. That's important knowledge too - but none that collects grants.
Science really isn't a more ethical field than any given industry and one shouldn't build their career on such idealisms.
I agree with you about grants and impact scores, though.
You can't assume all fields like that. I know that some people here on HN have described PhD programs in lab-based STEM fields as killer hours, low pay, and lots of carrying water for their supervisors. But in my own discipline at least (a subbranch of linguistics), a PhD is typically paid with an ordinary European middle class salary, and the topic is chosen by the student and only agreed to by the supervisor, so you aren’t being slave labour for the supervisor’s own ends.
I did a pure mathematics PhD and was given a general area to look at and a problem to solve but that was really just a starting point, I had the flexibility to solve something related so long as it was interesting. The papers I published had my sole authorship; not even my supervisor's name was on them (except in the acknowledgements). I spent much of my time, for several years, in a room on my own with nothing more than a pencil and paper (except occasionally a book). All I did was sit there and think hard. It was glorious, and definitely not slave labour.
Postscript: I did not go into academia. The PhD helped me get (and do) my job afterwards, possibly not as much as if I had worked in industry that whole time, but it was a fulfilling life experience.
The work is also more independent and not connected to anything outside of mathematics in principle (though the work might evolve to something interesting to huge backers, think Number Theory or Control Theory/Finance/etc)
I'm sorry this was your experience. My PhD in philosophy was very rewarding, as have been my academic jobs since---with the inevitable ups and downs.
As a graduate student there is some level of protection from a supervisor punishing you if you have differences in opinion but as a post-doc those kinds of protections are tossed out the window. I have a friend who was 3 years into their post-doc and had an argument with their principle investigator about the interpretation of their results and how their work would be published only to have their contract cancelled the next day. In the end keeping quiet probably would have got them at least a first author paper but they ended up with 3rd authorship on their own project.
> The upgrade path to the most powerful and satisfying computer:
> * Pocket calculator
> * Commodore Pet / Apple II / TRS 80 / Commodore 64 / Timex Sinclair
> (Choose any of the above)
> * IBM PC
> * Apple Macintosh
> * Fastest workstation of the time (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Minicomputer (HP, DEC, IBM, SGI: your choice)
> * Mainframe (IBM, Cray, DEC: your choice)
> And then you reach the pinnacle of modern computing facilities:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxG R A D U A T E xxxxxxxxx S T U D E N T S xxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Moral of the story, unless you are born wealthy you have to make your own luck.
There isn't much to say to respond to that, apart that it seems to me that, in a parallel universe, you might have had a more fulfilling experience, or you might have cut your losses and walked away sooner.
That's the cruel aspect of the PhD. It really seems like a lot of important things are outside of one's control, especially when it comes to important factors in mental health. Nobody's starting a PhD with the goal of sinking hours into Reddit and Buffy because they feel awful about their PhD experience.
The general impression I got from the higher-ups was that the speaker was right.
There is at best a tacit approval of treating your studies as "pretend research". At worst, depending on how the grants/scholarships are doled out and the personality of the supervisor, there is active pressure to go down a certain path that both you and your supervisor know will not produce impactful research but instead maximise your probability of publishing a "passable" thesis.
This is not in Lesbian Dance Theory, this is in the Faculty of Engineering at a top-ranked university in Australia.
I think you misspelled 'human'. Of course people do that. And of course there are places to 'practice pretend research' - we've just spent multiple generations flipping universities into something much closer to businesses. Business caters to customers, what do you expect them to do?
Yes, choose a school with a good name, but Dave yourself some pain and arrange an advisor before you start your program!
It can't be great to be pitted against people who can forgo money altogether.
If so, then would the numbers filling up the outer ring go up or down?
The economic pattern is both interesting and explanatory, even if it does not fully explain every agent's motivation to participate within the system examined.
Have you ever met a single person that said so? Because I haven’t.
Now you have.
Granted, it was a quarter century ago. And while I think it was rewarding, I'd never say that it's without risk, or that doctoral education isn't in need of substantial reform.
I have a stipend from my scholarship which is about half of the money I was making as a software developer before I started my PhD. So I took a big salary cut. It was (is) totally worth it. Not for any prospect of securing tenure but for the freedom to follow my intellectual curiosity.
(yeah, like dang keeps saying :P)
I only know people that got burned out by it, had terrible advisors, consider it a waste of time in retrospect and so on. Good to know this is not universal.
The pursuit of knowledge is great and all, but it doesn't pay the rent.
What, from the post you are replying to, leads you to this? If it was not an intentional misrepresentation, I am curious about the line of thought leading to this.
Rumour has it doing a PhD might actually be a rewarding experience in its own right, and not derive its value solely from the possibility of remaining in academia.
Coupled to that, PhD slots are generally funded, so university at PhD level is normally less 'expensive' and more 'opportunity costs'.
Perhaps it allows you to work closely with other researchers in your field. Also note that PhD students usually don't pay tuition.
> Most people can perform perfectly valid research from their bedroom or garage.
This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
You do not have to be member of academia to interact with other researches.
》This seems pretty unfunded. Unless you mean most people who have already done a PhD.
My experience is from astronomy and cryptography. You can make good contribution without being part of academia. Data are freely available on internet. Also code.
First I talked about data analysis and software development.
Secondly, even in observational astronomy, anyone can make proposal and get observing time on large instrument. Or rent 20" in Chile and use it remotely.
I’m taking you at your word that you have experience with astronomy research. But that makes it impossible to take you at your word when you appear to lack the imagination to come up with observational astronomy you can’t do without institutional support.
Privately founded research instruments are different topic.
LIGO data are here: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-data
Xray data are also publicly available, I would suggest skyview https://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/current/cgi/query.pl
Requests for Arecibo telescope are here: https://www.naic.edu/ao/scientist-user-portal/proposal-submi...
And his/her point is that hobbyists aren't a replacement for a class of professional scientists.
It's great that it's your hobby, but to made consistent advances there needs to be a credentialed class of scientists who spend their lives funding and creating the tools and techniques you use for your hobby.