Why higher edu institutions are so disappointing and mediocre?
I dont think ive ever heard good things about phd except the chance to work in cool places like e.g microsoft research
I dont think ive ever heard good things about phd except the chance to work in cool places like e.g microsoft research
One good thing about a PhD is you get several years to explore a topic of interest to you in great depth. (As long has you have a decently good advisor.) Another good thing about a research PhD is that in addition to getting experience publishing papers, you go through the process of writing a book sized thesis, which is valuable experience in a lot of ways - skills transfer to publishing and reporting in any field.
On an intellectually superficial but economically important level, another good thing about a PhD is that people who have advanced degrees earn on average 50% more than (1.5x) people without advanced degrees. This is in the US at least, according to data published by the US Fed.
This is bad statistics 101.
The confounding variable in a lot of these cases is wealth (or social class). Someone who grew up upper class and got their PhD is of course going to earn more than someone who grew up in a trailer park never graduated high school.
The reality is that for a lot of people getting advanced degrees leads to nothing but wasted time and a lifetime of debt that they can't discharge.
There’s no doubt in my mind that things are biased for the wealthy, none whatsoever. But consider patents - they have no degree requirement, and the number of patents granted to people with a bachelor’s degree or less is in the low single digit percent, it’s a landslide for people with formal research experience.
> The reality is that for a lot of people getting advanced degrees leads to nothing
What does “a lot” mean? Do you have a source for this claim that passes statistics 101?
Whether or not that is a good idea is an open question. Societies, institutions and supervisors clearly benefit from individuals taking this huge risk (and often failing).
One of the main problems is that we communicate very badly what a PhD is about.
It seems like most cutting edge research (and the ability to run fast) in machine learning is done in commercial settings these days, not academia.
The issue with absolutist statements like “Why higher edu institutions are so disappointing and mediocre?” is that it is a generalization from a non-random sampling of narratives, one that appeals to our sense of outrage and negativity. If one were to collect a fuller set of narratives one will likely find a more nuanced picture — yes, there’s hardship in a Ph.D. but in many cases there’s also joy in learning and discovery. It’s all a function of your advisor, your topic, your funding, your peer group and yourself (not everyone is cut out for it).
For example, Reason 74: Academic conferences. Really?? Academic conferences are the best part about grad school! They're held in beautiful locations, you get to meet all kinds of smart and amazing people, spend all week steeped in your favorite research topic, and best of all it's all expenses paid by your project.
The author's main complaint seems to be that the audience doesn't pay close enough attention at session presentations... okay? That doesn't seem like a reason not to go to grad school. A lot of these seem like they could be reframed as reasons to go to gradschool, actually.