Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time
economist.com
economist.com
I guess i'm biased because i'm in the process of getting my phd, but doing a phd has push me to my mental limits, learning and doing more than i figured i would ever be able to do. Comparing this with a masters degree seems like apples and oranges in terms of expertise, motivation, and general knowledge of the field. Anecdotally, from most of my experience when i view/work with/take classes with/talk to/interact with masters students i generally see three types of people:
1) those who are using a masters to get into a phd program
2) those who just want to raise their salary in industry (already in industry)
3) those who are having trouble finding a job so they go back to school
Each of them are interested in expanding their knowledge and solving hard problems, but somehow all three types seem more overworked than many of my colleagues who are in the phd track. Of the three types, (2) makes the best partners for projects and often know their stuff pretty well. Though, with exception for the work that goes toward a research lab (masters student working with a professor), again, from my experience, the quality of the assignments, projects, and papers (sometimes including conference) from (1) and (3) is just completely lacking. Often showing that the student really does not have a grasp of what exactly they are doing. Then i look at any second year phd in the same class/project (because lets face it, as a first year it takes time to get your feet wet) and i'm often blown away by some of the cool stuff they can come up with (even as just a class project outside of their research). This may have been a bit overdrawn to state my point, but the most valuable thing you get out of a phd is a solid understanding of the topics you're interested in. Over worked with low pay is just the price you pay to get it - even if you spent all your time at home doing coursera and open source projects, you're pretty close to being in the same boat.
Does anyone have a solution to this mismatch between the needs of those in industry and the needs of those in a lab?
Further, using only monetary reward as a metric for PhD utility is not reflective of the reasons why people pursue a PhD.
Even excluding monetary reward and the fact that a PhD is often required to do original research in industry (and receive a position as a professor at a university), the people pursuing a PhD are doing so because they are obsessed with the area they are studying and want to have sufficient knowledge to expand the available information known about the field.
The article is overly dismissive of knowledge being considered as its own reward among the demographic and eschews the trait to focus only on monetary reward, and as a result the conclusion is nonsensical by concluding that the smartest individuals in their areas of interest are habitually irrational actors.
An individual has to reach the giants to be able to stand on their toes so to speak and getting a PhD is often a requirement for even being given a chance to do so.
A more damning reason to not pursue a PhD is that the hours are insane and academia is increasingly less available as a career path, which for a lot of fields is the only option for employment that will utilize the specialized knowledge for a PhD holding individual.