> The overhead,
Vague
> the poor job prospects
Relative to whom?
> the cost
If you're paying a dime to do a PhD you're doing it wrong — I get paid an ok amount and my fees are covered.
> the obsession with prestige
Not sure what you mean by this.
Vague
> the poor job prospects
Relative to whom?
> the cost
If you're paying a dime to do a PhD you're doing it wrong — I get paid an ok amount and my fees are covered.
> the obsession with prestige
Not sure what you mean by this.
poor job prospects-> Did you read the article? How many tenure track positions do you think there are for someone who researches pure math?
cost-> are you paid as much as you could if you worked in industry? Are all costs monetary?
obsession with prestige -> Credentials are certainly something that people value in any field. Rankings are kept of the various departments. Of course people think about prestige, but should they? I do not believe people should worry about their own or their school's rank but simply do math if they like it but of course those thoughts occur.
Yes I did read the article. So you're equating "job prospects" with "chance of being a tenured professor in a specific field", more usually it means the opportunity to enter a well-paying or otherwise respectable career of any type.
Costs, sure I imagine I would earn more as a technician in industry with an MSc but if you're driven by immediate-term financial gain I'd agree a PhD is not for you.
Prestige, at PhD level it matters less about the institution than your specific advisor. Also I'd argue science is ahead of most careers in being a meritocracy, the quality of your publications should count for more than your institute's ranking. Should people care about the level of research of their institute as judged by an independent group of peers, probably yes.
I am equating those things under this context, if the majority of PhD grads are not becoming professors, I would like it if they "released" more of them sooner with something like your 3yr degree.
I think I can somewhat quantify prestige if you look at where some CS professors got their PhD[1]. I do think science is meritocratic but that doesn't mean all scientists are or statistics like these mean that all scientists won't experience self doubt or even get in to pissing contests with others about credentials. That sort of attitude really detracts from the altruistic community effort I imagine.
Can I ask where you are studying? I have genuine curiosity about the Euro grad schools.
[1]http://cs.brown.edu/people/alexpap/faculty_dataset.html
edit: I should add that in no way am I saying these results prove prestige has influence or that things aren't meritocratic. But can you envision how someone might look at this and interpret it so it reinforces stereotypes or misconceptions? Spots for grad students shouldn't be zero-sum.
full disclaimer: I went to a university with a top 5 program in my field and I don't think there is a very large difference in research from these universities over time.
edit2: Another clarification, it shouldn't be that someone says "oh I didn't get in to XYZ U, I am a failure" nor should it be "oh I got in to XYZ U, I am superior". It should be, simply, "I got in to grad school, now I will study and perform research." The former attitudes are things I have encountered and find it distasteful.
I agree wrt differences between similarly ranked institutions. I'd say similarly that the variance within groups at a top 5 school is greater than the variance between groups when compared with slightly lower ranking institutes.