One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day of your PhD, is actually, first and foremost, a selection process. I have felt this ever since I got my first foot in my first BSc lecture, and the feeling has never left me. And I'm doing the exact same thing right now as an Associate Professor, both as a lecturer and as a supervisor. Most the talk and ideas we hear all the time about pedagogical skills, teaching methods, better techniques for supervision, etc. will fall to earth when push comes to shove: the truth is that the vast majority of higher education staff has no idea what they are doing when it comes to actually educating students. We do our best, we present our knowledge in the best way we can think of, and we are genuinely interested in students learning them, but the truth is that the knowledge of exactly what kind of education techniques work better or worse, is non-existent (for all practical matters). So, what happens is that, some students learn, others don't. Would they still have learned if we were using completely different teaching methods? Probably. Would they have learned even if we were not there? Maybe, but probably not. Because our real task (we as in, the staff), when you really get down to the basic core of what is happening in higher education, is to be there and give them a goal: if you want to have this certificate, if you want to be like me, and reach this milestone, you have to endure this, and pass these tests. I'll show you some things here and there in an arrangement that is probably as close to random as it is to not random, and well, you deal with it and find a way to pass the test. It doesn't really matter how you do it, how you find your motivation to keep on keeping on, what matters is that you survive this process and reach the end. And so is the selection process implemented.
Well said. And most professors do not have, nor or required to get, training in teaching at all! Random is the right word and there is a large stdev at that. I remember one semester I had both, by far, the best and worst professors of my long schooling career; both in the same faculty too. Going from one class to the next was disjointing on how vastly different the experience was. The worst prof was so bad that that the students of the class banded together and complained to the dean that we were learning nothing and that this was a required class for our degrees. The best prof was so good that he was able to fill in some of what the other was missing on top of his regular curriculum and it felt effortless.
Maybe in a few american Ivy-league it's a selection process. For most of the world it's "who has the patience and perseverance to go through that ancient hierarcy". In the past 15-20 years academic success has become increasingly based on social standing , and there are many ways to hack that one
> but the truth is that the knowledge of exactly what kind of education techniques work better or worse, is non-existent (for all practical matters). So
Uhh what? Is this some kinda myth teachers and professors want to perpetuate in order to be lazy about teaching?
Theres definetely research on what makes good education techniques "good". I agree that higher education serves as a filter, but you admitting that you and your colleagues have basicially no idea what they're doing while teaching says more about your ignorance than your teaching skills really.
> One thing that most people don't realize (or willingly try not to think about) is that every "higher education" level, all the way from the BSc to the last day of your PhD, is actually, first and foremost, a selection process.
I also have no interest in funding a selection process with my taxes (EU resident), I have an interest in funding a process which prepares people to be productive members of society, which means prepares them to contribute in a commercial for-profit setting as without this the state has no revenue with which to fund anything.
I also don't think what it selects for is of particular value to industry.
These experts in education unfortunately take one thing for granted, that PhDs need to be trained. I really don't think that's true and that there is any need for PhD training. At least, there shouldn't be any need.
Here is the thing: The purpose of a PhD is to demonstrate the ability to conduct scientific research independently. When a student enters a PhD program, they should have all the prerequisites to do that. If not, the university has failed and the study program needs to be reformed. A PhD student needs to have the ability to conduct research and write a thesis, and they get more time for that than they will ever have again as a postdoc.
In my opinion it's really that simple: Do the research and write your PhD thesis, and finish it in time. This "training" idea comes from the US, and the only effect of this in Europe I've seen so far is that unnecessary and off-topic PhD courses with point systems have been invented. At least in my area, these are completely useless and merely delay work on the PhD thesis.
What they should do, however, is to stop the grade inflation and stop handing out a PhD to everyone, no matter how bad the thesis. That's the real problem, I've seen plenty of lazy, extremely low-effort theses, and every time the lazy PhD student passes the defense and gets the PhD. That devalues the PhD and the work of those who take it seriously. Please start to let at least the worst PhD students fail.
> Here is the thing: The purpose of a PhD is to demonstrate the ability to conduct scientific research independently.
This is field-dependent. In some fields, undergrads can already be independent researchers. In other fields, even postdocs are not independent, as doing research requires funding, materials, and labor. The latter is the real problem, as professors in those fields need a steady supply of PhD candidates to do their research.
You finish your college, you're officially an (eg.) engineer now, you can build a bridge, millions of people will use every year, and it's ok... but if you want to try out new compositions and additives of/to cement in a lab environment and measure their properties, you need a mentor, and six different unrelated courses... and preferably a well-known name to co-author your article, to get it published at all.
Most people in PhD programs misunderstand the actual objectives (I sure did). They assume that the academic environment is just like the undergraduate one they have come out of. That is false.
To better understand the new rules that they are operating under, I suggest looking to 'literature'. The two best examples that I have found to illustrate the real 'rules' are:
1) The Horatio Hornblower series. It follows the career of a noble, poor, yet educated British naval officer during the Napoleonic Wars. It follows Horatio from midshipman to Admiral.
2) The Sharpe series. Also set during the Napoleonic Wars, this series follows the Army instead of the Navy. You read of the career of an orphaned son of a whore commoner who is elevated to officer rank. Much conflict with the inherited nobility and chafing occurs with the commoner protagonist.
It is quickly discovered by the protagonists of both series that to survive at officer rank, the lives and interests of the enlisted must be second to the demands of career. Much deeper discussions about this occur in both series.
The key for a PhD student is to observe the fighting and jockeying of the officers between each other over career. These dynamics, even through fictional books, are identical to the fights of academics even today. How the protagonists deal with these challenges should be a lesson to any PhD student in their own careers.
The question is, do we really need a PhD reform? Or should we restructure the academic process to enable more people to pariticipate without going through the ardous process of writing a thesis? I have a PhD and work in an industrial research environment, with 50/50 PhD and non-PhD colleagues. There is no difference in quality of work and output. So maybe universities should be less discriminatory against non-PhD research fellows.
> I have a PhD and work in an industrial research environment, with 50/50 PhD and non-PhD colleagues. There is no difference in quality of work and output. So maybe universities should be less discriminatory against non-PhD research fellows.
I don't disagree. But if we consider that researchers need to publish papers, requiring a PhD isn't not much different than requiring a bunch of publications (when you have 3-4 publications, basically you have a PhD thesis, just need to introduce context and glue everything together).
To be honest, we probably see an alternative to academia grow and disrupt it before we see academia reform itself – the academic institution is so old and has so much legacy at this point, that it is close to impossible.
I am curious on how these new structures would look.
hot take from someone in Europe: I have no degree and work as a software engineer. New masters graduates I have worked with still need a lot of guidance to do basic things: making pull requests, writing unit tests, structuring code, setting up CI and CD pipelines, network communication, IaC, cloud, microservices, parallelism and state management.
Most of what they do know is of limited value. They don't seem to really grasp the fundamentals of computers very well, they maybe grasp some math, but nothing more than what they could have learnt in maybe 3 months or less, and the math is pretty useless if they don't have a feeling for how to apply it to something like a stateless microservice.
I think in our industry having these people go directly to work internships would be much more valuable for them and society than what is currently happening. While I do think free education is good in principle, I am not very happy that my tax money is propping up this broken system.
Lambda School and other JavaScript web developer bootcamps have been very successfully disrupting the "traditional CS degree" as the only route to software engineering.
Perhaps the thing to disrupt stale academia will be a wave of bootcamp PhD's coming out of Lambda University. In the short term, there may be a side effect of deflating the FAANG-style compensation, job stability, and perks of "tenured faculty." It seems obvious that there is an enormous benefit of a more mobile, agile, and adaptable academic workforce of folks who only contract to teach for a semester or two before dipping back into industry careers or trying out another institution (or maybe even working at multiple institutions at once to broaden their teaching and research skills!).
Similar to how the churches became less relevant over time, wothout disappearing. Of course, many still have religious sentiment, but it's not comparable to the complete dominance religion used to have in all aspects of life.
Is there really an army of suckers who are rushing to waste years of their lives on doctoral degrees and the associated lengthy, underpaid indentures? The statistics would seem to say so. Or perhaps this is the natural progression of the research (especially academic research) pyramid scheme?
Are we going to up the degree requirements for everything? High school to college diploma, bachelor's to master's, master's to doctorate, doctorate to ???
I'm one of those suckers and I'm glad I wasted years of my life being paid to study things I found interesting, on my own terms, without pointless meetings, impossible deadlines and unreasonable bosses, dropping projects and colleagues I did not like. Would do it again.
A PhD degree in a relevant subject area (think STEM) can be a door-opener in industry, not just academia. Many interesting jobs are reserved for PhD holders, or at least, are more readily available for them.
I used to work for large civil engineering consultancy. They had lots of highly paid people with PhDs, hired because of their PhDs, doing work directly related to the thing they did their PhD in. So it obviously seems to work fine in some fields.
My BiL is doing a PhD in CS in in a minor uni in UK (scholarship from the uni + TA/RA -ship or whatever it's called).
He gets to be an indentured servant, but in the end hopefully he will have a piece of Paper from a 1st world country that will certify his already substantial CS skills. (also possibly, a Foreign nationality down the line, providing yet another piece of paper, a passport with respect)
In addition, my sister and nieces get to live in a good country, and I have been very impressed by their education, even a state school in UK is miles ahead of any private school we could afford here.
It's a trade he made, despite knowing he was being made a sucker, because the Upshot was going to be worth it in a decade's time. He was going to spend those years in academia (at a uni in my 3rd world country) anyways, why not get something for it?
----
I think that's how the assembly line will work in developed countries. As local citizens (like you and other commenters here) realize the two letters (Dr) are not worth the effort, uni will turn to academics from other countries, instead of actually reforming the system.
> Are we going to up the degree requirements for everything? High school to college diploma, bachelor's to master's, master's to doctorate, doctorate to ???
I suspect this has already happened.
In 1940, 25% of the population were high school graduates and 4% had college degrees.
Today, 30% of the population have college degrees, and ~4% of the population have PhD, MD, JD etc.
So a college degree doesn't indicate what it once did.
In plenty of non-USA countries, a PhD is basically a prerequisite to enter the higher echelons of government and the corporate world.
Not saying it should be like that, nor that it is completely impossible to advance in those countries without. It's more that there's a glass ceiling through which you'll have to break if you don't have a PhD. And I have talked with PhD students with such backgrounds who were quite clear on that. For a (to me) surprising number of them, an academic career was not the main goal at all (not necessarily completely ruled out, but not the original main goal).
Amen. I always tell people that want to do a PhD that, if they want to torture themselves, I can recommend some really great clubs in Berlin for that. It's probably more healthy as well, psychologically speaking.
Twenty years ago I left a miserable software development job for a PhD program where I got to think about interesting problems all day. Nothing in my life has ever been as much fun, even despite the lousy pay. Wish I could do it all over again.
The PhD is never going to be "updated" because it has never been updated throughout its history. It will be obsoleted
Education is changing before our eyes. The world increasingly has all the material and resources to learn, customized and tailored to the ability of each student. There will soon be a tipping point where traditional school-based education becomes irrelevant, all-at-once
> where traditional school-based education becomes irrelevant, all-at-once
This is actually studied subject.
Everyone needs general knowledge base before they even realise why they study at all. The whole point of university is to shape your thinking model.
Even your movie experience will be downgraded. If you don't know Western fairytales, you will find Shrek movie unfunny.
> it has never been updated throughout its history
As Wikipedia points out, "The doctorates in the higher faculties were quite different from the current PhD degree in that they were awarded for advanced scholarship, not original research. No dissertation or original work was required, only lengthy residency requirements and examinations." and "The doctorate of philosophy developed in Germany as the terminal teacher's credential."
The modern system, with its focus on research training, is derived from Prussian educational reforms in the early 1800s, which then spread around the world.
The problem is that universities, at least in my experience here in the UK, are just getting more bureaucratised and less committed to pure (non-corporate/"enterprise") research. I don't trust them to reform anything and actually improve it.
That's a strange question because academia is totally overrun with people looking for postdoc positions. I've served in committees and issued calls. There are dozens to hundreds of candidates for every postdoc position, and at least half of them (usually most of them) are so qualified that they could even count as overqualified. It's painful to write the rejection letters, sometimes I even had to include a personal remark to emphasize that it was an extremely close call and that their application and CV were flawless.
I don't think I can see an actual argument in this.
Could it be summarized as approximately 'The current PhD system has good points but it's several decades old, you learn from someone who actually knows the stuff in practice, and politicians don't want to spend enough for it despite lionizing the economic value of the outcomes'?
I fail to see the problems beyond the obvious, and while there are obvious problems, people with agendas published under titles like "Towards a Global Core Value System in Doctoral Education" seem uniquely qualified to aggravate them.
If anyone is to muck around with one of the core arrangements for real scientific research (on a global scale, no less) they had better be very clear about the distinctions between "changed" and "actually improved".
Excellent points have been raised in both the article and the comments (especially the reliance on a single advisor; that's trouble).
But one thing that no one is addressing, is the fact that a much of the reproducibility crisis is caused by bad methodologies. Why are PhDs still misapplying statistical tools meant for normal distributions, by using them for power law distributions? That's endemic in the social sciences (see: economics, psychology). Why aren't universities giving all PhD students a proper background in stats & probability?
There's a description for spending years in a tertiary degree: not needing a full time income, or having it come from somewhere else
While I completely understand the sentiment and would also personally like that, the fact remains that to live for years untrammeled by the need for an economic relationship is something that is paid for by somebody.
Should society be saddled with excessive taxes for academic welfare?
Society pays for a lot of waste, so maybe it's unfair to single out academia. But it's a symptom of some kind of imbalance.
The article feels more like a rant than a well-thought-out argument. It hardly says concretely what the problems with current PhD training are (it mentions a few problems in different places, but misses important ones like the ongoing mental health crisis in academia [0]), and it makes very few suggestions about what concretely should change to address them. The authors don't even say what they mean by 'PhD training', ignoring the vast heterogeneity in the structure and duration of doctoral education programs between countries, institutions and even between different programs in the same institution.
In the US, PhD training typically consists of a coursework phase and a research phase, with a target duration of about 5 years. In the EU, a PhD has a target duration of 3 years, according to the European Qualifications Framework [1]. While some coursework will typically be demanded in EU PhDs, it would usually be more lightweight than the coursework in a 5-year US PhD. Some EU institutions will offer doctoral schools that mimic the US model, some institutions will actually offer multiple styles of doctorates in parallel programs (even for the same subject). The UK has 'Centres for Doctoral Training' (CDT) and 'Doctoral Training Partnerships' (DTPs) which look like a compromise between the US and EU models (with typically one year of coursework preceding the research phase). CDTs can be joint programs between multiple universities, with students commuting to other institutions to take classes. CDTs and DTPs are are offered alongside regular PhD programs in the UK (the latter will look more like the EU model in most cases and more like the US model in some). Other countries and regions will often have a similar mix of US- and EU-style training programs. Add to this various lesser known types of doctoral programs like part-time PhDs, professional doctorates, DBAs (Business Doctorates in the US), 'PhD by Publication' in the UK, PhDs that are primarily based at non-university research labs like CERN, Max-Planck-Institutes,... and you will see that the term 'PhD' or 'Doctorate' can refer to vastly different types of academic programs, lasting anywhere from 2 to 8 years, being based at one or multiple or no university, with coursework being anything from absent to equivalent to a 2-year Master's program, funding being provided by a professor, a university, a foundation, a government, a corporation or not at all, having one or multiple supervisors, administering letter, numeric or no grades at all, requiring substantial teaching to none at all,... There is really no point in talking about 'PhD training' or its shortcomings without clarifying which of those countless different types of programs you mean.
The premise of the article seems to be that there exists a uniform model of PhD training that emerged in the 19th century and hasn't been reformed since, which simply doesn't stand up to closer inspection.
[+] [-] low_tech_love|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Eddy_Viscosity2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awesomeMilou|3 years ago|reply
Uhh what? Is this some kinda myth teachers and professors want to perpetuate in order to be lazy about teaching?
Theres definetely research on what makes good education techniques "good". I agree that higher education serves as a filter, but you admitting that you and your colleagues have basicially no idea what they're doing while teaching says more about your ignorance than your teaching skills really.
[+] [-] flanked-evergl|3 years ago|reply
I also have no interest in funding a selection process with my taxes (EU resident), I have an interest in funding a process which prepares people to be productive members of society, which means prepares them to contribute in a commercial for-profit setting as without this the state has no revenue with which to fund anything.
I also don't think what it selects for is of particular value to industry.
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|3 years ago|reply
Here is the thing: The purpose of a PhD is to demonstrate the ability to conduct scientific research independently. When a student enters a PhD program, they should have all the prerequisites to do that. If not, the university has failed and the study program needs to be reformed. A PhD student needs to have the ability to conduct research and write a thesis, and they get more time for that than they will ever have again as a postdoc.
In my opinion it's really that simple: Do the research and write your PhD thesis, and finish it in time. This "training" idea comes from the US, and the only effect of this in Europe I've seen so far is that unnecessary and off-topic PhD courses with point systems have been invented. At least in my area, these are completely useless and merely delay work on the PhD thesis.
What they should do, however, is to stop the grade inflation and stop handing out a PhD to everyone, no matter how bad the thesis. That's the real problem, I've seen plenty of lazy, extremely low-effort theses, and every time the lazy PhD student passes the defense and gets the PhD. That devalues the PhD and the work of those who take it seriously. Please start to let at least the worst PhD students fail.
[+] [-] mnky9800n|3 years ago|reply
But actually I mostly agree with you. PhD should be focused on apprenticeship and nothing else.
[+] [-] jltsiren|3 years ago|reply
This is field-dependent. In some fields, undergrads can already be independent researchers. In other fields, even postdocs are not independent, as doing research requires funding, materials, and labor. The latter is the real problem, as professors in those fields need a steady supply of PhD candidates to do their research.
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|3 years ago|reply
You finish your college, you're officially an (eg.) engineer now, you can build a bridge, millions of people will use every year, and it's ok... but if you want to try out new compositions and additives of/to cement in a lab environment and measure their properties, you need a mentor, and six different unrelated courses... and preferably a well-known name to co-author your article, to get it published at all.
[+] [-] Balgair|3 years ago|reply
Most people in PhD programs misunderstand the actual objectives (I sure did). They assume that the academic environment is just like the undergraduate one they have come out of. That is false.
To better understand the new rules that they are operating under, I suggest looking to 'literature'. The two best examples that I have found to illustrate the real 'rules' are:
1) The Horatio Hornblower series. It follows the career of a noble, poor, yet educated British naval officer during the Napoleonic Wars. It follows Horatio from midshipman to Admiral.
2) The Sharpe series. Also set during the Napoleonic Wars, this series follows the Army instead of the Navy. You read of the career of an orphaned son of a whore commoner who is elevated to officer rank. Much conflict with the inherited nobility and chafing occurs with the commoner protagonist.
It is quickly discovered by the protagonists of both series that to survive at officer rank, the lives and interests of the enlisted must be second to the demands of career. Much deeper discussions about this occur in both series.
The key for a PhD student is to observe the fighting and jockeying of the officers between each other over career. These dynamics, even through fictional books, are identical to the fights of academics even today. How the protagonists deal with these challenges should be a lesson to any PhD student in their own careers.
[+] [-] lamchob|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|3 years ago|reply
I don't disagree. But if we consider that researchers need to publish papers, requiring a PhD isn't not much different than requiring a bunch of publications (when you have 3-4 publications, basically you have a PhD thesis, just need to introduce context and glue everything together).
[+] [-] nathias|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madsbuch|3 years ago|reply
I am curious on how these new structures would look.
[+] [-] flanked-evergl|3 years ago|reply
Most of what they do know is of limited value. They don't seem to really grasp the fundamentals of computers very well, they maybe grasp some math, but nothing more than what they could have learnt in maybe 3 months or less, and the math is pretty useless if they don't have a feeling for how to apply it to something like a stateless microservice.
I think in our industry having these people go directly to work internships would be much more valuable for them and society than what is currently happening. While I do think free education is good in principle, I am not very happy that my tax money is propping up this broken system.
[+] [-] legerdemain|3 years ago|reply
Perhaps the thing to disrupt stale academia will be a wave of bootcamp PhD's coming out of Lambda University. In the short term, there may be a side effect of deflating the FAANG-style compensation, job stability, and perks of "tenured faculty." It seems obvious that there is an enormous benefit of a more mobile, agile, and adaptable academic workforce of folks who only contract to teach for a semester or two before dipping back into industry careers or trying out another institution (or maybe even working at multiple institutions at once to broaden their teaching and research skills!).
[+] [-] dsq|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] musicale|3 years ago|reply
Are we going to up the degree requirements for everything? High school to college diploma, bachelor's to master's, master's to doctorate, doctorate to ???
[+] [-] blackbear_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neodypsis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryzvonusef|3 years ago|reply
He gets to be an indentured servant, but in the end hopefully he will have a piece of Paper from a 1st world country that will certify his already substantial CS skills. (also possibly, a Foreign nationality down the line, providing yet another piece of paper, a passport with respect)
In addition, my sister and nieces get to live in a good country, and I have been very impressed by their education, even a state school in UK is miles ahead of any private school we could afford here.
It's a trade he made, despite knowing he was being made a sucker, because the Upshot was going to be worth it in a decade's time. He was going to spend those years in academia (at a uni in my 3rd world country) anyways, why not get something for it?
----
I think that's how the assembly line will work in developed countries. As local citizens (like you and other commenters here) realize the two letters (Dr) are not worth the effort, uni will turn to academics from other countries, instead of actually reforming the system.
[+] [-] michaelt|3 years ago|reply
I suspect this has already happened.
In 1940, 25% of the population were high school graduates and 4% had college degrees.
Today, 30% of the population have college degrees, and ~4% of the population have PhD, MD, JD etc.
So a college degree doesn't indicate what it once did.
[+] [-] Beldin|3 years ago|reply
Not saying it should be like that, nor that it is completely impossible to advance in those countries without. It's more that there's a glass ceiling through which you'll have to break if you don't have a PhD. And I have talked with PhD students with such backgrounds who were quite clear on that. For a (to me) surprising number of them, an academic career was not the main goal at all (not necessarily completely ruled out, but not the original main goal).
[+] [-] awesomeMilou|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewdgreen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|3 years ago|reply
Education is changing before our eyes. The world increasingly has all the material and resources to learn, customized and tailored to the ability of each student. There will soon be a tipping point where traditional school-based education becomes irrelevant, all-at-once
[+] [-] nicce|3 years ago|reply
This is actually studied subject. Everyone needs general knowledge base before they even realise why they study at all. The whole point of university is to shape your thinking model.
Even your movie experience will be downgraded. If you don't know Western fairytales, you will find Shrek movie unfunny.
[+] [-] eesmith|3 years ago|reply
As Wikipedia points out, "The doctorates in the higher faculties were quite different from the current PhD degree in that they were awarded for advanced scholarship, not original research. No dissertation or original work was required, only lengthy residency requirements and examinations." and "The doctorate of philosophy developed in Germany as the terminal teacher's credential."
The modern system, with its focus on research training, is derived from Prussian educational reforms in the early 1800s, which then spread around the world.
[+] [-] jseliger|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 082349872349872|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Penyngton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neodypsis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shapefrog|3 years ago|reply
I dont trust them to actually improve it.
[+] [-] neodypsis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etiam|3 years ago|reply
Could it be summarized as approximately 'The current PhD system has good points but it's several decades old, you learn from someone who actually knows the stuff in practice, and politicians don't want to spend enough for it despite lionizing the economic value of the outcomes'?
I fail to see the problems beyond the obvious, and while there are obvious problems, people with agendas published under titles like "Towards a Global Core Value System in Doctoral Education" seem uniquely qualified to aggravate them.
If anyone is to muck around with one of the core arrangements for real scientific research (on a global scale, no less) they had better be very clear about the distinctions between "changed" and "actually improved".
[+] [-] awesomeMilou|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] concinds|3 years ago|reply
But one thing that no one is addressing, is the fact that a much of the reproducibility crisis is caused by bad methodologies. Why are PhDs still misapplying statistical tools meant for normal distributions, by using them for power law distributions? That's endemic in the social sciences (see: economics, psychology). Why aren't universities giving all PhD students a proper background in stats & probability?
[+] [-] dsq|3 years ago|reply
Should society be saddled with excessive taxes for academic welfare?
Society pays for a lot of waste, so maybe it's unfair to single out academia. But it's a symptom of some kind of imbalance.
[+] [-] c7b|3 years ago|reply
In the US, PhD training typically consists of a coursework phase and a research phase, with a target duration of about 5 years. In the EU, a PhD has a target duration of 3 years, according to the European Qualifications Framework [1]. While some coursework will typically be demanded in EU PhDs, it would usually be more lightweight than the coursework in a 5-year US PhD. Some EU institutions will offer doctoral schools that mimic the US model, some institutions will actually offer multiple styles of doctorates in parallel programs (even for the same subject). The UK has 'Centres for Doctoral Training' (CDT) and 'Doctoral Training Partnerships' (DTPs) which look like a compromise between the US and EU models (with typically one year of coursework preceding the research phase). CDTs can be joint programs between multiple universities, with students commuting to other institutions to take classes. CDTs and DTPs are are offered alongside regular PhD programs in the UK (the latter will look more like the EU model in most cases and more like the US model in some). Other countries and regions will often have a similar mix of US- and EU-style training programs. Add to this various lesser known types of doctoral programs like part-time PhDs, professional doctorates, DBAs (Business Doctorates in the US), 'PhD by Publication' in the UK, PhDs that are primarily based at non-university research labs like CERN, Max-Planck-Institutes,... and you will see that the term 'PhD' or 'Doctorate' can refer to vastly different types of academic programs, lasting anywhere from 2 to 8 years, being based at one or multiple or no university, with coursework being anything from absent to equivalent to a 2-year Master's program, funding being provided by a professor, a university, a foundation, a government, a corporation or not at all, having one or multiple supervisors, administering letter, numeric or no grades at all, requiring substantial teaching to none at all,... There is really no point in talking about 'PhD training' or its shortcomings without clarifying which of those countless different types of programs you mean.
The premise of the article seems to be that there exists a uniform model of PhD training that emerged in the 19th century and hasn't been reformed since, which simply doesn't stand up to closer inspection.
[0] https://www.ecn-berlin.de/mental-health/the-mental-health-cr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process
[+] [-] tigerlily|3 years ago|reply