[Timsky]

Your article strongly consonated with the ideas I often try to communicate to those around me. I wish there were more open discussion about biases related to PhD qualifications and the growing influence of venture-capital-style practices in science. Many researchers dedicate themselves to exploring new and uncertain areas of knowledge, yet their work is sometimes undervalued by hiring managers and industrial professionals. I personally know HRs who consider the "PhD" tag in a CV a red flag.

There is also a tendency to overlook the fact that pursuing a PhD is a form of professional work, comparable in commitment and responsibility to other careers. Sometimes 699, sometimes 700. Academia can indeed be a challenging environment, and not everyone contributes in the same way—some may prioritize credentials over substance, and cases of research misconduct do exist. However, these examples definitely do not represent the academic community as a whole.

Regarding the venture-capital approach, in applied sciences, researchers are increasingly expected to present their ideas in short, pitch-style formats. At some point, this process itself becomes the goal of the work. I can imagine this encouraging concise communication. Still, it also shifts part of the management responsibilities—such as market analysis and outreach—onto scientists, which does not align with their core expertise or professional goals.

[t_mann]

> I personally know HRs who consider the "PhD" tag in a CV a red flag.

Which should only tell us what a cancer HR departments are. Filtering someone from talking to the hiring department, for the crime of doing a PhD, and telling others about it - to me this sounds more likely like someone getting a kick out of wielding the bit of power they have over others than a useful contribution to society.

[kjkjadksj]

Fwiw everyone I knew in undergrad who ended up in HR that was basically their only option. They already got slammed in stem classes in HS or even first year or two in college so that was a nonstarter. They weren’t creative people so arts or humanities were out. They didn’t grasp business concepts so finance and other avenues in the business school were out. They landed an hr internship in their junior year then the rest is history.

It is bewildering to me that HR is responsible for hiring anyone outside the HR department.

[ethbr1]

As many gripes as there are about the competitive grant process, at least in the US it was formerly adjudicated by scientific experts. (Yes, subject to groupthink and overweighting en vogue topics, but still by experts)