What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community • Hacker News Board

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#21

Post by HarryHirsch » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #13

ra1n85 wrote: post #8

I'm also intrigued, and seemingly let down, by folks with degrees in "Cyber {defense|analysis|warfare}". These degrees are always laid out on a resume with other super-sexy sounding credentials and accolades. Unfortunately, the interviews always seem to reveal a lot of (sometimes serious) technical gaps. The only reliable indicators I've come to find for technical and engineering acumen are curiosity and experience.…

Yes presumably this whole thing unravels when you interview someone and say 'oh great you have PhD - can you tell me about your top three peer-reviewed papers'

Assuming that you are permitted to unravel the ruse. If your company's purpose is to suck on the Federal teat, such actions are discouraged. Just look next door at the Theranos thread! For the better of ten years, asking hard questions about Theranos was discouraged.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#22

Post by tedks » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:17 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #11

cafard wrote: post #2

To summarize: contractors can bill the federal government at higher rates for PhDs, without respect to the origin or meaning of that degree, and pass on some of it to the employee, so these employees are getting PhDs in the most expedient way. The main difference between now and the 20th Century is the explosion of on-line schools and the expansion of the "national security community."

There has been a significant rise in advertising around the DC metro area for online schools. Usually the premise is the same: "get a degree|certification quickly in cyber- |management". Degrees (not just PhDs), certifications, etc all equate to higher billable rates for the contractor. The contractor world is probably single-handedly keeping the certification industry afloat.

To be fair, when I travel outside the DC area I still see as many ads for for-profit schools. They're certainly a huge share of metro advertisements, probably the next down from weapons systems advertisements.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#23

Post by timtadh » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

This tracks well with a report I heard this week on declining mean salaries in the federal government versus industry. As the government pays less, has declining pensions, and is under constant threat of "shutdown" it isn't surprising that the best people would rather look elsewhere. That doesn't even factor in people choosing not to work for the government for political and moral reasons.

Sadly, this means that the bureaucracy will increase and become more petty. People will become more concerned about protecting their jobs and less about doing them well. Because, government work on a resume will become a "bad smell" making it hard for government workers to find a job in the private sector. Who wants to hire someone with a fake PhD? Only the government.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#24

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

cafard wrote: post #2

To summarize: contractors can bill the federal government at higher rates for PhDs, without respect to the origin or meaning of that degree, and pass on some of it to the employee, so these employees are getting PhDs in the most expedient way. The main difference between now and the 20th Century is the explosion of on-line schools and the expansion of the "national security community."

[deleted]

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#25

Post by rl3 » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #15

Can someone explain why "100% online" is used as a clear negative factor? What makes physical proximity to a whiteboard a better indicator of academic achievement? The ability and willingness to have a family, a full-time job, and earn an advanced degree should not be a negative signal.

In principle there's nothing wrong with the concept of online degrees.

In practice, it's currently a complete cesspool of low-quality for-profit degree mills.

I would argue that MOOCs from top tier universities far, far exceed the average online for-profit in terms of quality of content. It's ironic, considering they're free. The caveat of course is you don't get a degree, though many have options for certifying you took the class.

In my opinion, a bullshit degree is worse than no degree. The person with no degree is relying purely on skills and experience. The person with the online degree meanwhile may be of questionable caliber.

I have sympathy for people who people attain online degrees out of necessity and are fully aware they're just getting a piece of paper to satsify whatever arbitrary bureaucratic requirements. For example, it's not uncommon for a minimum level of education to be retroactively forced upon already-competent employees. The questionable caliber part comes into play when you have people who fail to realize that their obviously poor-quality online school is, well, just that.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#26

Post by superuser2 » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #15

Can someone explain why "100% online" is used as a clear negative factor? What makes physical proximity to a whiteboard a better indicator of academic achievement? The ability and willingness to have a family, a full-time job, and earn an advanced degree should not be a negative signal.

I'd argue that it should. Like a BS, if you're not working on a PhD full time then it isn't hard enough to be valuable as either a signal or a learning experience.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#27

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 4:03 PM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #25

pc86 wrote: post #15

Can someone explain why "100% online" is used as a clear negative factor? What makes physical proximity to a whiteboard a better indicator of academic achievement? The ability and willingness to have a family, a full-time job, and earn an advanced degree should not be a negative signal.

In principle there's nothing wrong with the concept of online degrees. In practice, it's currently a complete cesspool of low-quality for-profit degree mills. I would argue that MOOCs from top tier universities far, far exceed the average online for-profit in terms of quality of content. It's ironic, considering they're free. The caveat of course is you don't get a degree, though many have options for certifying you…

I think we're all familiar with the guy who acts like his University of Phoenix degree has launched him into the academic elite, and certain programs that are notoriously bad are and perhaps should remain a large negative signal.

But to that end I've heard multiple people in hiring positions whose opinion of Georgia Tech's CS program has diminished greatly because they now view them as "that school with the online Master's." I'm hope the net effect is negligible but I've heard too many people say that or agree with the sentiment to dismiss it entirely.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#28

Post by HarryHirsch » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #14

mcguire wrote: post #9

" He adds that no one counseled him not to attend, and nobody has questioned his right to call himself a doctor. " This is the second or third article I've read (from Vice) on this subject, and there's never any discussion of the process of getting a PhD. You don't get one for taking classes, or for taking tests. If I can't find a copy of your dissertation and at least one published article, I'm very much going to qu…

I admittedly do not know much about post-baccalaureate academia. If a non-accredited school in fact does offer a PhD simply for taking classes, can you call yourself doctor? What about a non-accredited school that still requires a dissertation but 99% of those submitted are approved? I am assuming that an accredited school handing out PhDs like this would lose their accreditation but maybe that's not the case. I'm ju…

If you are a member of any research community you know very well who the relevant people are. And if you know your stuff you can find out within five minutes if the person across the table know theirs. Back then, we had hiring pipelines from university to the personnel department (it wasn't called Human Resources yet), no recruiters were involved, and scientific personnel was interviewed by scientists.

That said, it gets problematic when you attempt to set down procedures. At California community colleges, it seems, the candidates must have PhDs in the subjects that they are going to teach. That's fine. But no one can keep up with all the schools from faraway countries, some are legit, many others are not, and they have stopped trusting the interviewers to check if the candidate's PhD is legit.

So now every applicant has to prove degree equivalency. They don't know where Timbuktu is and pretend it's OK not to know where Paris is! You'd think the quality of candidates went down a few notches because anyone with a legit degree from a well-known school will be offended and refuse to spend money on the accreditated accreditator of degrees to be permitted just to apply.

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#29

Post by volaski » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 4:15 PM UTC

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #3

cafard wrote: post #2

To summarize: contractors can bill the federal government at higher rates for PhDs, without respect to the origin or meaning of that degree, and pass on some of it to the employee, so these employees are getting PhDs in the most expedient way. The main difference between now and the 20th Century is the explosion of on-line schools and the expansion of the "national security community."

So (and I'm guessing here because I really can't stand to click on a Vice link) that a lot of those PhDs are in bullshit fields like "national security studies" or similar?

Why can't you stand to click on a vice link?

Re: What a PhD Really Means in the US National Security Community

#30

Post by dikdik » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #15

Can someone explain why "100% online" is used as a clear negative factor? What makes physical proximity to a whiteboard a better indicator of academic achievement? The ability and willingness to have a family, a full-time job, and earn an advanced degree should not be a negative signal.

So I just finished my MS in Bioinformatics at Johns Hopkins University and completed it 100% online. The program is meant for working professionals and there were also students taking classes both on-campus and online, and students taking all classes on-campus.

I'm on the job hunt now, really hoping people do not frown on the degree. However, I would still look curiously at someone who received a doctorate online.