A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos • Hacker News Board

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#101

Post by chengiz » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #43

wuliwong wrote: post #36

>This new PhD would see students go out into the field and talk to practitioners from day one of their research I don't think this applies well to all fields of study. I have my Ph.D. in physics and there are loads of people researching problems that don't really have counterparts "in the field." I'm assuming "in the field" means industry or possibly a government service. I would think the same is true for mathematic…

> I certainly have gripes with academia but I don't think there is a monolithic motivation for students. Well, there is chasing funding. In your area of the universe, does the money follow worthwhile problems?

Funding is simple. It's all about experience and prior use. Funders fund what they did before, what the fundees did before, and did they use up the funds from last time.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#102

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

fhood wrote: post #58

Man, this view of getting a PhD, which seems fairly common, is so alien to me. Both my parents are research professors, both regularly have students, and I have never seen any of the misery or stress that people keep bringing up. Sure, if you are unprepared to do research then you shouldn't do a PhD, but my parents' students are hand picked, and it is very rare that they end up with a student that doesn't want to, or…

> You ... are mostly removed from the politics and stress of securing funding.

This is definitely not normal in the humanities. Want to continue working next year? Win this annual contest for your subfield that 800 other people are also applying for. It will cover your costs for 5 months if you win, after you spend an entire month preparing your submission for it. Didn't win this time? I guess you'll have to spend 20 hours per week every week on course prep readings and grading essays for the next six months. Good luck getting your research done at the same time.

Humanities PhDs also on average take significantly longer than STEM PhDs. 7 years post BA is normal in the humanities. 5 years post BS is normal in STEM. Guess where all that extra time goes.

It's because DARPA and Dow Chemical don't drop $30 million on your advisor for Enlightenment history.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#103

Post by stealthmodeclan » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #97

pytyper2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hoping that the degree will mask a lack of actual skills. I encounter this often, 'guy has phd but struggles with the decisions to make actual progress in practical terms'. Is it possible to attain a phd and rely mostly on rote memorization? Are all phd candidates required to make an original contribution to their respective field?

> rely mostly on rote memorization What on earth would you be memorising and for what purpose?

For same reason for which we memorize alphabets.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#104

Post by TearsInTheRain » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

moh_maya wrote: post #67

What are the politicians there for then? I'm not being facetious here. Politics is one of the primary avenues of bringing about social change. Ditto civil service. A PhD should be about novel contributions that increase the sum total of human knowledge.

Ok but we shouldnt pursue knowledge haphazardly for knowledge sake. There are an infinite number of interesting avenues of inquiry we could send our academics down that would be completely useless. The paths we choose should be guided by the needs of practical application. How else can we value information if not practical application?

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#105

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

stealthmodeclan wrote: post #103

chrisseaton wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rely mostly on rote memorization What on earth would you be memorising and for what purpose?

For same reason for which we memorize alphabets.

Do people do PhDs in things similar to reciting the alphabet? What do you think the examination for a PhD involves? It's a thesis and oral example. You can't produce a thesis by memorising someone else's work.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#106

Post by overeater » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #81

Miltnoid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know a single reputable program that makes you pay for a PhD. Typically the salaries are subsidized through the school, that gets it's money from taking a cut of stem grants, donations, masters tuition, and undergraduate tuition. Saying that most humanities professors get their salaries by doing some sort of ponzi scheme of charging their advisees is just spreading misinformation.

That is mostly true for reputable programs. But there are a lot of unreputable Ph.D. programs. They may even graduate the bulk of PhDs. And even some reputable programs will let some people "buy their way" if they don't qualify as for a fellowship/funding.

The annoying thing, is since there are more unreputable programs out there, all the stats about PhD students are heavily skewed by those students. Basically this rhetoric about 1/1000 phd students landing a job, or phd graduates being $100,000 in debt, or 9/10 students drop out or have mental health issues, are not about the usual PhD program we think about at universities that are household names and hear about in the news.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#107

Post by andreyk » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

This is a rather poor essay.

"Many academics enter science to change the world for the better. Yet it can often feel like contemporary academia is more about chasing citations. Most academic work is shared only with a particular scientific community, rather than policymakers or businesses, which makes it entirely disconnected from practice.

...

This new PhD would see students go out into the field and talk to practitioners from day one of their research, rather than spending the first year (or more) reading obscure academic literature."

So... do industry research? Let's be clear: a PhD is a training program for research. As such most research done during a PhD is generally not that impactful, certainly not to go beyond fellow academics and to non experts. In my experience most people who go into it don't have much of an idea of what they want to do afterward -- they mainly know they enjoy research and are interested in the topic. AFTER a PhD is finished they can go on and try to influence society using their skills, or not.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#108

Post by timbre » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

jderick wrote: post #75

knappa wrote: post #61

A lot of this seems ridiculous: > Mental health issues are rife: approximately one-third of PhD students are at risk of having or developing a psychiatric disorder like depression. The baseline percentage of the population which experience depression (and other mental illness) each year is known to be pretty high -- and highest in for people in their 20's. One third sounds fairly normal; at any rate, there is a burde…

According to this website, the baseline for depression in America is 6.7%. http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/depression 1/3 is not normal at all.

The article says 1/3 are "at risk" of depression. It looks like the statistic is based on a web survey (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ac3/478bc1263be53f5150a54b...), so I suppose they couldn't do an actual diagnosis.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#109

Post by andreyk » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

bradhoffman wrote: post #84

You all are kind of scaring me a bit... I just finished my Bachelor's and am starting my Master's this month. I have no formal research experience, but I planned to dive in during my Master's. For anyone who has done/is doing there PhD, if there is any advice you all could give me in order to get the most out of this next year before I apply for PhD programs, that would be great.

I did the same route as you (Master's first, then starting on my PhD right now). It's a great route! In general, the best route is to try and join an ongoing project where you can be guided/mentored by a Post doc or senior PhD. This is easiest is larger labs, though in a smaller lab the professor might interact with you more (unlikely you will meet with prof much in larger lab). For your application two things matter: recommendation letters and publications. Joining a project on which you can have mentorship and showing yourself to be resourceful and productive is the best way to attain both. If you find a lack of guidance or a bad fit in whichever lab you first end up in, don't hesitate to try and change things up. In general, also always feel free to ask for advice and guidance; PhDs and post docs have been in your shoes and are more than willing to help out, you can always just ask someone out for coffee to talk about research and ask for advice.

Re: A PhD should be about improving society, not chasing academic kudos

#110

Post by chess19 » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

abnry wrote: post #3

thrwaway11 wrote: post #2

How much of this argument should apply to more theoretical areas of research like pure mathematics?

I used to be in a math PhD program. Probably would still be if not for some life circumstance. I think it is worth taking a hard look at the value all of this mathematical research actually produces. I understand how number theory has been useful to cryptography. I understand how branches of pure math can have a surprising influence. But when these examples are given by pure mathematicians, it often strikes me as ane…

I imagine that a lot of people responding to this do not realize how abstract modern pure mathematics is.

The number theory that makes up the basis of cryptography was established in the 1700s. For example, Euler's theorem is the basis of RSA and was proven in 1763. The theorem is a small generalization of Fermat's little theorem which was known (but not proven) in 1640. These theorems are really just simple facts about groups and other cryptosystems, such as elliptic curve cryptosystems, are essentially the same facts except the multiplicative group of integers is replaced with an elliptic curve group.

These concepts could be taught to advanced high school students with no formal pure mathematical training. The "hot" areas in modern mathematics require not only an additional 4 years of undergraduate mathematics but usually ~2 years of a PhD program to begin to understand the current papers.

This is extremely different from other fields such as theoretical computer science which seems to have applications almost immediately. Even professional mathematicians likely do not research in hopes of applications hundreds of years later.

I will not claim that modern mathematics cannot possibly have applications. I will, however, claim that pure mathematics is an extremely poor way to allocate funds if you are simply looking for a return on investment in terms of "useful theorems proved per dollar". Mathematics research should be justified by stating that people trained in pure mathematics can be useful in industry, other applied fields or to teach mathematics.