Abolish the PhD (2016)

Agreed 100%. As a grad student, I made so many mistakes, destroying expensive equipment in the process. I took a 3 year leave of absence to join a startup and was taken back without question when it failed. I went on intellectual flights of fancy on a whim when I found things interesting without telling my PI, wasting precious time and missing deadlines. I took classes and then dropped them when I got too busy, wasting my PI’s grant money. I was given tasks to accomplish and failed them miserably.

He tolerated all of it because I was a student and the expectations were set accordingly.

As a professor today, I take the same attitude toward my students, and I think it’s for their benefit. If they want to be treated as employees, the bar for admission becomes a lot higher, and the expectations do as well. The capacity for mistakes goes down, and the latitude and freedom afforded to them to explore their interests goes away entirely.

Employees do what they’re told when they’re told it, and they are paid accordingly. I’m not sure that’s what many PhD students actually want when they say they want to be treated as employees.

And can you publish your ground breaking research without being authorised by your boss? Can you even continue to do it meaningfully if he or she refuses? If not, then you are definitely not working for yourself.

I agree with most points in the article, with the notable exception of the Thesis. Writing individual papers vs planning and executing 3 or more years of research into a successful project with a cohesive narrative are entirely different tasks. Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/124705/58645

Also, the opening quote is unfortunate, in that it probably contradicts the article and makes many false assertions (while Dyson Freeman might be forgiven for thinking at the ripe age of 90 that a PhD is a harmful choice for "a woman who pretends to do research she is not well-suited for, only to get a paper that means nothing", I don't think it's something that can be used as a serious argument by people in academia today...).

Finally, the whole article is extremely reductive, focusing only on negative aspects, without touching any positives; i.e. it's effectively a 'rant' rather than a nuanced analysis.

However, the biggest beef I have with it is the whole "therefore the phd needs to be abolished" conclusion, which is a complete non-sequitur, and effectively the "Politician's fallacy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism). No, PhDs do not need to be abolished. They do need to be upgraded to come with some protections, but that's a very different argument. At the moment, there are very few protections, and most if not all career training beyond the immediate scope of the relevant research simply comes down to supervisors' good will. However, talking about abolishing the institution because it's "broken" is no less a serious proposition than overthrowing governments and leaving countries into chaos because governments are "broken".

>Why do you want to work for someone else, on their hours, answerable to them, doing their research and teaching their classes

Well, you are still forced to do all that. After all, you often depend on your advisor's funding or expectations. They can make or break you. You get "freedom", but with that freedom

1) you do not have an actual contract listing your hours or any sort of vacation policy.

2) vacations in general are not a thing (it is really important to submit that paper over Christmas).

3) health benefits and family support depend on the whims of the department, any sort of pension plan is unheard of.

4) you sometimes get paid, sometimes not (depending on whether some administrative clerk "forgets" to put you on payroll this term).

5) you are expected to find other work over three months in the summer (but at the same time must continue your research, there is that deadline we REALLY need to hit, do NOT waste your time trying to earn money).

6) as F1 student you are not permitted to find other means of income unless approved by your advisor or department. If they approve, they have to approve every single term (good luck with that).

7) you can try to pursue your own research but then you should also expect to be isolated, receiving no support or feedback from either your lab, peers, or advisor. This is one of the most common stories. Usually, these students just wither away or drop out.

These are not isolated issues, mind you. This is pretty common across the board from what I have seen. And all of these issues are tolerable, if you were at least paid a living wage. But commonly the pay you get barely covers the rent in the city you live in.

Thankfully, I am in a better position and I have an accommodating advisor, but I still think this is a depressing state of affairs.

It seems the author is taking the experience of Science PhDs, and realistically, a specific kind of Science Phd, and tarring the entire notion of a doctoral degree on that basis. US Universities grant PhDs in a wide range of academic disciplines across the Humanities and Sciences, and quite a few professions (Engineering and Education come immediately to mind). My children both have PhDs and academic careers (one as faculty in top-ranked University, and one as a research associate in the Health Sciences, an neither's experience is particularly close to that the author outlines. The author's one-size fits all criticism really doesn't fit all.

That's not to say there aren't abuses and inefficiencies in Science doctoral programs. Just that "Abolish the PhD" is the wrong rallying cry.