51–60 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Academia doesn't have a monopoly on intellectualism, and in fact "tech bros" tend to emphasize the reason and rationalism that typically defines intellectualism.
This is Dunning-Kruger in sentence form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>According to data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), around 1,600 English and Literature PhDs are awarded annually in the United States. Total PhDs awarded annually in all categories : 57,862 It is a very small field that is being used as a straw-man for all PhDs. I don't know what benefit those 1,600 may produce, but I'd rather them have that expertise and use it for our country than have them leave the US…
The benefit is intangible and honestly if they didn't have the opportunity to pursue a PhD they wouldn't leave the country. They would do what the 99% of people like them who are unable to pursue a PhD in their chosen topic do, work another job and publish a smaller body of work in a less prestigious setting. The fact of the matter is that those are not the 1,600 people who have the ability to earn a PhD in English o…
How do you think the US got so many international students?
Despite the typical tech-bro anti-intellectual comments on this thread. As the article states. It's the money. People need to be able to support themselves. PhDs are important because they train specialists by giving them the time and space needed to develop that expertise (something not usually available at corporate gigs). The work you do during a PhD has value, much more value than the stipend is worth. Taxpayer d…
Is a glut of English and Comparative Literature PhDs really that big of a benefit? Those skills are not transferable to anything. I think it’s a crime the way liberal arts departments admit way more students than could ever hope to find a job in Academia. I say this as someone who loves literature and is sad to see these departments shrink. But it isn’t fair to the students to put them through so much pain when you k…
Except I actually spoke to several of them who said that they were heavily groomed into joining the liberal arts departments. Not one of them went into engineering or the sciences. One student said during the program she was told she "must" choose the liberal arts. Another described how he was sweet talked by a philosophy professor into becoming a philosophy major, despite having followed a science-based curriculum in high school and little-to-no education in the arts (back then they had to specialize in either but not both in high school).
So when you said "crime" I thought "funny you should say that". It might not be criminal but there was definitely some creepy stuff going on.
Despite the typical tech-bro anti-intellectual comments on this thread. As the article states. It's the money. People need to be able to support themselves. PhDs are important because they train specialists by giving them the time and space needed to develop that expertise (something not usually available at corporate gigs). The work you do during a PhD has value, much more value than the stipend is worth. Taxpayer d…
Is a glut of English and Comparative Literature PhDs really that big of a benefit? Those skills are not transferable to anything. I think it’s a crime the way liberal arts departments admit way more students than could ever hope to find a job in Academia. I say this as someone who loves literature and is sad to see these departments shrink. But it isn’t fair to the students to put them through so much pain when you k…
It's also never been a 1:1 ratio of PhD recipients ending up in academia. I will agree that many universities overinflate job prospects post-graduation, but students should also be doing their own market research before entering into such a long process.
[1] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25300/report/u-s-doctorate-awa...
Distinctions only hold esteem over time if they are worthy of it. The last two PhD’s that crossed my feed had dissertations on “The Architecture of Whiteness” https://x.com/garrett_rhianna/status/1889609612367700377 And “The Politics of Smell” https://x.com/drallylouks/status/1868782615324770561 If the PhD is losing its lustre, it’s because the Universities took the shine off.
The fact that you don't understand something is not evidence that it's not valuable.
I would do a PhD if they paid me enough. I don't mind if I cannot find a job that pays well with a PhD (I actually don't need a PhD for that); I would do the PhD because I like doing research. What would bother me is to spent ~4-5 years without a decent income. The scholarships here in western europe are just too low, and I cannot justify not working for private companies in favor or pursuing a PhD during ~4-5 years
There's even a website: https://csstipendrankings.org/
I disagree a little with their cost of living calculations - they're off in both directions for areas I know reasonably well. Most Ph.D. students can live for something under the MIT living wage calculations if they choose -- transportation costs are overstated for most places (e.g., CMU students get a free regional bus pass; MIT students get subsidized transit passes, etc.). Often the medical costs are subsidized as well -- we cover the full cost of (individual) health insurance for Ph.D. students.
You're not going to be banking much, but in CS, it's OK at many institutions, particularly when you factor in summer internship income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benefit is intangible and honestly if they didn't have the opportunity to pursue a PhD they wouldn't leave the country. They would do what the 99% of people like them who are unable to pursue a PhD in their chosen topic do, work another job and publish a smaller body of work in a less prestigious setting. The fact of the matter is that those are not the 1,600 people who have the ability to earn a PhD in English o…
>if they didn't have the opportunity to pursue a PhD they wouldn't leave the country How do you think the US got so many international students?
Maybe a correction is needed. Academia has become so gamified. It's supposed to be about ideas, truth, beauty. Too many are in it for the prestige, which has ironically made it less prestigious. Very few true eccentrics left.
Personally, I think it’s a system for “experiments”: projects that mostly produce negligible real-world impact, but occasionally lead to major advances (“breakthroughs”). Whereas industry focuses on projects that are likely to succeed, and industry research focuses on projects that are less likely but not as risky as academia permits.
In that respect, I agree there’s an issue with prestige. I think it’s largely because of “publish or perish”: academics aren’t risky because they have to publish ‘quality’ papers, and papers on rejected hypothesis aren’t published and/or considered ‘quality’; and those who still take risks, don’t end up as powerful or get as many students, as those who “play the game”. Some people also say it's because academics naturally have high egos, but I disagree, because if anything, a high ego would make someone more likely to take risks (and focus on "ideas, truth, beauty" which 'only a genius can understand', vs boring practical results that anyone can produce).
Ironically, industry has somewhat recently created breakthroughs via venture capitalists (like YC), who fund many risky projects expecting only a couple to succeed (because they also expect the returns from the couple successful projects to recoup the losses from all the failed ones). But nowadays, it seems even VCs are avoiding experiments, focusing mainly on AI (which is arguably an experiment, but even if so, a single one; "couple successes recoup many failures" doesn't work if most of the projects will all succeed or fail together).
I think the problematic current software development industry is the result of too many safe and short-term projects and not enough risky and long-term experiments, which isn't an uncommon view. But, I guess a more uncommon view, I think that means we need more academics.
As is typical on HN, most comments are about how PhDs are of little value or how academia is not what it once was, whereas the article is about how the challenges of getting a degree (rising living costs, slumping stipends) are causing fewer enrollments.
If the PhD had more value, people would be more willing to go further into debt for it. Like the rest of higher education.