As long as "Percent faculty with terminal degree in their field" is an evaluation criterion for ranking school quality (I took those exact words from the US News and World Report rankings criteria), there is little chance that non-PhD holders will be able to become tenured faculty at research universities going forward. Let's not fool ourselves. Schools work towards higher rankings, as they are rewarded for doing so.
A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
11–20 of 41 posts
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#12The problem with his argument is that a certain set of circumstances (i.e. a world war) allowed him to enter his position without the PhD. I'm fairly confident in saying the challenge to become a professor at a respectable university in a stem field without a PhD makes it for all intents and purposes impossible. So while the PhD system is deeply flawed, unless he can provide an alternative then theres not much to dis…
Many famous computer scientists lack PhDs, some of them are professors; this was completely possible in the 70s/80s when a PhD wasn't required (nor were there enough of them). Today it is probably much harder, though I know some really good researchers who only have masters (not even in CS).
Expect a sweep of middle-aged professors doing PhDs with their mates supervising and examining.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So while the PhD system is deeply flawed, unless he can provide an alternative then there's not much to discuss. Ok, how about a much simpler system of research apprenticeship? An apprentice is paid a low but livable salary, possibly with tuition remission for any necessary coursework, and probably with TA/RA duties as we have now. There are no grades and no qualifying exams. Instead, the apprentice must simply prod…
> the apprentice must simply produce three publishable research papers within the committee's set time limit One big issue with the current PhD system is reliance on published articles to determine a student's worth, which transforms academia into a paper-churning factory. In your scenario, having a set time limit combined with the low pay will still make candidates rush to publish papers, perpetuating the current is…
>I would also like to see the recommended period for finishing a PhD extended to 7-10 years
That is way too long. A PhD should only be long enough as is required for the average competent person to demonstrate their competence in research. Adding extra bells and whistles, more requirements, etc, does not improve their abilities and only prolongs the apprenticeship to the advantage of their supervisors.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many famous computer scientists lack PhDs, some of them are professors; this was completely possible in the 70s/80s when a PhD wasn't required (nor were there enough of them). Today it is probably much harder, though I know some really good researchers who only have masters (not even in CS).
Expect a sweep of middle-aged professors doing PhDs with their mates supervising and examining.
No, why would they bother? Once you are famous/established, no one cares what your credentials are...the PhD only gets the foot in door, and is a useless piece of paper otherwise beyond what you learnt while getting it (disclosure: a PhD whose piece of paper helped him get his foot in the door of a research lab).
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expect a sweep of middle-aged professors doing PhDs with their mates supervising and examining.
No, why would they bother? Once you are famous/established, no one cares what your credentials are...the PhD only gets the foot in door, and is a useless piece of paper otherwise beyond what you learnt while getting it (disclosure: a PhD whose piece of paper helped him get his foot in the door of a research lab).
It happened at my university (and I did some moonlighting contracting statistical analyses for some). The salary rules changed to motivate them.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expect a sweep of middle-aged professors doing PhDs with their mates supervising and examining.
No, why would they bother? Once you are famous/established, no one cares what your credentials are...the PhD only gets the foot in door, and is a useless piece of paper otherwise beyond what you learnt while getting it (disclosure: a PhD whose piece of paper helped him get his foot in the door of a research lab).
Many universities have rules limiting pay and promotion opportunities to people without PhDs.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, why would they bother? Once you are famous/established, no one cares what your credentials are...the PhD only gets the foot in door, and is a useless piece of paper otherwise beyond what you learnt while getting it (disclosure: a PhD whose piece of paper helped him get his foot in the door of a research lab).
Many universities have rules limiting pay and promotion opportunities to people without PhDs.
Maybe at the low end, but definitely not at the high end. As long as they can easily get a position at CMU or Stanford, the university isn't going to low ball them on pay.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So while the PhD system is deeply flawed, unless he can provide an alternative then there's not much to discuss. Ok, how about a much simpler system of research apprenticeship? An apprentice is paid a low but livable salary, possibly with tuition remission for any necessary coursework, and probably with TA/RA duties as we have now. There are no grades and no qualifying exams. Instead, the apprentice must simply prod…
That's exactly what a PhD already is - a research apprenticeship. They already get a low but liveable salary without having to pay tuition. I don't think many PhDs do TA/RA duties - they're too busy researching. PhD students don't have grades or qualifying exams, and three publishable research papers is what most PhD students achieve anyway. The thesis is just these papers written up into one continuous piece and sub…
> They already get a low but liveable salary without having to pay tuition. I don't think many PhDs do TA/RA duties
Varies a lot by country. In the U.S., most PhD students do TA/RA duties, because that's the main funding mechanism. It's rare for universities to give direct funding for an entire PhD, though some do fund students' first year directly. A smallish number of students also get multi-year fellowships, either from the university or from an external source like the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program. The common case, though, is that each semester they're hired as either a TA or RA. In the best case, the student's advisor has a grant precisely aligned with their thesis topic, and the student is hired as an RA on that grant, in which case they're being paid more or less just to do their PhD. If they're less lucky, they have to work on a grant-funded project that's more tangential to their thesis, and then essentially have a side job.
On the professor's side this system is also a pretty big source of stress, because every semester there's a question of where your students are going to be funded from the next semester. Have to bring in enough grants to hire most as RAs (ideally on projects that lead to progress on their theses), rotate some into TA positions if there aren't enough grants to pay everyone as an RA this semester, etc.
In a different form RAships are also becoming common here in Denmark, though they weren't traditionally. PhD students are all hired into a 3-year salaried contract, but increasingly those contracts are funded by European Union projects, and a student hired into a PhD position funded from that source will typically have project-related responsibilities in addition to their thesis.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the apprentice must simply produce three publishable research papers within the committee's set time limit One big issue with the current PhD system is reliance on published articles to determine a student's worth, which transforms academia into a paper-churning factory. In your scenario, having a set time limit combined with the low pay will still make candidates rush to publish papers, perpetuating the current is…
>I would also like to see the recommended period for finishing a PhD extended to 7-10 years That is way too long. A PhD should only be long enough as is required for the average competent person to demonstrate their competence in research. Adding extra bells and whistles, more requirements, etc, does not improve their abilities and only prolongs the apprenticeship to the advantage of their supervisors.
A PhD is not so much an apprenticeship though, its goal should be to bring a novel contribution to the state of the art in the field. The current system does not need more requirements, but it does need more time and freedom for PhD students to develop truly novel ideas, and not fall prey to the "publish or perish" mentality that is so pervasive in academic culture. Dependence on supervisors can be sorted out with proper labour contracts.
Re: A ‘Rebel’ Without a Ph.D (2014)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I would also like to see the recommended period for finishing a PhD extended to 7-10 years That is way too long. A PhD should only be long enough as is required for the average competent person to demonstrate their competence in research. Adding extra bells and whistles, more requirements, etc, does not improve their abilities and only prolongs the apprenticeship to the advantage of their supervisors.
A PhD is not so much an apprenticeship though, its goal should be to bring a novel contribution to the state of the art in the field. The current system does not need more requirements, but it does need more time and freedom for PhD students to develop truly novel ideas, and not fall prey to the "publish or perish" mentality that is so pervasive in academic culture. Dependence on supervisors can be sorted out with pr…
>A PhD is not so much an apprenticeship though, its goal should be to bring a novel contribution to the state of the art in the field.
I think here we have a disagreement over goals. I've always thought of a PhD as being the period in which you prove you can compose and carry out a "Minimum Viable Sustained Research Project." But it's intentionally minimal: you're supposed to get it done and start your real career as a qualified scientist.