The Ph.D. is a piece of paper that shows that for 5+ years you were able to consistently push towards a (previously considered) unattainable goal.
It is gruesome, the idea might not work, nobody else can help you because nobody else has tried, nobody cares about the myriad things that you tried and failed.
You will literally become a different person after the phd experience. But trust me, these 2-3 nights over the span of 5+ years, when pieces somehow come together and the goddamn thing works, are really worth the effort.
My experience of PhD is more mundane. I didn't discover anything particularly meaningful, or hard, or even useful.
Basically, I read papers until I understood the field well-enough so that I was able to make tiny contributions worth publishing and presenting in conferences. That led to a few papers that I eventually compiled in a thesis.
I certainly got something out of the experience, but I can't say it made me a different person, or that it gives me an advantage of any sort at my current job (software engineer).
I was a software engineer briefly before starting grad school. During that time, I found I didn't have the time to sit down and learn about topics that interested me. I also wanted to be in research-y roles where I could build things that were more experimental and less well understood.
During my PhD, I got to spend time learning, and attending talks/seminars/conferences. Gaining deeper background knowledge in my field as well as learning how to quickly evaluate and explore new ideas gave me the tools to have the type of job I wanted. I'm a research scientist at an industrial lab now and quite enjoy it.
That being said, I agree with the grandparent post that doing a PhD can be a grueling experience. I had to carry the bulk of the work for many of the papers I submitted. If I took a day off, nobody would pick up the slack. Tight deadlines meant the only way to succeed was putting in long hours. My advisors were also spread very thin so it was difficult to get a lot of time with them. There were times when I felt very alone. This was a really stark contrast to how collaborative engineering in industry was and I don't think I ever fully adjusted to it. My current job feels like a happy middle ground. I publish papers alongside other people and we split the work.
Pretty much. To me all a PhD signifies is that you can read papers quickly, form a workable hypothesis from what you have read and publish a solution to that in a reasonable timeframe.
It's specialized training that's great for some fields, and completely orthogonal to the requirements of many others.
I've got a PhD. Personally, I'd say "unrealized" instead of "unattainable." Unattainable makes it seem like a dissertation topic is always some magical effort.
Lots of PhD work is a investigating some mundane area that somebody else hasn't (due to lack of time or interest) investigated yet. I wonder how many dissertations come from a random comment by a professor saying like "Well here is some minor tangential topic I/somebody should look into."
It's not though is it. It's a piece of paper to say for 2 years or so you worked as a researcher employed by the university, at least that's my experience in the UK.
Much better off just going in to industry. People praise PhDs too much. No one at work knows of mine. It's not on my CV either.
What is awful is when someone with a PhD in, say, biology uses this as leverage in a completely unrelated field (data science). Malicious ambiguity...
You're not an authority on something just because you have a PhD, certainly not an authority on everything. This is, damagingly, how many behave... You're barely scratching the surface at that level. It warrants a lifetime of work to get anywhere near the level of respect some put up on them. I guess that speaks volumes to the general level of insight into education by most..
In UK the PhD is mostly an extended masters degree. In the US it is 5+ years of effort.
Even if you have a masters in the US, the only benefit you get as a PhD student, is having less core courses in the first two semesters of your program.
Not really. In most of the departments in the US you are expected to start research in parallel to your classes at the end of the first semester. The latest I know of, is the end of the second semester after the course-based qualifier exam that many departments still have.
Within 12 months you are expected to do full time research regardless of what other obligations / selective classes you have.
So more like 4+ years of full research. Many schools have avg PhD program durations way over 6 years.
In UK post doc is almost a must for those who really want to dive deep.
How can you do 'full time research' as well as being an instructor for taught classes? Does not compute.
Day one of my UK PhD I was shown to my desk, told to start researching, and that was it. I didn't waste any time with any classes or teaching (I did actually teach for a couple of hours as a favour.)
As long as you can produce top-tier papers during your PhD then you're meeting the international standard.
>How can you do 'full time research' as well as being an instructor for taught classes? Does not compute.
Yep this is where the gruesome part of the American PhD comes. And that is why in the first two years of the program the attrition is huge. In my class 50% had dropped by the end of year 2.
Oddly enough, early on when "data science" was becoming a thing, I thought that being a scientist would give me an edge in data science. I no longer believe that.
In many situations it's much more an art than a science. Oftentimes you see "we multiplied independent variable X by independent variable Y and that is what we attribute this increase in Z to"...
But it's wrapped up in such complicated rhetoric that no one questions it (perhaps less cares...)
my PhD was "hey guys all the research that was done in this field is bullshit, because you are using a terrible technique, here is a better technique, look at all the things that it fixes and enables if you don't faff around". People are still using the bullshit technique though, even citing my seminal paper, because it's less of a pain in the ass.
I think there is less risk from the reviewer and publisher’s standpoint. It’s much easier for them to get behind an incremental change than one that upsets the paradigm. Even if the incremental step is built on a more fundamental error, there is still a lot of former research built in it as well so they aren’t sticking their necks out like if they were the first to approve one that challenges the status quo
In my case there is no incremental improvement to "stop using this solvent because no amount of it is acceptable in your experiments because of the artifacts it causes"
Better ideas eventually win. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that you will be alive to see your recognition, and that sucks. But cheer up, your name will be there!
It is gruesome, the idea might not work, nobody else can help you because nobody else has tried, nobody cares about the myriad things that you tried and failed.
You will literally become a different person after the phd experience. But trust me, these 2-3 nights over the span of 5+ years, when pieces somehow come together and the goddamn thing works, are really worth the effort.