|
United States4126 Posts
That's a very interesting perspective on a PhD  Makes me excited about my future!
|
On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school.
I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees.
By all means, I think researchers in biology and medicine are contributing to humankind a million fold more than mathematicians. I just think there really isn't much to learn in certain phd programs.
Warning: Possible Bias Ahead:
One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics.
I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD.
|
On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD.
Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor.
|
|
|
On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor.
The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test.
Again, I have said, and I will repeat, that I think researches in psychology is VERY IMPORTANT. I have relatives with schizophrenia and I hope one day someone can find a GOOD cure for it (although this will border on neuroscience, I won't go into it). I just think it shouldn't take so long to complete a PhD degree in psychology.
Since you are a current student, maybe you can tell me what you learn in your program besides spending time doing experiments.
|
I have a Masters and considered a PhD before deciding against it. The first post is a pretty accurate description, but sometimes a Masters is all you need to generate great original research. PhDs just generate more because they're more likely to spend the rest of their life generating original research as it is the only good career path for a PhD and the whole point in getting one, while a Masters may only complete one project during their studies and could get a job that isn't generating original research, or still get a job doing original research and possibly achieve as much as a PhD does, although this is uncommon.
|
PHD = Post Hold Digger
![[image loading]](http://www.wiserental.com/images/QPIPostHoleDigger92380.gif)
Awesome post, thank you!
|
Sure, but research doesn't work all the time and experiments could be repeated at least 10 times until shit finally happens the way you want it.
Take Organic Chemistry, shit is not all that complicated. You need about two years of theory. Two years of lab and you could do any experiment from any procedure.
Of course, making your own experiments takes practice and synthesizing is about as much an art as is a science. The difference from a technician and a good researcher is grand though.
That's what biologists and chemists refer to as bench skills over theory skills.
|
On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor. The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test. Again, I have said, and I will repeat, that I think researches in psychology is VERY IMPORTANT. I have relatives with schizophrenia and I hope one day someone can find a GOOD cure for it (although this will border on neuroscience, I won't go into it). I just think it shouldn't take so long to complete a PhD degree in psychology. Since you are a current student, maybe you can tell me what you learn in your program besides spending time doing experiments.
Sure I can tell you. The majority of my time is actually reading the current research literature so that I build up a solid foundation on the theory of my particular area of interest (language processing by the way). As a member of the cognitive PhD program, I study the areas of language, memory, decision making, and creativity, just to name a few things. We do not, I repeat do not, just sit around and talk about how to run experiments. In fact, a good solid experiment can take an entire year just to prep and ultimately begin running. The posters you see are extremely diluted versions of the research that that individual did because there are professional limitations we have depending on the medium of publication. We spend the first 3 years doing classes and beginning our projects within various labs, and then spend the remainder of our time in the program working almost exclusively on our thesis. Then of course, depending on your division of psychology, there are a number of other projects and work that you do over all your years, but that is very variable based on professor and division. Hope that helps some.
And one last thing. Why in the world are we arguing over this? I don't know anything about your program, and you certainly don't know anything about mine. Let's just both be happy in the fact that we love academia and research to the extent that we do, and we are doing what makes us happy
|
On September 14 2010 12:00 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
I don't think most PharmD's do innovative research though do they? At least nothing on the level of one who would actually go into research.
No, it's basically a bachelor in pharmacy... IE you're a pharmacist with it. You can do a masters + PhD afterwards if you want to head into research though.
I was originally going to do a PhD in biochemistry but didn't find the job offers very interesting/stable towards the end of my bachelors so I applied for pharmacy.
|
On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight.
Wow... I don't even know where to begin...
First of all PHD comics is just a joke, its for laughs but its far from the reality.
Biological sciences and Chemistry are very important to the field of science as well as math and physics.... you are really not a scientist yourself for making that kind of statement. A good scientist is focused on his/her goals, but respects other science. Hell the reason why some of us are alive today is because of discoveries that scientists made in biological sciences (for example genetics or informatics) and chemistry/biochemistry.
Don't even call yourself a scientist really...
And if you aren't one, I hope you never become one.
|
On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school.
I absolutely agree. While biologists and chemists certainly deserve more respect, there is a truth however that biology and chemistry are, by the nature of those fields, more experimental, so that a student's work, which usually involves doing experiments in lab and publishing papers from the results, is perceived as more tedious than those in math, computer science, or theoretical physics. On the other hand, there is a clear distinction between a common lab technician and a PhD candidate (or a very good lab technician), and that is their experimental insight. As a professor of mine rightfully said, the best experimentalists in biology are not necessarily the most skilled with cultures or pipetting, although those are necessary skills; they must have good judgment on what experiments to do and why. I don't think "morons" qualify in this sense.
|
On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:
I just think it shouldn't take so long to complete a PhD degree in psychology.
Keep in mind that a PhD in Psychology requires research with humans and so the IRB procedures are usually far more strict than most and require much more time to go through. I would loved to have finished in 1 year instead of 3 1/2 but there is a lot to do before starting the research. Choosing a population, where to get your sample, getting the company to approve the research, getting the potential participants to agree, preparing and sending the packages, and then actually having them return data to you, took far more time than I expected.
|
On September 14 2010 12:25 Rev0lution wrote:
Sure, but research doesn't work all the time and experiments could be repeated at least 10 times until shit finally happens the way you want it.
Take Organic Chemistry, shit is not all that complicated. You need about two years of theory. Two years of lab and you could do any experiment from any procedure.
Of course, making your own experiments takes practice and synthesizing is about as much an art as is a science. The difference from a technician and a good researcher is grand though.
That's what biologists and chemists refer to as bench skills over theory skills.
You have a good point. I have taking 3 courses in organic chemistry and I have done tons of labs as requirements for the course. There is a lecturer who serves as a TA and a supervisor for the labs. She does not have a PhD, but she is highly knowledgeable: she can discern good and bad end products just by looking at it; she can save synthesis procedures from immediate disaster. She has very strong "bench skills", as you call it.
I am sure a PhD graduate in chemistry also have this kind of skills.
However I am not certain about psychology. In psychology experiments you do not have that level of control over what you do, because psychology experiments are supposed to be double-blind. Perhaps there are certain level of expertise that will distinguish you from others, but right now I don't see it.
On September 14 2010 12:33 AppleTart wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Wow... I don't even know where to begin... First of all PHD comics is just a joke, its for laughs but its far from the reality. Biological sciences and Chemistry are very important to the field of science as well as math and physics.... you are really not a scientist yourself for making that kind of statement. Don't even call yourself a scientist really... And if you aren't one, I hope you never become one.
Sorry. I don't think I ever said those fields of science are menial. In fact I have repeatedly stressed that those are important fields.
|
The point of a Masters or PhD is to specialize, develop critical analysis skills, develop manuscript writing skills, learning how to conduct research at all stages (reading and critiquing scientific literature, application for funding, ethics approval, recruitment of subjects or sample collection, data collection, data organization, statistical tests, interpretation of results and their implications, manuscript preparation for peer reviewed journals, present research at conferences).
This is a lot of work that takes a lot of time to actually do. A Masters student likely won't complete every one of those steps, but what they get to do provides a solid foundation for the full experience if they pursue a PhD. A PhD will go through that whole process at least once, then again for post graduate work (in addition to experience managing a lab and student researchers). It's basically all practical work experience, and that's why you want PhDs to run research projects, they get a lot of work experience doing it.
Saying some Undergrad can do all this things well after a few minutes on Google is ridiculous. It takes real experience over time to fine tune the skills required. As for understanding a research poster, the whole point is to write up the research in a way that can be easily understood by people with a science background, usually undergrads. Writing in a way that nobody but the most nichely educated can understand is bad writing.
All research, especially in biology/chemistry is taking small steps from what has been established in past research. Some lab finds that 100um/ml of X kills cancer cells in vitro but 20um/ml does not. A new MSc student may use a range of concentrations from 20um/ml to 100um/ml to see if a different cancer cell line is also succeptible to X. A PhD student may do a project on whether X can kill cancer after being passed through key liver enzymes to determine if X can be delivered orally.
Yes it's not a huge mental leap to get from the first experiment to the next, but they are steps that have to be done to properly study chemical X.
|
On September 14 2010 10:53 freelander wrote:
(except my older sister is working on his final thesis)
Did anyone else catch this?
Moving on (lol), it was an interesting read and definitely gives me perspective on my future. As a student in his senior year of high school (young for such a topic, i know) i've been kinda wavering in exactly how far i want to push my education. I have the brains to do studies in my intended major (computer engineering) but I'm just not sure how suited I would be for the situation.
I'm definitely taking interest in the posts though (barring a series of arguments on how valid PhDs are in a variety of fields)
|
On September 14 2010 12:36 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:25 Rev0lution wrote:
Sure, but research doesn't work all the time and experiments could be repeated at least 10 times until shit finally happens the way you want it.
Take Organic Chemistry, shit is not all that complicated. You need about two years of theory. Two years of lab and you could do any experiment from any procedure.
Of course, making your own experiments takes practice and synthesizing is about as much an art as is a science. The difference from a technician and a good researcher is grand though.
That's what biologists and chemists refer to as bench skills over theory skills. You have a good point. I have taking 3 courses in organic chemistry and I have done tons of labs as requirements for the course. There is a lecturer who serves as a TA and a supervisor for the labs. She does not have a PhD, but she is highly knowledgeable: she can discern good and bad end products just by looking at it; she can save synthesis procedures from immediate disaster. She has very strong "bench skills", as you call it. I am sure a PhD graduate in chemistry also have this kind of skills. However I am not certain about psychology. In psychology experiments you do not have that level of control over what you do, because psychology experiments are supposed to be double-blind. Perhaps there are certain level of expertise that will distinguish you from others, but right now I don't see it. Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:33 AppleTart wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Wow... I don't even know where to begin... First of all PHD comics is just a joke, its for laughs but its far from the reality. Biological sciences and Chemistry are very important to the field of science as well as math and physics.... you are really not a scientist yourself for making that kind of statement. Don't even call yourself a scientist really... And if you aren't one, I hope you never become one. Sorry. I don't think I ever said those fields of science are menial. In fact I have repeatedly stressed that those are important fields.
If anything I would say a PHD in genetics will benefit mankind more than a PHD in like wormhole quantum string theory (yeah I just made that up but you get the point).
I admire all forms of science, but personally I want to go for some more... shall I say... knowledge with more concrete application, like engineering. There's enough stuff to try to fix than try to figure out the next big wormhole theory atm.
Really I am just disgusted, you pretty much implied that biology and chemistry don't truly approach the limit of human knowledge and you are dead wrong, because I would argue that we learned more from those two in the past 10 years than we have from astrophysics.
But who cares, all of us are working together to push the boundaries farther. The only field where I am sorta even remotely meh about is PHD in History....
|
United States24724 Posts
I'm almost done with my Masters... after that I have an option to get an Ed.D. but it's probably not worth it for me.
|
I think you are basing 'Psychology Research' too much on what you see at your University. Psychology experiments are not all supposed to be double-blind and you generally have a good deal of control over them (the research would probably not be approved if you didn't). There are many different methods for experiments, especially if you consider qualitative research in addition to quantitative. Everyone wants to believe their field is the most important but insulting other fields based on what you think is not the way to prove your point. Regardless, this thread is about the PhD journey and not why one may be better than the other so feel free to discuss your journey and experience and lets keep it flame free please. 
|
Holy crap that was exactly what my dad told me before I headed off for uni
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
