| ▲ | colechristensen 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The whole idea of a PhD is acknowledging that a person has made a meaningful contribution. It is not "early work" but the end of early work. The masterpiece: the piece of work that proves a subject has mastered their craft. If you're still producing junk you haven't earned your PhD. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | breezybottom 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Well that's the ideal yes, but it's not the reality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jltsiren 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I guess I disagree with both of you. You probably have plenty of novel ideas in early career, but you almost certainly lack the experience and the basic understanding of your field to develop them properly. Most people have exhausted their own ideas by mid-career. But that that point, they should have the skills and the experience to work on the ideas they come across. (Looking back at my PhD, it's quite amusing how little did I understand. On the other hand, many of the choices I intuitively made turned out to have some value. But in some cases, understanding that properly took a decade of work by other people.) Your PhD work is an apprenticeship, after which you are expected to work as a journeyman. The masterpiece that qualifies you for independent work as a tenured professor is often called habilitation. Many academic cultures don't have those, because the expectations are so situational that they don't want to formalize them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vjk800 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That's how it was maybe 100 years ago. Now PhD is just another bit of school work. Sometimes people manage to do really great PhD work, but most of the time it's pretty mediocre or straight garbage. In some ways, people doing research now have it way more difficult than people of the past. They have hundreds of years worth of research to study before they are on top of things and making an original contribution that stands out among the huge amount of research that already exists is really hard. If we want to keep PhD as a proof of meaningful work, then we ought to lengthen the graduate studies considerably. How about a 10 year PhD program, at the end of which you can really say you have mastered the field? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | foldr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That’s how people outside academia see PhDs. Inside academia, everyone has a PhD and it doesn’t really mean very much. It can take decades to really become an expert in a field, and a PhD program usually lasts around 5 years (in the US). | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||