a*****y
发帖数: 33185 | 1 Reform the PhD system or close it down
There are too many doctoral programmes, producing too many PhDs for the job
market. Shut some and change the rest, says Mark C. Taylor.
Mark Taylor
The system of PhD education in the United States and many other countries is
broken and unsustainable, and needs to be reconceived. In many fields, it
creates only a cruel fantasy of future employment that promotes the self-
interest of faculty members at the expense of students. The reality is that
there are very few jobs for people who might have spent up to 12 years on
their degrees.
Most doctoral-education programmes conform to a model defined in European
universities during the Middle Ages, in which education is a process of
cloning that trains students to do what their mentors do. The clones now
vastly outnumber their mentors. The academic job market collapsed in the
1970s, yet universities have not adjusted their admissions policies, because
they need graduate students to work in laboratories and as teaching
assistants. But once those students finish their education, there are no
academic jobs for them.
“Most doctoral programmes conform to a model defined in the middle ages.”
Universities face growing financial challenges. Most in the United States,
for example, have not recovered from losses incurred on investments during
the financial fiasco of 2008, and they probably never will. State and
federal support is also collapsing, so institutions cannot afford to support
as many programmes. There could be an upside to these unfortunate
developments: growing competition for dwindling public and private resources
might force universities to change their approach to PhD education, even if
they do not want to.
There are two responsible courses of action: either radically reform
doctoral programmes or shut them down.
The necessary changes are both curricular and institutional. One reason that
many doctoral programmes do not adequately serve students is that they are
overly specialized, with curricula fragmented and increasingly irrelevant to
the world beyond academia. Expertise, of course, is essential to the
advancement of knowledge and to society. But in far too many cases,
specialization has led to areas of research so narrow that they are of
interest only to other people working in the same fields, subfields or sub-
subfields. Many researchers struggle to talk to colleagues in the same
department, and communication across departments and disciplines can be
impossible.
If doctoral education is to remain viable in the twenty-first century,
universities must tear down the walls that separate fields, and establish
programmes that nourish cross-disciplinary investigation and communication.
They must design curricula that focus on solving practical problems, such as
providing clean water to a growing population. Unfortunately, significant
change is unlikely to come from faculty members, who all too often remain
committed to traditional approaches. Students, administrators, trustees and
even people from the public and private sectors must create pressure for
reform. It is important to realize that problems will never be solved as
long as each institution continues to act independently. The difficulties
are systemic and must be addressed comprehensively and cooperatively.
Prestige is measured both within and beyond institutions by the number and
purported strength of a department's doctoral programmes, so, seeking
competitive advantage and financial gain from alliances with the private
sector, universities continue to create them. As is detailed on page 276,
that has led most fields to produce too many PhDs for too long.
The solution is to eliminate programmes that are inadequate or redundant.
The difficult decisions should be made by administrators, in consultation
with faculty members at their own and other universities, as well as
interested, informed and responsible representatives beyond the academic
community who have a vested interest in effective doctoral education. To
facilitate change, universities should move away from excessive competition
fuelled by pernicious rating systems, and develop structures and procedures
that foster cooperation. This would enable them to share faculty members,
students and resources, and to efficiently increase educational
opportunities. Institutions wouldn't need a department in every field, and
could outsource some subjects. Teleconferencing and the Internet mean that
cooperation is no longer limited by physical proximity.
Consortia could contain a core faculty drawn from the home department, and a
rotating group of faculty members from other institutions. This would
reduce both the number of graduate programmes and the number of faculty
members. Students would have access to more academic staff with more diverse
expertise in a wider range of fields and subfields. Faculty members will
resist, but financial realities make a reduced number of posts inevitable.
Higher education in the United States has long been the envy of the world,
but that is changing. The technologies that have transformed financial
markets and the publishing, news and entertainment industries are now
disrupting the education system. In the coming years, growing global
competition for the multibillion-dollar education market will increase the
pressure on US universities, just when public and private funding is
decreasing. Although significant change is necessary at every level of
higher education, it must start at the top, with total reform of PhD
programmes in almost every field. The future of our children, our country
and, indeed, the world depends on how well we meet this challenge.
Mark C. Taylor is chair of the department of religion at Columbia University
in New York and the author of Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming
Our Colleges and Universities (Knopf, 2010). e-mail:m***[email protected] | a*****y
发帖数: 33185 | 2 If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise
comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant '
Report this comment' link.
Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.
#20273
Indeed, there are many Ph.D. programs that can be closed. The first one on
my list to close would be the Religion program in Columbia university. Why
do we need Ph.D.'s specializing in religion? Leave that area to the rabis
and ministers!
Report this comment2011-04-20 03:13:28 PM
Posted by: Gilad Haran#20278
when i read these editorials – and i have seen a lot of them lately – i
get nervous. i get nervous because on the one hand, i've seen just about
every other PhD graduate from the program i went through (in experimental
psychology) go on to get a job in academia. that program has something like
a 25% graduate rate (i.e. graduates versus entrants), so i also remember a
lot of students who quit early and found something better to do.
so i wonder – why doesn't it look as difficult as it supposedly is? i'm in
the middle of what i expect to be a 4-5 years postdoc. i do kind of expect
that when this is done, i should be able to find a job somewhere. am i as
delusional as this guy (taylor) makes me feel? or am i missing something?
i.e., is he just talking about humanities phds?
somebody, help me out here.
Report this comment2011-04-20 05:30:57 PM
Posted by: Zhu Huang#20280
The whole research system, at least in Biology, needs a serious reform. It
starts from PhD, but does not end there. The quality of faculties, the way
we attract, groom and promote students/faculties – all are facing a serious
challenge.
Many faculties attract students with utter lies, engage them as cheap,
sometimes even free labor (which is supported by many universities, by
making such free labor "mandatory" for the student, as per course
requirements). Majority of faculties have NO intension to do any meaningful
research to teach those students and postdocs to solve any real world
problem, to develop novel drugs, or new technology or novel plant variety
that can resist biotic or abiotic stress and so on. They are just used to
generate, mostly, meaningless data- just for publications. Any invention or
innovation is a mere coincidence or byproduct.
After a grueling PhD and postdoc tenure, they are not of much good for most
of the jobs, except academic ones (to keep the same cycle rolling). That's
why the rate of innovation and invention is becoming rarer in any field of
biology. Big companies are cutting down its R&D units simply because THERE
ARE NOT MANY USEFUL CANDIDATES TO INNOVATE OR INVENT REAL DRUGS OR
TECHNOLOGIES OR PLANT VARIETIES AFTER "SUCCESSFULLY" COMPLETING THE ASSEMBLY
LINE OF SO-CALLED ACADEMIC RESEARCH. The actual talented people are
meticulously weeded out by this ruthless majority of mediocrity, promoted by
the universities, government regulatory agencies and also by funding
agencies.
Report this comment2011-04-20 06:20:19 PM
Posted by: B. B. Goel#20287
This column displays a naive view of the purpose of PhD's, and of higher
education in general. Rather surprising coming from a chair in a humanities
department.
Report this comment2011-04-20 07:32:34 PM
Posted by: Devin Trudeau#20301
Fierce competition for academic positions is the only way to maintain
excellence in academia. That's why academia needs more qualified Ph.D.-
holding candidates than there are vacancies. Otherwise every Ph.D. graduate
would be guaranteed a tenure-track position. It seems like that is what most
of the authors and commentators here advocate. But society's interest in
having its investments in research to be put into most efficient use by the
most qualified people surely makes some extra spending to maintain
competition and sustain excellence worthwhile. The populist goal of matching
every Ph.D. candidate with a well-compensated satisfying permanent job in
academia may seem humane and desirable, but it is not necessarily in the
best interest of society as a whole. There is an obvious contradiction in
most of the articles here: they claim that Ph.D. overproduction as an
established fact, while at the same time stating that unemployment level
among Ph.D. holders is lowest of all educational levels.
So earning a Ph.D. clearly improves everyone's employment prospects. How
does it square with the argument that many of those positions do not require
a degree and resources are wasted on training people for them? Even if that
argument had some merit, those extra costs have to be compared with
advantages the society gains from having an excellent merit-based academic
research system. Some measure of frustration and disappointment among the
less successful contestants who chose to participate in this competitive
system is unavoidable and is not unreasonable price to pay. Is it really all
that different from other walks of life where competition is the norm, i.e.
sports, literature or show business? After all nobody forces people to
enter those Ph.D. programs, do they?
Report this comment2011-04-20 10:52:28 PM
Posted by: Igor Litvinyuk#20302
This is a horribly written article from an author who seems to hold a very
narrow view of what a Ph.D. is good for. Biotech companies, the
semiconductor industry, media, business consulting, law firms, Wall Street,
even Apple and Google employ Ph.D.s. Their niche knowledge is exactly what
makes them valuable to these corporations. Even in academia, there exist
positions that a Ph.D. can fit in, though not every job needs to be in
Harvard or Columbia (just as all people trained in finance simply can't work
at Goldman Sachs).
I agree that Ph.D. programs can benefit from teaching grad students
additional skills like persuasive communication, and interaction with the
community, but some of it does occur in the shape of manuscripts, talks and
conferences.
The author of this piece simply resorts to making broad, sweeping, generic
statements without any examples (other than vaguely linking hands-on
training with the middle ages) or concrete solutions. Is this directed only
at the humanities, or religion Ph.D.s? In that case...
Report this comment2011-04-21 12:44:43 AM
Posted by: Sourabh Banerjee#20303
This article is likely to be misunderstood and misquoted by media and news
paper. Why didnt author talk about the Ph.D degrees in the Religion, which
is his subject
Report this comment2011-04-21 01:40:47 AM
Posted by: K T Varughese#20307
Verily, PhD holders are swarming the job market in most developed nations,
with a good number of them ending up with jobs irrelevant to their research.
Often the thesis supervisors make the PhD students focus on their own on-
going highly specific research projects, so as to maintain a kind of
continuity. However, most of the experience and expertise gained by the post
-graduates had little to do with the requirement of job markets.
This must change. Most PhD programmes should be reviewed and revised
periodically so as to meet the need of the society. Otherwise, universities
may be blamed for squandering the increasingly rarer and precious funds. (
btt1943)
Report this comment2011-04-21 02:36:28 AM
Posted by: B T Tan#20311
In INDIA the scenario is other way around. Due to lack of Political grounds,
India is loosing several bright PhD Students as they plan to fly abroad to
do PhD or to get a PhD degree. Govt. in India is still yet to realize that
all the worthy brains are working for other countries research and
development. In INDIA,the pay of doctorate or post doc is very very bad.
They are paid 80% less compared to a undergraduate who work in a company in
IT Sector. This is the reason lot of young Indians do not seek for PhD as
they believe it as waste of time. Problem lies with the govt. They need to
realize that for economic prosperity ones countries research and development
should be so strong. Here in INDIA they give least priorities. Very Less
Scholarships for so many hungry for education. I fear, This would continue,
2020 India to be super power will never be reality.
Report this comment2011-04-21 03:26:29 AM
Posted by: Vijeth Kumar#20312
Though I mostly agree with the argument, I object how he has named his "
quite-excellent" essay.
I would not have ordered the "shut down" of the university system at the
beginning of the text by the title of " Reform the PhD system or close it
down" . However, since the author is an expert on the subject that solely
only gives orders to the human kind, I evaluate his explicit order as the
influence of the "religion" on the way that he talks. I remove his order,
then the essay sounds in harmony with scientific logic.
Report this comment2011-04-21 04:13:54 AM
Posted by: Qasem Ex.#20325
How would thesis supervisors and heads of department increase their
publication records in this "publish or perish" plagued academic world
without the exploitation of PhD students? Those institutions that "move away
from excessive competition fuelled by pernicious rating systems, and
develop structures and procedures that foster cooperation" (quote from
Taylor's article) would face the risk of being closed down due to producing
less scientific output (in terms of papers) than their competitors. The race
will go on...
Report this comment2011-04-21 08:49:12 AM
Posted by: Christian Kampichler#20326
It's not actually limited to the PhD system. Many university courses are
faced with the increasing pressure to attract as many students as possible
to attain proper financial support from governments. At the same time, there
is an increased pressure on students to perform well (in some countries,
like the Netherlands), due to the negative general opinion of the job market
for those who are not well educated. With diminishing population sizes and
the lasting effects of the financial crisis, there is a decreasing demand
for students and an increased demand for cheap work forces.
In times like these, students will notice that a university degree is not
limited to their area of expertise. Competition is fierce...
Report this comment2011-04-21 09:15:23 AM
Posted by: Onne Ronda#20327
People like Sourabh Banerjee and few others who commented on the article are
either having very vague idea or benefitted from the current broken system.
It is well accepted and well written fact that we produce far more PhDs
than we (both academic and corporate houses) need. It is also very well
accepted fact that both innovation and invention is slowing down in recent
times. Investing more money or establishing new universities/institutes will
not solve any of the problems in terms of innovation or invention but will
increase the problem we witness in other old institutes/universities.
There are admissions from many people and funding agencies that athere is
very less chance to get another Einstein and Mandela type genius
scientists in modern times. It is not because we stopped producing those,
but we do not groom, promote such people any more. Even the few remaining
able scientists do not like to take ahigh riska research, mainly for
grant availability and pressure to publish- fast and more. Grooming of both
PhD and postdoc is very low and diminishing fast; simply because that is not
so remunerative to the faculties. Majority faculties want readily available
, decently trained postdocs (to do routine experiments and data collection)
than to train an otherwise brilliant student/postdoc for a new techniques.
Many times it has been observed that academic research is dictated by
private companies that develop technology and equipment. Recent over-
emphasizing of a-omicsa type survey type aresearcha practically
guarantee steady flow of data at the expanse of truly novel research.
Basically our current research produces mainly technicians, rather than a
scientistsa or atechnocratsa.
One can read the excellent book by Erwin Chargaff, aHeraclitean Fire:
Sketches from a Life Before Naturea to know since when and how we reached
this present status of academic research.
Report this comment2011-04-21 09:23:45 AM
Posted by: B. B. Goel#20329
People like Sourabh Banerjee and few others who commented on the article are
either having very vague idea or benefitted from the current broken system.
It is well accepted and well written fact that we produce far more PhDs
than we (both academic and corporate houses) need. It is also very well
accepted fact that both innovation and invention is slowing down in recent
times. Investing more money or establishing new universities/institutes will
not solve any of the problems in terms of innovation or invention but will
increase the problem we witness in other old institutes/universities.
There are admissions from many people and funding agencies that athere is
very less chance to get another Einstein and Mandela type genius
scientists in modern times. It is not because we stopped producing those,
but we do not groom, promote such people any more. Even the few remaining
able scientists do not like to take ahigh riska research, mainly for
grant availability and pressure to publish- fast and more. Grooming of both
PhD and postdoc is very low and diminishing fast; simply because that is not
so remunerative to the faculties. Majority faculties want readily available
, decently trained postdocs (to do routine experiments and data collection)
than to train an otherwise brilliant student/postdoc for a new techniques.
Many times it has been observed that academic research is dictated by
private companies that develop technology and equipment. Recent over-
emphasizing of survey type "-omics" research practically guarantee steady
flow of data at the expanse of truly novel research. Basically our current
research produces mainly technicians, rather than "scientists" or "
technocrats".
One can read the excellent book by Erwin Chargaff, "Heraclitean Fire:
Sketches from a Life Before Nature" to know since when and how we reached
this present failed status of academic research.
Report this comment2011-04-21 09:26:24 AM
Posted by: B. B. Goel#20332
There was a nice article in Current Science (India) published in January,
2011 explaining PhD situation of India
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25jan2011/145.pdf
In my personal view, after continuing PhD programme for nearly two years I
realized that it is a realy a Waste of Time and also realized that if you
realy want to do anything new, dont go for PhD..... dont worry if yoy realy
want to produce some nice journal papers (what most of the PhD student
forced to do to complete their PhD).. work Hard & try to produce results
without depending much on others.... people can show you a path and he can
not push you...
In my working experience, I have seen lots of face of PhD scholars, some
from India and some from abroad... but realy speaking... very few of them
realy have their 'domain' knowledge.. even dont know their basics...
I found a few types of PhD in India in last 7 years...
1. after Masters someone have no Job.. Thats why He/She need a PhD
2. Someone who has a job but needs Increament in their Salary... hence need
a PhD degree...
3.Another tendency is there in Indian students that what work is going on at
Abroad are all good... and try for any 'lower ranking' university...even
they are not able to clear the minmum GATE/NET in India
4. A very few of them likes the subject and go for a PhD. Some of them realy
dont bother about the university name but produce very nice results
In my personal opinion, I think PhD system shoud be changed...
Report this comment2011-04-21 11:39:55 AM
Posted by: Abhik Kumar Das#20334
After years of preparation and hard work, nobody wants to think that they're
undertaking a PhD (or post-doc) program in vain. On the other hand, this
isn't the first such editorial I've read. Nature has seen fit to put
together an entire Special section on "THE FUTURE OF THE PHD". You would all
be well-advised to investigate it-- especially if you believe the author of
this piece is way off base.
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/phdfuture/index.html
Report this comment2011-04-21 11:56:18 AM
Posted by: Richard Roy#20335
Very pleased to read what you have written about more cooperation instead of
competition.
Sometimes you can't avoid competitions. For example, when you have limited
resources (e.g. number of students that can be accepted per year in a school
, or articles in a journal.) But sometimes people create artificial
competitions, or give too much importance to it, because that makes them
feel like they are producing more, or doing more relevant work.
It feels good and right to explain your boss and everybody else that you
have "conquered" a certain number of articles in certain conferences. It
feels good to say that you have "beaten" your colleagues by reaching a
greater GPA, etc. All that competition creates an illusion of having been
doing hard and relevant work, and gives managers a feeling of doing justice.
It goes very well with that "meritocracy" thing.
But when we focus too much on competition we don't consider the quality and
relevance of the work. That's where cooperation enters. The good research is
not that which has beaten the work of other researchers, but the research
that helps others.
The focus on competition stimulates the research on "sub-subfields". These
narrow fields allow researchers to conquer a certain place where they "beat"
everyone else to it. Cooperation stimulates bringing different areas
together, and creating more dialog between inside and outside the academy.
Report this comment2011-04-21 12:43:05 PM
Posted by: Nicolau Werneck#20336
B.B. Goel has hit the nail on the head. Just because you may not like what
Taylor has to say, it doesn't mean he is incorrect. It is a fact that the
number of PhD's far outweighs the number of available jobs. As a Postdoc, I
currently work in an atmosphere with several other scientists. Many of us
are trying to find opportunities (academic or otherwise), but there is VERY
little out there. Even though there may be more opportunities for scientists
outside the academia these days, these areas are also quickly becoming
saturated. For students insisting on starting a PhD in the life sciences in
2011, my advice is to work hard to develop transferrable skills, and accept
the fact that your future job will likely have more to do with a developed
skill-set than a specific project. If you are completely set on obtaining
the elusive academic position, you are likely in for a very rude awakening.
Many of the friends I made during my PhD have left academia and/or science
all together. One colleague was "nearly" short listed for an academic
position in the U.S. - a position that generated over 350 applicants. I have
heard stories of academic institutions hiring junior staff with better CVs
than many existing senior faculty members. These are not made up stories.
They are reality. Best of luck to those of you making the decision to pursue
your PhD in these uncertain times. You will likely find something out there
(as I'm sure I will), but it might be very different from what you
originally had in mind.
Report this comment2011-04-21 01:29:11 PM
Posted by: Shelley Sandiford#20346
As a recent biology PhD graduate, I feel that many of Mr. Taylor's
criticisms of the PhD system are accurate. However, I feel he overlooks the
reality that many of us pursuing PhDs in the sciences would like to make a
career out of performing basic benchwork in an academic setting.
Unfortunately, the reality is that these positions are rare unless you
obtain a highly-coveted faculty position. A while back Nature published an
excellent article by Jennifer Rohn, where she proposes the establishment of
career postdoc positions as a potential solution to the PhD backlog.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110302/full/471007a.html
I think it's a reasonable and smart suggestion beyond those proposed by Mr.
Taylor.
Report this comment2011-04-21 05:15:05 PM
Posted by: Lindsay Schwarz#20347
Too many PhDs? That depends on what field you are talking about. Taylor
lumps them all together, which is completely unwarranted. Maybe there are
too many Medieval French Literature PhDs, but there arenat too many
science and engineering PhDs.
In science and engineering, students are supported by grants and other
funding. (Students who can go out and get a $60K job any time they want
arenat willing to pay for graduate school the way they did for undergrad.)
This puts a governor on PhD production aif you canat get funding, you
canat take on more students. And funding sources are responding to the
value that the research (and the students) provide. All is fine.
In much of the humanities, PhD students must pay their own way. If they get
funding, it is generally to teach or grade for undergraduate courses. So if
you are qualified and willing to pay, you can enroll in a PhD program. There
is no natural governor to limit PhD production.
But arenat the students who enroll in a PhD program with no support and
little opportunity for post-graduation employment adults? Arenat they able
to make their own decisions? So long as the universities are honest with
them about their future prospects, why is it a problem if they decide to
study Medieval French Literature?
Of all the problems that exist in the world, a surplus of PhDs is low on my
list of things that need to be addressed.
Report this comment2011-04-21 05:31:34 PM
Posted by: Chris Mack#20354
yawn
SSDD
Nature rent a mouthpiece for a just weak enough to a LOL 'firebrand'
editorial. An RE prof telling scientists how to fix house in the number 1
science journal in the world.
Riiiight....cos that makes obvious sense.
And then we come here and click and point and yell like obedient mice at our
nicotine lever. Smells like a waste of time to me and increased advertising
revenue for Nature.
Anyone who counts knows what the "problem" is, and the majority of us in
life science know there is actually no problem. It just sucks to be a junior
scientist. The rest of the endeavor is working just fine.
yawn
Report this comment2011-04-21 10:15:54 PM
Posted by: Ian Brooks#20357
The intent of the phD programs should not be for employment training, but
for giving direction to academic endeavor. Just about every phD is over
qualified for their job, but we need them to be the thinkers of the world.
Trough the trickle down of knowledge and education, phD's provide more to
society than can be quantitatively substantiated. They may not even file a
tax return before they're 40 but they've already contributed more than their
fair share to society.
Report this comment2011-04-21 11:13:46 PM
Posted by: Emil McMahon#20359
The problem is not that there are too many PhD. The problem is that there
are much less jobs outside academia, in North America specifically, that
require a PhD degree. In the past many bright PhD went not to academia but
to research divisions of big corporations, where they contributed to
development of novel innovative products and made good science at the same
time. In my area lots of fundamental work was done by people from places
like IBM, RCA, etc. And where is RCA now?
Now corporations do not do R&D. They watch the bottom line and move
production to China and other countries. Little wonder there is such a
demand in China, the R&D jobs follow the production facilities. It makes
little sense to keep an R&D department 10,000 miles from the production. So
these jobs disappeared.
Now the new breakthrough research is supposedly being done in universities,
by people like me (I am a mid-career prof in Canada, materials research).
However, I am forced to work with graduate students and (very rarely)
postdocs because I do not have sufficient funding. This is partially a
Canadian problem where an average grant size is slightly over $30,000 per
year. Well, most of us have more than one grant, so we survive, but there is
no way we could create permanent scientist positions, there are neither
sufficient funds nor indeed room in the university structure to accommodate
such kinds of jobs. Our main granting agency in sciences and engineering in
fact specifically forbids funding of a pdf position for more than two years
from its funds (!). This lowers dramatically the productivity of my research
. Having experienced stuff scientist positions available at the universities
would enable me to increase the efficiency of my research (and investments
into my group by the granting agencies). This would also solve, at least in
part, the problem of having not enough academia jobs for all recent PhDs.
Now I have to take new students because I need people to work on my projects
, but as soon as I have trained them, I have to kick them out and start all
over again, while they are hard pressed to find good jobs. I, or my
colleagues, do need them, we would have taken them, and our research would
benefit enormously, but we have no way to do so. We would also then take
less graduate students thus reducing the glut of PhD graduates we have to
produce to keep our funding and increasing the overall PhD level, which
indeed becomes somewhat low in recent years.
There are a few professors in my Department who are somehow able to support
stuff scientists, but only because they have long-term industrial funding.
However, these are really exceptions. There have been comments on another
thread about a professor who was doing the same and having hard time
justifying her budgets for grant agencies. The university system in North
America is not equipped for this. And this may be a bad thing because the
current level of complexity of the cutting edge research requires more, not
less qualified people to develop novel breakthrough technologies. So the
fault is not with how we train PhDs, the fault is how we fail to use them
properly.
Report this comment2011-04-22 12:21:51 AM
Posted by: Oleg Semenikhin#20365
PHD programs need some changes so that we can use the results to solve
problems facing the world population.There are many more geninue issue to be
addressed then your phd topic,just have a look.
Report this comment2011-04-22 06:20:33 AM
Posted by: Pawan Bashyal#20374
I am very surprised to see the article , that also referred to me by a
person who works in the area of 'humanities'
What is the purpose doing research? We need to answer the question before
going to comment about its fruitfulness.
Many of the research works which are fundamental in nature , did not see any
light of applicability initially. But those were only felt when after a
long time , some other person came out with an applied dimension with it.
But that was , at some point in time , useless.
I understand, Taylors opines that India needs more PhD because there is a
market for that. This a different aspect.
If research is a machine to make people eligible for market then we could
have market-need based research.
May be economy can be enhanced for their absorption.
Then , I believe there is bleak opportunity to do research in many areas of
education. The quality of work can't be determined as such in many cases. We
need have expert opinion in each area to comprehend its contributory nature.
I don't find any empirical attempt by Taylor to prove his opinion.
Report this comment2011-04-22 01:09:48 PM
Posted by: Bhaskar RK#20375
I am very surprised to see the article , that also referred to me by a
person who works in the area of 'humanities'
What is the purpose doing research? We need to answer the question before
going to comment about its fruitfulness.
Many of the research works which are fundamental in nature , did not see any
light of applicability initially. But those were only felt when after a
long time , some other person came out with an applied dimension with it.
But that was , at some point in time , useless.
I understand, Taylors opines that India needs more PhD because there is a
market for that. This a different aspect.
If research is a machine to make people eligible for market then we could
have market-need based research.
May be economy can be enhanced for their absorption.
Then , I believe there is bleak opportunity to do research in many areas of
education. The quality of work can't be determined as such in many cases. We
need have expert opinion in each area to comprehend its contributory nature.
I don't find any empirical attempt by Taylor to prove his opinion.
Report this comment2011-04-22 01:10:39 PM
Posted by: Bhaskar RK#20379
I must admit that my initial response to this article is something along the
lines of: "Stop complaining and be creative with your career choices.
Getting a PhD in any field doesn't mean you must become a professor or an
industry researcher. The PhD imparts general skills that are applicable to
many professions and disciplines."
In other words, the value of your PhD doesn't necessarily depend on its
ability to land you a job as an assistant professor. If you had the
intelligence and persistence to complete your PhD, those qualities should
also help you carve out a unique, challenging career outside of academia. It
's up to YOU.
Two things are obvious here: 1) there is a glut of PhD's, and 2) Most of
those PhD's believe their only respectable option after graduating is to try
to become a professor.
Point no. 1 is unlikely to change in the near future, since we need that
glut of PhD's to advance science (please think about that point). But point
no. 2 is where we can change – and it's up to the graduates themselves, not
the universities or the funding agencies.
Report this comment2011-04-22 03:36:16 PM
Posted by: Tim Fulmer#20385
While doctoral training has so far surely proven to be beneficial on the
global educational scene, nonetheless, it is long overdue that this system
be overhauled.
The need of the hour also is to fix stringent international guidelines and
standards for doctoral degrees. Two of the well established academic systems
, namely the European and the U.S. also need overhauling. For example,
though the European system is more consummate than the U.S. one (the U.S.
one is often too narrow and thus can generate super-technicians), the U.S.
one in general has the advantage of being more flexible than the European
system. Mainly due to the fact it is an older educational system, often the
European one tends to suffer from rigidity.
In the end while international criterion may be fixed for doctoral degrees,
nevertheless, we must still tolerate variety. Variety in essence can prime
creativity.
Dr. Upinder Fotadar
Report this comment2011-04-22 04:05:55 PM
Posted by: Upinder Fotadar#20388
The Economist.com recently published an article entitled "The disposable
academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time" with real data to backup
the article's premise. Read it at http://www.economist.com/node/17723223.
Report this comment2011-04-22 04:40:59 PM
Posted by: Reginald Mullin#20391
Nonsense.
Nonsense, I say.
Does having a Ph.D. assure one a tenure track job — and eventually tenure
— at a university of one's choice, blissfully teaching and publishing and
doing generally scholarly things over the course of several decades? Of
course not, nor should it.
Is obtaining a Ph.D. always the right thing to do? Again, no, of course not.
But it should indicate something. One who holds a Ph.D. has shown a breadth
of knowledge in a field as well as a substantial corpus of original research
in that field. No more and no less. And, frankly, it's a considerable
amount of effort, typically requiring an appropriate level of talent.
But, at its essence, it has to be recognized that if knowledge is not at
least to a significant extent its own reward, it all breaks down. It
includes preparation for being an academic, but it is not a jobs program.
Now the part about breaking down boundaries between disciplines — that I
have to agree with. Lines are redrawn as both the world and the way we think
about it changes.
One last point: When I think of the "financial considerations", I have to
wonder: Why is it that it seems so challenged now as opposed to decades ago?
Could it be that we've forgotten the mission? Could it be that we've built
greater and greater temples to the idea of knowledge, without realizing the
savings that technology has provided? I look at the University of Texas down
the street, and I see many more buildings, much more "luxe" and, yet, the
same number of students. And tuition has risen more than healthcare. (And I
won't even get to the case of my beloved old haunts in the Heights of
Morningside.)
We need at least a thread of the pursuit of knowledge that exists outside of
commerce.
Report this comment2011-04-22 05:21:49 PM
Posted by: Artie Gold#20393
A big NO NO to article as closign down PhD means no research or NO QUALITY
research; MOST OF RESEARCH COMES FROM OFCORSE SCIENTISTS/PROFESSORS BUT U
KNOW THE THESE ARE STUDENTS WHO ARE PURSUING PHD WHO PRODUCE MOST OF THE
SCIFINETIC DATA; SO RESEARCH WOULD BE BADLY AFFCTED AND IF ANY THING MATTERS
THE MOST IN FAST CHANING WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY IT IS THE RESEARCH; CLOSING
PHD MEANS CLOISNG RESEARCH AND THAT MEANS NO PROGRESS; YA I AGREE WITH
SECOND POINT THAT SUFICIENT JOBS MUST BE CREATED RATHER PHD,S MUST NOT LOOK
TO ACADEMIA ONLY FOR THIER JOBS BUT HTEY MUST BE TRAINED IN WAY THAT THEY
CAN SERVE INDUSTRY, COMPANY OR AT VARIOUS OTHER AREAS;CURRICULA MUST BE
MODIFIED KEEPING IN VIEW OF NEEDS OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE..
Report this comment2011-04-22 05:46:15 PM
Posted by: bijender bajaj#20394
A big NO NO to VIEWS OF MR. TAYLOR IN article as closign down PhD means no
research or NO QUALITY research; MOST OF RESEARCH COMES FROM OFCORSE
SCIENTISTS/PROFESSORS BUT U KNOW THE THESE ARE GRADUATE (DOING PHD) STUDENTS
WHO ARE TOILING HARD DAY IN N DAY OUT WHO PRODUCE MOST OF THE SCIFINETIC
DATA; SO RESEARCH WOULD BE BADLY AFFCTED; AND IF ANY THING MATTERS THE MOST
IN FAST CHANGING WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY IT IS THE RESEARCH; CLOSING PHD MEANS
CLOISNG RESEARCH AND THAT MEANS NO PROGRESS; YA I AGREE WITH SECOND POINT
THAT SUFICIENT JOBS MUST BE CREATED RATHER PHD,S MUST NOT LOOK TO ACADEMIA
ONLY FOR THIER JOBS BUT THEY MUST BE TRAINED IN WAY THAT THEY CAN SERVE
INDUSTRY, COMPANY OR AT VARIOUS OTHER AREAS;CURRICULA MUST BE MODIFIED
KEEPING IN VIEW OF NEEDS OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE..
Report this comment2011-04-22 05:50:06 PM
job
is
that
【在 a*****y 的大作中提到】
: Reform the PhD system or close it down
: There are too many doctoral programmes, producing too many PhDs for the job
: market. Shut some and change the rest, says Mark C. Taylor.
: Mark Taylor
: The system of PhD education in the United States and many other countries is
: broken and unsustainable, and needs to be reconceived. In many fields, it
: creates only a cruel fantasy of future employment that promotes the self-
: interest of faculty members at the expense of students. The reality is that
: there are very few jobs for people who might have spent up to 12 years on
: their degrees.
| O*********r
发帖数: 1835 | 3 这文章很中肯。
不过发在这里有点曲高和寡，这是 Dean 级别的人感兴趣的话题。 |
|
