
The Ph.D. Problem  - RyanMcGreal
http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/11/professionalization-in-academy
======
scott_s
"Academia" is not shorthand for "Humanities Academia." Maybe this author's
argument is true for the humanities, but I know some academic researchers in
science and engineering can move into industry. That is, their skills are
valued by people outside of their academic circle.

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't see how the article applies only to the humanities. It seems to be
about supply-and-demand and self-regulating professional bodies.

I think a lot of the considerations of the article apply to, for example,
mathematics.

Science and Engineering is the area with the most immediate application but
even here, there's quite divide between theoretical CS and what's practiced in
the field.

~~~
timwiseman
Could you elaborate?

You bring up an interesting possibility, but it is not intuitively obvious. In
mathematics it is relatively easy to break into the field with the backing of
an institution (I mean easy relative to doing the same thing in say English or
History, not in an absolute sense). In fact, there is a long tradition of
amateurs making some significant contributions, with Fermat being the crown
(if now somewhat dated example.)

Also, one of his major complaints is how long it takes to get the PHD. At
least at UNLV (where I am currently seeking a master's in Math) most of my
peers that are seeking their PHD expect to get it within 6 years after
starting their graduate studies. While this is still longer than a usual JD or
MD program, it is at the very low end of the 6-9 year spectrum that was
discussed in the article.

And while there is certainly a divide between theoretical mathematicians and
their applied counterparts (or scientists who us mathematics) it is almost
solely in choice of topic, not about disagreement over real facts, which you
can see in some topics in the humanities between the professors and the
general public.

------
miloshh
Focuses very much on a Ph.D. in English, which is in some ways the worst
rather than the average case.

However, the argument that getting a Ph.D. is getting harder while its
(financial) value is decreasing seems correct to me. That might not actually
be a bad thing, and is very much to be expected - the market value of doing
cool and interesting things goes down as the value of tedious or dangerous
jobs goes up. I think we will see even more of that in the future.

We keep complaining about people maximizing their profits rather than
happiness. But then, when some choose to pursue their interests and get PhD's
in areas that aren't so hot in the industry, we criticize them for bad career
decisions. Maybe everything's OK with the system, after all.

~~~
m0th87
Thank you! IMO, the smartest thing to do in life is to pursue the options that
maximize happiness. Money has a weak causal relationship with happiness[1].
Consequently, those getting a Ph.D. in English, for example, should do so if
that's what makes them happy, but they should know there will be little
returns from it.

It's the same reason why many of us on HN pursue independent employment:
there's been plenty of articles here indicating entrepreneurialism means lower
incomes than employment, and it most certainly has higher risk. But the real
satisfaction comes from being independent!

[1] <http://www.physorg.com/news70817137.html>

------
chasingsparks
The article briefly touched on something I find more dangerous: systemic
conformity in academia. If you want to be influential, your best bet is to
become allied to academia. As the article notes, "independent" researchers are
viewed with suspicion, if viewed at all. Since there are incentives to conform
(albeit loosely) to some norms while perusing a PH.D. there is a lot of hill
climbing and not a lot of long jumps.

~~~
psranga
"Long Jumps" is a myth imho.

What appears to be a long jump to a non-expert on first glance, on deeper
inspection will usually turn out to have involved multiple small incremental
steps culminating a final discovery. Since we have to acknowledge _somebody_
we usually pick the guy/gal who finished the job. I'm not saying that all work
is equal, but imho planning for long jumps is impossible (it's not like
researchers don't want to make big leaps in understanding).

Examples which have changed my mind about this: Andrew Wiles' Fermat proof,
evolution of RISC, quantum theories. I am pretty sure that if I dig into it,
I'll find that relativity and evolution also built upon previous work.

~~~
npk
> "Long Jumps" is a myth imho.

You are 100% on point.

The parent's poster's point on conformity is well taken. Still, "independent"
researchers are viewed with suspicion because research is hard. As psranga
points out, to make a long jump a researcher has to stay on top of the
incremental steps. Unfortunately, for 99.9% of people, to do this they must be
fluent with the literature and much more importantly talk with other
researchers. No one works in a vacuum (and don't bother bringing up counter
examples like einstein or newton).

Conformity is a big problem. It might arise when too many PhDs are hustling
for a small pie. I'm not sure.

~~~
stcredzero
_Conformity is a big problem._

What was the big heresy for one generation changes into "what you have to say
to get tenure" in another.

------
Shana
This is a conversation dominated by science majors.

I'm an art major. As in studio. Classic humanity major.

If I said "You should worry about what Adorno thinks about cultural production
when you make a web object, since it means potnetially you end up with a more
passive than active population: When you build an object on the web, how do
you plan on activating the population, because of his critique?"

Most people here would go huh? by the sound of this conversation. In Practice,
what humanities students say, especially when they sit down with engineers, is
important. It is a pity that there is no practical humanities anymore. It is
really useful to learn to think critically in that way about the world.

------
foldr
This is just what professional disciplines tend to be like, as the author
notes. You might just as well say that "the main product of structural
engineering is not the production of bridges but the reproduction of
structural engineering." It's probably true in the same sense that it's true
of academia, but so what?

~~~
Gupie
Structural engineers produce bridges, even if they are arguably just a side
produce. In the worst case academics only produce academics.

~~~
mquander
Academics also advance humanity's knowledge in their field through research
and writing, so that others may stand on their shoulders and see further.
Perhaps you don't believe that things like critical literary analysis are
providing us any actual benefit, but I disagree and I'm sure that any
humanities professor would disagree too.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I'm sincerely curious to hear your case in defence of critical literary
analysis.

~~~
foldr
Why would it need any defense? Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should
be reading literature and analyzing it? It's been an important part of Western
culture for a few thousand years. Seems like it would be a bit rash to give it
up now.

~~~
nkurz
Despite the literal intepretation, you might be mistaken in assuming that
"critical literary analysis" is the same as "reading literature and analyzing
it".

Instead, I think the phrase is being used here as a term of the art, referring
to something closer to "postmodern critical theory".

There are definitely those who wonder if this is useful. I too would be
interested in hearing a defense.

~~~
foldr
Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even
read any, so I'm not sure how to give a defense of work which people haven't
read. I expect that most of it is rather low in quality, but most of the work
done in every discipline is rather low in quality. And in any case, not all
literary criticism in the academy is "postmodern" in the invidious sense.

>Instead, I think the phrase ["critical literary analysis"] is being used here
as a term of the art,

There is no such term of art, as a quick google scholar search would tell you,
so I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally.

~~~
nkurz
_I see no reason not to interpret the OP literally_

Well, luckily even a casual adherence to postmodernism gives you that right!
But in my old fashioned manner, _I_ still think intentionality counts for
something, and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up
on reading. :)

 _Most of the people who whine about postmodern critical theory haven't even
read any_

I actually have read a fair bit, and periodically urge it on others, likely in
the same way that some people turn their friends onto LSD. Much of it is junk,
but some of it is gold. For example, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality
Volume 1" and "Discipline and Punish" permanently changed the way I see the
world around me.

So when I said I'd like to see a defense, I meant only that -- that I'd enjoy
it. And, of course, that John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual:
<http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html>

~~~
foldr
>and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on
reading. :)

He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary
criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google
search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a
stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it,
and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it.

>Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold.

So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it
"changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?

------
philk
Academia in the humanities field is particularly calcified and corrupt because
it's so hard to measure the quality of the output (or even if anyone wants it
at all).

At least with things like maths or computer science research can be verified
and has utility to the broader world.

~~~
foldr
On the other hand, the claim that the humanities are not "practical" has
become virtually a tautology, because "practical" has become almost a synonym
for "scientific". Nowadays, people don't seem to think that work on love or
ethics or aesthetics has practical value. I am not sure why, since actual
human lives are intimately concerned with these topics.

------
stcredzero
_The argument that they need the training to be qualified to teach
undergraduates is belied by the fact that they are already teaching
undergraduates._

But often: badly. (I was perhaps a prime example.)

------
oldgregg
The academy is really no different from mega-corporations like Wal-mart, both
revolve around money and power. Both are government subsidized. The
republicans fund their pet industries (military complex, healthcare, corporate
interests) until democrats seize power, yank their government subsidies, and
routes all that money into the academy, unions, etc (and doing a pretty damn
good job of catching up to republicans in terms of being corporate shills).

