Why Do PhDs Have a Negative Reputation?

[LightbulbSun]

Is there an origin to it that I'm missing? It seems like everyone I've come across gives PhDs a bad rap. You would almost have to concede from what I hear that PhDs are the least capable people of solving anything. So where does the negative rap come from?

 

[Integral]

Perhaps this is your perception?
Maybe you do not KNOW that many PhDs?

I am not aware of this.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not aware of PhDs getting a bad rap in general, other than by crackpots.

Zz.

 

[JasonRox]

I never heard of that. Getting a PhD is gold. You get paid well to study!

 

[rootX]

You get paid well to study!

Might not be true.


I heard it from a college (not university) professor who came to our high school once in my grade 12. Most people who go for small diplomas just to make quick money might also have negative views about Phd people. I personally know many people who think staying in college beyond 4 years is waste of money and time. There are just too many people who have no interest in knowledge ... all they want is to make big bucks with less possible amount of work/effort.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Just from my experience alone it seems like people lash out at people with PhDs, with some of them telling me little anecdotes about how one was the dumbest person in their office. I mean hell, if we go by this logic, why do people even bother graduating high school? It seems like more and more in America these days we're striving for less credentials.

 

[siddharth]

Working for 5-7 years on a research topic under the guidance of some of the best experts in the field is hardly a negative rap.

Many of the people I have met with a PhD are extremely knowledgeable about their field, and people who I, and many others, respect immensely. I don't understand why you think they get a negative rap?

 

[JasonRox]

Might not be true.


I heard it from a college (not university) professor who came to our high school once in my grade 12. Most people who go for small diplomas just to make quick money might also have negative views about Phd people. I personally know many people who think staying in college beyond 4 years is waste of money and time. There are just too many people who have no interest in knowledge ... all they want is to make big bucks with less possible amount of work/effort.

I get paid well at my Master's and I think by my Ph.D, I will have like 50% more money. That's pretty darn good.

 

[JasonRox]

It seems like more and more in America these days we're striving for less credentials.

I don't do it for credentials.

I do it to be surrounded by experts, like siddharth said, and do what I love.

 

[jostpuur]

Academic people can have reputation as being too theoretical, and unable to deal with real life problems and applications.

 

[SticksandStones]

I know what LightBulbSun is talking about. There are some people that just despise those that work towards knowledge. My father absolutely hates PhD's. When visiting colleges he always had snide remarks to make about every professor. He isn't exactly thrilled that my sister is working towards a doctorate to say the least.

Simply put he wasn't a good student and is jealous that people have excelled in an area he is weak in.

 

[khemix]

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

When I worked for my friends dad I heard how they don't want PhDs because they ask for too much money and are arrogant. I'm not by any means saying they are idiots, but the smartest people out there aren't going for PhDs. They're doing med, law, or business because they realize school is an investment. If you really are committed to research in a field, I don't see why grad school should be the place to go. You'd be in school until your 30s... that's basically half your life gone and your productive years too. In this time you can more thoroughly learn the material from books and walk away with an understanding instead of becoming an encyclopedic drone grad schools seem to create. The great minds of antiquity weren't in school until 30s, they got their PhDs by their early 20s. The talent of today isn't likely to invest that many years to walk away with relatively nothing as compared to a more lucrative degree. So the calibre of students getting PhDs is much lower. That and grad students suck at practical stuff.

 

[bassplayer142]

Academic people can have reputation as being too theoretical, and unable to deal with real life problems and applications.

That is exactly my take on this. I bet the majority that end up with a PHD are very very smart and as most people know, some people that are geniuses have trouble with social skills that everyday people take as them being stupid.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Simply put he wasn't a good student and is jealous that people have excelled in an area he is weak in.

I have not seen the attitude that LightbulbSun is describing but, if it exists, I wonder if SticksandStones has his finger on the root of it. My experience at school was frequently that some of the people with the best grades often had only the most shallow grasp of the subject and a couple of years later might have no retention at all of the material covered in a class they took with you.

(Only some of them, of course; but good grades seemed to primarily represent, rather than necessarily any degree of brilliance or genuine academic acumen, a developed skill at and effort invested in working the system.)

So if this attitude against PhDs exists, maybe people are extrapolating experiences like that with grade-earners to people with PhD's. It's always been my impression that experiences such as those are the reason why people use the term "the meritocracy" with derision.

⚛​

 

[rootX]

Is there an origin to it that I'm missing? It seems like everyone I've come across gives PhDs a bad rap. You would almost have to concede from what I hear that PhDs are the least capable people of solving anything. So where does the negative rap come from?

...

Answer:

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

When I worked for my friends dad I heard how they don't want PhDs because they ask for too much money and are arrogant. I'm not by any means saying they are idiots, but the smartest people out there aren't going for PhDs. They're doing med, law, or business because they realize school is an investment. If you really are committed to research in a field, I don't see why grad school should be the place to go. You'd be in school until your 30s... that's basically half your life gone and your productive years too. In this time you can more thoroughly learn the material from books and walk away with an understanding instead of becoming an encyclopedic drone grad schools seem to create. The great minds of antiquity weren't in school until 30s, they got their PhDs by their early 20s. The talent of today isn't likely to invest that many years to walk away with relatively nothing as compared to a more lucrative degree. So the calibre of students getting PhDs is much lower. That and grad students suck at practical stuff.

To be honest, that's pretty ignorant and immature answer but unfortunately, most people think like that :(.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

When I worked for my friends dad I heard how they don't want PhDs because they ask for too much money and are arrogant. I'm not by any means saying they are idiots, but the smartest people out there aren't going for PhDs. They're doing med, law, or business because they realize school is an investment. If you really are committed to research in a field, I don't see why grad school should be the place to go. You'd be in school until your 30s... that's basically half your life gone and your productive years too. In this time you can more thoroughly learn the material from books and walk away with an understanding instead of becoming an encyclopedic drone grad schools seem to create. The great minds of antiquity weren't in school until 30s, they got their PhDs by their early 20s. The talent of today isn't likely to invest that many years to walk away with relatively nothing as compared to a more lucrative degree. So the calibre of students getting PhDs is much lower. That and grad students suck at practical stuff.

I think that's pretty much ridiculous. If you think med or law is more difficult than physics then I'm safe to assume you haven't had exposure to any of the three. They're all difficult in their own way.

Just because we can't be "the next Einstein" doesn't mean we can't make a difference. SOMEONE has to discover the next big thing in physics, and I nearly guarantee you it won't be someone who never went to grad school and just self-taught. Not just because of the difficulty, but because of the lack of exposure to the field.

As for the length of getting the PhD. Its different than 100 years ago because the system is different, not the people. In the USA its pretty much you start university at 17-18, add 4 years for bachelors, then you go get your phd, another 4 years. so 25-26 near a median.

Remember too todays physics is very different. We have to learn what Einstein knew, and everything that has come after (Quantum Mech/FT, particle physics, etc) and there has been a LOT of advancement, many new research areas, and pretty much all of them require an expertise you would never gain from reading books on your own.

We're not learning the basics for another 5 years in grad school, we're honing our skills in individual research areas in order to actually be able to contribute.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I have not seen the attitude that LightbulbSun is describing but, if it exists, I wonder if SticksandStones has his finger on the root of it. My experience at school was frequently that some of the people with the best grades often had only the most shallow grasp of the subject and a couple of years later might have no retention at all of the material covered in a class they took with you.

(Only some of them, of course; but good grades seemed to primarily represent, rather than necessarily any degree of brilliance or genuine academic acumen, a developed skill at and effort invested in working the system.)

So if this attitude against PhDs exists, maybe people are extrapolating experiences like that with grade-earners to people with PhD's. It's always been my impression that experiences such as those are the reason why people use the term "the meritocracy" with derision.

⚛​

I agree with this completely. I have always gone through school completely unconcerned with my grades and more focused on learning the material. This lead to only 3.4 ish GPAs, but I feel I have an intuitive grasp on everything we've learned that others seem to lack. Even in late undergrad and now in grad school I've seen students solve a problem, and when I ask why they did a certain step they either don't know or they got it from a book.
I'd rather turn in an incomplete homework and get a 50% grade on it because I couldn't come up with my own answer than use untaught techniques and information I do not understand to complete it.
I hope this doesn't hurt me in the future...

 

[D H]

I have not seen the attitude that LightbulbSun is describing but, if it exists, I wonder if SticksandStones has his finger on the root of it.

khemix posted his pile of **** twenty minutes before your post, so you should have seen that attitude at work.

For all of you who do not know what the "bad rap against PhDs" is, I suggest you look up the terms egghead, nerd, geek, bookworm, highbrow, know-it-all, longhair, bluestocking, brainbox, ...

The US has always had a bit of an anti-intellectual streak to it. That pile of **** that khemix posted, and the derogatory words I posted, exemplify that streak. It's there and its real. That the current economic situation is being blamed by some on "Nobel-caliper physicists" is more evidence of the same.

 

[siddharth]

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

When I worked for my friends dad I heard how they don't want PhDs because they ask for too much money and are arrogant. I'm not by any means saying they are idiots, but the smartest people out there aren't going for PhDs. They're doing med, law, or business because they realize school is an investment. If you really are committed to research in a field, I don't see why grad school should be the place to go. You'd be in school until your 30s... that's basically half your life gone and your productive years too. In this time you can more thoroughly learn the material from books and walk away with an understanding instead of becoming an encyclopedic drone grad schools seem to create. The great minds of antiquity weren't in school until 30s, they got their PhDs by their early 20s. The talent of today isn't likely to invest that many years to walk away with relatively nothing as compared to a more lucrative degree. So the calibre of students getting PhDs is much lower. That and grad students suck at practical stuff.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Frankly, I think you don't have a clue on why people do their PhD. Perhaps you could actually try visiting a lab in a university, see the type of research work which goes on, and talk to the grad students. I believe you will find reality to be very different from what you think it is.

That is exactly my take on this. I bet the majority that end up with a PHD are very very smart and as most people know, some people that are geniuses have trouble with social skills that everyday people take as them being stupid.

Again, I don't think you've spoken to many graduate students. Most people with a PhD are obviously not the dull, socially inept stereotype as portrayed on TV.

 

[khemix]

I think that's pretty much ridiculous. If you think med or law is more difficult than physics then I'm safe to assume you haven't had exposure to any of the three. They're all difficult in their own way.

I don't think they are more difficult at all. In fact, I bet physics is harder due to its abstract nature which requires heavy thinking, whereas the other two are more about reciting facts. I think its much harder to get into med or law because you are competing with the countries best pool.

khemix posted his pile of **** twenty minutes before your post, so you should have seen that attitude at work.

For all of you who do not know what the "bad rap against PhDs" is, I suggest you look up the terms egghead, nerd, geek, bookworm, highbrow, know-it-all, longhair, bluestocking, brainbox, ...

The US has always had a bit of an anti-intellectual streak to it. That pile of **** that khemix posted, and the derogatory words I posted, exemplify that streak. It's there and its real. That the current economic situation is being blamed by some on "Nobel-caliper physicists" is more evidence of the same.

You misunderstood my post as well as the original. This thread is about why people think PhDs are dolts, not why they are nerds and socially intept which would in fact show the contrary.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Frankly, I think you don't have a clue on why people do their PhD. Perhaps you could actually try visiting a lab in a university, see the type of research work which goes on, and talk to the grad students. I believe you will find reality to be very different from what you think it is.

Again, I don't think you've spoken to many graduate students. Most people with a PhD are obviously not the dull, socially inept stereotype as portrayed on TV.

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates. And I only know my TAs as being grad students. Again, they aren't stupid but they are also nowhere near the cream of the crop. Perhaps you can enlighten me, who do people go for PhDs?

With a better answer maybe I can stop the bad rep, atleast at work.

 

[siddharth]

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates. And I only know my TAs as being grad students. Again, they aren't stupid but they are also nowhere near the cream of the crop. Perhaps you can enlighten me, who do people go for PhDs?

With a better answer maybe I can stop the bad rep, atleast at work.

Sure. People can join a graduate program for a number of reasons.

* They might think that an undergraduate education only superficially covered certain areas, and they might have a desire to learn more and in detail to really understand a subject.

* They might want to participate in original research and contribute to existing knowledge in some field. There are plenty of incredibly smart people doing work which can have tremendous impact. For a simple example from engineering, the pinch design for heat integration invented by Linhoff as part of his PhD thesis has directly led to large energy savings in almost all chemical plants.

* They might also enjoy the academic atmosphere in a university. Research can be great fun with the right type of people.

* A PhD is a very rigorous program and gives you expertise in an area which might be a prerequisite for certain jobs one is interested in. Like R&D Labs, etc

They can be various other reasons. The right thing to do would be to talk to graduate students. I don't know how you define "cream of the crop", but graduate students are no intellectual slouches, and include some of the smartest people around.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

khemix posted his pile of **** twenty minutes before your post, so you should have seen that attitude at work.

For all of you who do not know what the "bad rap against PhDs" is, I suggest you look up the terms egghead, nerd, geek, bookworm, highbrow, know-it-all, longhair, bluestocking, brainbox, ...

The US has always had a bit of an anti-intellectual streak to it. That pile of **** that khemix posted, and the derogatory words I posted, exemplify that streak. It's there and its real. That the current economic situation is being blamed by some on "Nobel-caliper physicists" is more evidence of the same.

What you're describing there isn't what khemix and I were describing, though. I'm not saying that I agree with khemix, but we were each talking about people who have managed to earn some credential of being exceptionally smart - the high grades or the PhD - without necessarily being exceptionally smart. That's not anti-intellectualism, it's deriding the "all hat and no cattle" shallow intellectual poseur.

(I don't know whether either of these concepts are what LightbulbSun was talking about but in my comment you responded to, the examples of people who had high grades with no grasp of the subject are not describing intellectuals.)

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Come to think of it, here's another possible source of something like this: the earliest point in each of our lives when we associated with a large group of PhD's, for most of us, is probably when we go to college: the professors. And I can remember some college professors I was pretty unimpressed with at the time, who I'm still pretty unimpressed with today in retrospect. (Though conversely, there are some professors who I was mind-blowingly impressed with and still am.) Perhaps that's the source of any negative view of PhD's, experiences with college professors.

That could roll right into a derision of "the meritocracy", if one believes that there's a group of people whose only accomplishment in life is having earned gold stars from the academic establishment. (I still don't think that this would be the same thing as anti-intellectualism, though... intellectualism has at most an overlap with academia.)

⚛​

 

[mhill]

A Ph. D is gold .. as JasonROx said, specially if you live near your University , that's really a lottery :) but i know people who got .

I am paid (unfortunately i must go 600 km far away from my home) 1200 Euro per month for performing a thesis, this is the highest-paid job i have ever had in my life, also i work only 7-8 hours.

 

[D H]

I think its much harder to get into med or law because you are competing with the countries best pool.

Getting into a top med school is very competitive. Then again, so is getting into a top physics school. You are making several leaps of judgement in the statement "you are competing with the countries (sic) best pool." First and foremost, you are assuming that those who aspire to be medical doctors or ambulance chasers are the "best". What exactly is your metric for "best"?

Secondly, you are assuming that those who don't make the cut throw away their aspirations for doctoring or ambulance chasing for some lesser aspiration such as "Ph D". Those who aspire to a PhD in one of the hard sciences or engineering tend to do so from the onset, not as a second choice.

Thirdly, you are assuming that the winnowing-out process uniformly occurs at med school / law school / grad school application. That might be true for medical school and law school. It is not for physics and engineering, where the winnowing-out process starts in the freshman year.

You misunderstood my post as well as the original. This thread is about why people think PhDs are dolts, not why they are nerds and socially intept which would in fact show the contrary.

I did not say they PhDs are any of those derogatory terms. I said that some people think they are, and that enough people think so so as to make for a slew of derogatory terms thrown at them.

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates.

In short, you are applying the association fallacy.

 

[ZapperZ]

Please note that there have been several general statements in this thread stated as "facts" without justification or valid evidence. Even though this is the GD forum, our Global Guidelines still apply, and that means that you still cannot make unsubstantiated claims that purportedly describe whole groups of people.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think they are more difficult at all. In fact, I bet physics is harder due to its abstract nature which requires heavy thinking, whereas the other two are more about reciting facts. I think its much harder to get into med or law because you are competing with the countries best pool.

That's not at all true. From the experience of someone with a Ph.D. who is teaching at a med school (hence, working with med students all day), AND who was accepted to med school back in my day, but CHOSE a Ph.D. instead, and who has also worked with those med students who are considered the "cream of the crop" who are admitted into the M.D./Ph.D. programs, I can tell you that med students could NOT handle Ph.D. level work. Sure, a few could, but they don't have that level of interest in learning the science in depth. They are happy with a superficial knowledge that is sufficient to make a diagnosis and no more. I struggle to get them to look at the science deeper every day.

I think you've basically made up your own assumptions with NO knowledge of what work goes into any of those degrees. There is a reason that Ph.D.s are expected to teach the med students but M.D.s are not asked to teach graduate students, and that's because in any subject area, the Ph.D. knows far more than any M.D. does. The exception are the rare few who get an M.D./Ph.D., but for them, it's more a matter of survival trying to complete two degrees simultaneously.

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates. And I only know my TAs as being grad students. Again, they aren't stupid but they are also nowhere near the cream of the crop. Perhaps you can enlighten me, who do people go for PhDs?

Again, as someone who changed paths, it has nothing to do with ability to get into med school. I was accepted to med school. I changed my path for several reasons.

First, I just LOVED the level of inquiry addressed in a graduate program. Really, doing research is a passion, as is teaching a passion. Getting a Ph.D. allowed me to do both. Someone who could not get into a med school would not be the least bit successful in grad school.

Second, for what it's worth, M.D.s make a lot of mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But, I realized early on that I was not comfortable with the idea of my mistakes potentially killing someone. If I make a mistake in my research, I might lose time and money, but I'm not killing anyone. And I'm not arrogant enough to think I would never make a mistake in my career; that's just human nature. Much of the interesting cases we present to our students for teaching purposes are based on some fairly disastrous mistakes made by M.D.s in treating patients.

Third, if you think a TA (this is not a Ph.D. anyway, they are still students, and could be in only their first year) is not sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject yet to teach it well, try asking a med student to teach it to you. Actually, ask an M.D. to teach it too you! You'd appreciate your TAs better. I've spent a good deal of time correcting residents (they have M.D.s) and fellows (subspecialty training after they are licensed to practice!) on some fairly basic biological principals.

Fourth, the part I enjoy most out of what I do is the teaching. This was part of the basis of my decision to get a Ph.D. instead of an M.D. As an M.D., I could impact the lives of my patients by doing the best I possibly could do to treat them and ensure they had good quality care (...or spend the rest of my life filling out insurance forms, since that's really what M.D.s spend inordinate amounts of time doing), or I could impact all the patients of generations of M.D.s as each of them comes through my classroom and I have an opportunity to make every one of them a better physician.

 

[JasonRox]

I won't back up the TA part. I'm a head TA and I always have to correct the errors my TA's make because they don't know the material. It's very sad. Oh, but they got 90's in the class and their average is higher than mine... you must be very smart.

If khemix actually has these thoughts of comparing physics with this and that and this and that, I put my money on khemix will not be successful in whatever field he chooses. These thoughts clearly show a lack of knowledge.

 

[rootX]

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates. And I only know my TAs as being grad students. Again, they aren't stupid but they are also nowhere near the cream of the crop. Perhaps you can enlighten me, who do people go for PhDs?

Maybe, people like me who are willing to take courses during summers and/or considering finishing a simple 4 year undergrad in +6 years I want learn more .. more I learn more beautiful my life gets, and I become less ignorant and greedy.

I am in engineering but I am little interested in some arts and other cultural/religious courses.

And, there aren't any dumb or smart people. Different people choose to devote their lives to different things (money, relationships, academics). Life is just beautiful in either way.

P.S. TA's aren't dumb. They did those courses like +4 years ago so it is natural that they forgot some of the course stuff. Even profs would find it difficult to solve some simple problems...

 

[gravenewworld]

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

When I worked for my friends dad I heard how they don't want PhDs because they ask for too much money and are arrogant. I'm not by any means saying they are idiots, but the smartest people out there aren't going for PhDs. They're doing med, law, or business because they realize school is an investment. If you really are committed to research in a field, I don't see why grad school should be the place to go. You'd be in school until your 30s... that's basically half your life gone and your productive years too. In this time you can more thoroughly learn the material from books and walk away with an understanding instead of becoming an encyclopedic drone grad schools seem to create. The great minds of antiquity weren't in school until 30s, they got their PhDs by their early 20s. The talent of today isn't likely to invest that many years to walk away with relatively nothing as compared to a more lucrative degree. So the calibre of students getting PhDs is much lower. That and grad students suck at practical stuff.

Congratulations, you just became the least liked person on PF. I hope you have your flame retardant suit on, because you are going to really get torched by a ton of people with a post like that.

 

[LightbulbSun]

That's not at all true. From the experience of someone with a Ph.D. who is teaching at a med school (hence, working with med students all day), AND who was accepted to med school back in my day, but CHOSE a Ph.D. instead, and who has also worked with those med students who are considered the "cream of the crop" who are admitted into the M.D./Ph.D. programs, I can tell you that med students could NOT handle Ph.D. level work. Sure, a few could, but they don't have that level of interest in learning the science in depth. They are happy with a superficial knowledge that is sufficient to make a diagnosis and no more. I struggle to get them to look at the science deeper every day.

I think you've basically made up your own assumptions with NO knowledge of what work goes into any of those degrees. There is a reason that Ph.D.s are expected to teach the med students but M.D.s are not asked to teach graduate students, and that's because in any subject area, the Ph.D. knows far more than any M.D. does. The exception are the rare few who get an M.D./Ph.D., but for them, it's more a matter of survival trying to complete two degrees simultaneously.


Again, as someone who changed paths, it has nothing to do with ability to get into med school. I was accepted to med school. I changed my path for several reasons.

First, I just LOVED the level of inquiry addressed in a graduate program. Really, doing research is a passion, as is teaching a passion. Getting a Ph.D. allowed me to do both. Someone who could not get into a med school would not be the least bit successful in grad school.

Second, for what it's worth, M.D.s make a lot of mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But, I realized early on that I was not comfortable with the idea of my mistakes potentially killing someone. If I make a mistake in my research, I might lose time and money, but I'm not killing anyone. And I'm not arrogant enough to think I would never make a mistake in my career; that's just human nature. Much of the interesting cases we present to our students for teaching purposes are based on some fairly disastrous mistakes made by M.D.s in treating patients.

Third, if you think a TA (this is not a Ph.D. anyway, they are still students, and could be in only their first year) is not sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject yet to teach it well, try asking a med student to teach it to you. Actually, ask an M.D. to teach it too you! You'd appreciate your TAs better. I've spent a good deal of time correcting residents (they have M.D.s) and fellows (subspecialty training after they are licensed to practice!) on some fairly basic biological principals.

Fourth, the part I enjoy most out of what I do is the teaching. This was part of the basis of my decision to get a Ph.D. instead of an M.D. As an M.D., I could impact the lives of my patients by doing the best I possibly could do to treat them and ensure they had good quality care (...or spend the rest of my life filling out insurance forms, since that's really what M.D.s spend inordinate amounts of time doing), or I could impact all the patients of generations of M.D.s as each of them comes through my classroom and I have an opportunity to make every one of them a better physician.

Interesting post Moonbear. Is this why a lot of people have bad experiences at the doctors office? I go to a doctor that has both an M.D. and Ph.D, but I see a lot of doctors offices around here who only have an M.D.

 

[Topher925]

I won't back up the TA part. I'm a head TA and I always have to correct the errors my TA's make because they don't know the material. It's very sad. Oh, but they got 90's in the class and their average is higher than mine... you must be very smart.

I've experienced the same thing but I am not a head TA. This is actually my first semester as a TA. But you're right, grades mean absolutely nothing.

Also, I have to say that just because you have a PhD doesn't necessarily make you better in your field than someone who doesn't. I believe that if I spent as much time learning independently as I do in school, I would be much a much more knowledgeable person. However, there is no way to quantify intelligence or potential worth so to go into research you are almost required to have a PhD.

 

[Monique]

Lets look at the people who go for PhDs:

1) The professional grad school rejects (ie med and law rejects)
2) Naive people who think they can be the next Einstein and follow a childish dream.

O.M.G.

I think Moonbear wrote an excellent post (addressing khemix's comments).

As for the reputation, as a PhD you are trained to thoroughly research a problem and weigh every possible solution, analyzing a problem in detail. In my experience companies appreciate people that can make intuitive decisions based on minimal information, this would go against the training of a PhD.

 

[tanyaa]

Did you know there's a course that teaches you to write, record and promote rap?

 

[Manchot]

Maybe I am inexperienced. I just find this is the case with bio and all the pre-meds that change route which fill the ranks of the bio doctorates. And I only know my TAs as being grad students. Again, they aren't stupid but they are also nowhere near the cream of the crop. Perhaps you can enlighten me, who do people go for PhDs?

It seems like you're extrapolating your experience with biologists to the general academic population. For all I know, that is the case. But do you really think that a substantial portion of math, physics, and engineering majors intend to go to med school or to law school?

 

[jim mcnamara]

...
The US has always had a bit of an anti-intellectual streak to it. That pile of **** that khemix posted, and the derogatory words I posted, exemplify that streak. ..

D H has a firm grip on it. Without invoking personal experiences - you see it everywhere.
Films often have super smart nerds or scientists as the bad guys. I cannot recall a film where the really smart guy or the well-educated guy/gal saves the day and is the hero.

The reading level in most print media in the US is about US grade 5-6. Back when I was on a software development team, our company had to hire people to 'dumb down' the manuals we had written before we could market the product. The folks hired were tech writers and they actually used software metrics to shoot for a 5.5 reading level.

~30% of people in the US do not graduate high school:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm
These folks can't read well, analyze, apply the Scientific Method, or perform routine arithmetic operations well. So if they derive information from TV and streaming media, they view Jerry Springer as a genius and a fount of knowledge. Which in some ways he actually is.

So it'd be tough for them to even imagine what a PhD does to get thru grad school.

 

[Moonbear]

~30% of people in the US do not graduate high school:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

That seems to be calculating a statistic based on assumptions rather than looking at actual numbers. First, it's comparing public high school diplomas to 8th grade enrollment in public schools. That doesn't account all the students who move out of the public school system and into private schools for high school. It also doesn't account for those delayed a year (this doesn't have to be for bad performance either...it could have been a prolonged illness). It didn't account for students who didn't live to graduation either. In fact, it wouldn't even account for the overachiever who graduates early. 30% drop out rate sounds highly over-inflated. It doesn't even make sense intuitively. For every school with really low drop-out rates, you'd have to have one where almost nobody is graduating to get that sort of drop-out rate. I think someone would notice if a school had no graduates.

 

[noumed]

This discussion reminds me of said comic...

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1056

 

[arunma]

It seems like you're extrapolating your experience with biologists to the general academic population. For all I know, that is the case. But do you really think that a substantial portion of math, physics, and engineering majors intend to go to med school or to law school?

Heh, actually I was pre-med until the end of my junior year. In fact I was planning to do my physics degree with a biology emphasis and then go to med school. (Un?)fortunately I decided I liked physics better, took a few advanced undergrad physics courses instead of completing the biology requirements, and went to grad school in astrophysics.

But as you say, this is the exception rather than the norm.

 

[LightbulbSun]

This discussion reminds me of said comic...

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1056

I know its a subtlety, but the general public literally takes that at face value and truly believes the more knowledge you have, the more stupid you become. I have actually seen this in my everyday life this type of thinking.

 

[Phyisab****]

I've found that there is a large part of the US population that literally does not believe in science. I once (very) briefly dated a girl who asked me "you don't actually think that stuff is real, do you?" with respect to quantum physics. They have no understanding of the levels of scientific inquiry and mathematics which led to things like their computer, internet, tv, and microwave. It seems like lots of people will go through their entire life without thinking "I wonder how this computer actually works?"***edited for dyslexia

 

[tyroman]

I Googled "more and more about less and less" which I recall as the core phrase in an example of common perceptions of higher education and was surprised to learn of its source... see;

http://angrylabrat.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-know-everything-about-nothing.html

"("Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing." -- (Konrad Lorenz? Web sources vary, so I gave up looking).")

noumed's post #38 humorously depicts the same perspective;
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1056

 

[renz]

I don't think they are more difficult at all. In fact, I bet physics is harder due to its abstract nature which requires heavy thinking, whereas the other two are more about reciting facts. I think its much harder to get into med or law because you are competing with the countries best pool.

and you're posting this in a physics forum?

Do you really think the students who go to good PhD programs in physics actually rather be in med school or law school? Maybe you should check out physicsgre forum and see what type of students and what are their credentials for being accepted.
I can assure you if the students are not among the tops, they will NOT survive grad school in physics. That probably goes for other hard sciences as well.

 

[fourier jr]

"I think we all know what BS stands for, and PhD stands for piled higher & deeper" Hasn't anyone heard that before?