Why Do PhDs Have a Negative Reputation?

[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?