Programs Why Doing a PhD Is Often A Waste Of Time (The Economist)

[Mathnomalous]

Opinions on this piece?

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223

One thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. Some describe their work as “slave labour”. Seven-day weeks, ten-hour days, low pay and uncertain prospects are widespread. You know you are a graduate student, goes one quip, when your office is better decorated than your home and you have a favourite flavour of instant noodle. “It isn’t graduate school itself that is discouraging,” says one student, who confesses to rather enjoying the hunt for free pizza. “What’s discouraging is realising the end point has been yanked out of reach.”

Whining PhD students are nothing new, but there seem to be genuine problems with the system that produces research doctorates (the practical “professional doctorates” in fields such as law, business and medicine have a more obvious value). There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.

[...]

Dr Schwartz, the New York physicist, says the skills learned in the course of a PhD can be readily acquired through much shorter courses. Thirty years ago, he says, Wall Street firms realized that some physicists could work out differential equations and recruited them to become “quants”, analysts and traders. Today several short courses offer the advanced maths useful for finance. “A PhD physicist with one course on differential equations is not competitive,” says Dr Schwartz.

Many students say they are pursuing their subject out of love, and that education is an end in itself. Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead. In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to this. Scientists can easily get stipends, and therefore drift into doing a PhD. But there are penalties, as well as benefits, to staying at university. Workers with “surplus schooling”—more education than a job requires—are likely to be less satisfied, less productive and more likely to say they are going to leave their jobs.

The article mentions a Master's in engineering seems more financially rewarding than a PhD in engineering; that is great news, if true.

 

[Phyisab****]

The article is completely right. Doing a PhD in a field with few job prospects is probably not worth it. But, if you want to be a physicist, then you need a PhD in physics. For example, if you want a job like this, you need a PhD.

https://jobs3.netmedia1.com/cp/job_...obmail=null&isd=0&lnl=0&adv=0&t=1292550291879

 

[Mathnomalous]

There is no need to go on defense. Read the article, analyze it, reach your conclusions, decide what to do. Simple as that.

 

[Phyisab****]

I am not mad or on the defensive lol. I have chosen not to do a PhD for my own reasons. I just think that the article is basically stating the obvious and is not particularly original.

 

[General_Sax]

The article mentions a Master's in engineering seems more financially rewarding than a PhD in engineering; that is great news, if true.

Daddy like.

 

[Mathnomalous]

You will have to take that up with The Economist. Personally, I think the more people who earn PhDs, the better for those of us who choose not to do a PhD. Still annoys me that universities and academics use grad students as cheap labor.

 

[Phyisab****]

Sorry, I didn't realize when you asked for opinions on this piece, you actually meant please do not post your opinion on this piece. I'm not arguing against you for posting it.

 

[Jokerhelper]

Awaits for the rumble...

 

[Jokerhelper]

Awaits for the rumble...

Haha, I opened this thread when it had no replies.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Sorry, I didn't realize when you asked for opinions on this piece, you actually meant please do not post your opinion on this piece. I'm not arguing against you for posting it.

My apologies.

 

[Phyisab****]

Awaits for the rumble...

I'm sorry if my post came off as confrontational. There will not be a rumble. I edited the post, hopefully it sounds less aggressive now.

 

[Jokerhelper]

If you could sum this article up in one sentence what would it be? I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what the argument they are making is. If you want to be a physicist, then you need a PhD in physics. For example, if you want a job like this, you need a PhD.

https://jobs3.netmedia1.com/cp/job_...obmail=null&isd=0&lnl=0&adv=0&t=1292550291879

If you don't want to be a physicist, then yes, obviously it may be a waste of time to get a PhD in physics. Likewise if your goal is purely monetary. The parts of this article which apply to physics (they state the earnings increase in physics is enough to justify a PhD) seem to be a series of strawman arguments.

1. Grad students are overworked: imagine that.
2. Academic positions are scarce: everyone knows that.
3. A PhD in physics may not be the best path to quantitative finance: A PhD in physics is not designed to prepare you specifically for quantitative finance, why do a PhD in physics if this is your only goal?
4. You may get stuck in a job where you are overqualified: how is this different than anything else? I have a B.S. in physics and I am about to start applying to technician jobs which I am somewhat overqualified for.

The article dealt with PhDs in general, not just in physics. So just because everyone knows the number of PhDs is immensely greater than the quantity demanded in academia, then one should ignore this when considering grad school?

 

[Jokerhelper]

I'm sorry if my post came off as confrontational. There will not be a rumble. I edited the post, hopefully it sounds less aggressive now.

Err.. we may have a problem now.
BTW, when I wrote that post there weren't any replies. My "rumble" comment was just a prediction of what I think will turn out to be an interesting thread.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Opinions on this piece?

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223

I think that article is largely true. Students would do well to consider *why* they wish to obtain a PhD.

 

[DrummingAtom]

The article is completely right. Doing a PhD in a field with few job prospects is probably not worth it. But, if you want to be a physicist, then you need a PhD in physics. For example, if you want a job like this, you need a PhD.

https://jobs3.netmedia1.com/cp/job_...obmail=null&isd=0&lnl=0&adv=0&t=1292550291879

Actually, that job *requires* a Bachelor's degree. It just says prefers PhD. I'm playing devil's advocate here but if you went in there and had only a Master's but 5 years experience in that field I bet they would give you consideration.

I'm curious as to how things really work within industry. Could a Master's obtain the type of advancement needed to reach an actual research job?

 

[hadsed]

You would then have to ask how easy it is for a Physics BS holder to have 5 years of solid research work in industry.

I think physicists not being hired without some research-based degree is a good thing. There is a gigantor difference between textbook problems and research problems; there are certain skills that are needed to do research that just can't be taught by someone else. That's my opinion at least, but it seems to me that most would agree with the notion.

Of course in other fields besides physics, mathematics and related sciences, Ph.D's may not be valuable for anything besides academia. What I'm thinking of really are the liberal arts degrees, but even then I see how employers could value a potential employee that has gone through graduate school.

 

[Jack21222]

I think that article is largely true. Students would do well to consider *why* they wish to obtain a PhD.

Is "I want to spend a few years doing cool things before rejoining the 'real world,' plus as a bonus they call me doctor when I'm done" a good reason to want a PhD?

I plan to pursue a PhD because I'm tired of working a retail sales job, and I don't necessarily want to just get my bachelor's degree, turn around, and start working in another dead-end job. I want to take some time away from all of that and do some cool, intellectually stimulating things.

Then, as an added bonus, people will call me "Dr." and perhaps I'll have a little bit of admiration from some people for making it through. I'm sure it's got to be better then being an exterminator, or a mattress salesman (my previous job and my current job).

I'd chose that over a Master's degree, because I have to pay for a Master's, and still have a full-time job to pay my bills aside from getting the degree. On the other hand, getting a PhD IS a full-time job, completely with pay, plus it's free tuition.

Lastly, if I stop at a master's, I'll somehow feel that I "quit" early, before I went as far as I could go.

Note: long-term salary potential is just about the last thing on my mind. Worst-case scenario, I'm sure I'll be making as much as I make now selling mattresses, and it'll be much more intellectually stimulating than sitting around in a showroom for 11 hours a day waiting for somebody to walk in.

Think these are good reasons?

 

[story645]

What I'm thinking of really are the liberal arts degrees, but even then I see how employers could value a potential employee that has gone through graduate school.

There are also liberal art equivalents for science R&D departments. I know two guys in history whose research is in the modern military history of two politically sensitive regions-the liberal arts equivalent of the type of research that gets funded under NDSEG or the DOD. They'll probably be recruited for all sorts of intelligence agency jobs when they finish because they'll be experts in really hot fields. I think it's got more to do with the difference between doing research in a very theoretical field or a very applied field, each branch yields somewhat different jobs skills.

I think that article is largely true. Students would do well to consider *why* they wish to obtain a PhD.

During my first day of classes, one of my professors polled everyone in the room about this. By and large, they all said that they were interested in whatever field they were researching, and as most everyone in my class already has an adviser and a little more than half already have a masters degree (so they could go out and find decent jobs), I think that really is a good part of the reason. I think one of the few upsides to pushing students into research earlier and earlier (it's now expected to participate in intel STS if you want to apply to any of the top research school) is that many of the kids who end up applying for phds have at least somewhat experienced the politics, drama, and hardships involved with research. My friend in history lamented that he thought his fellow first years were totally in over their heads because the liberal arts haven't quite caught up yet on the amount of research required of undergrads.

Is "I want to spend a few years doing cool things before rejoining the 'real world,' plus as a bonus they call me doctor when I'm done" a good reason to want a PhD?

I don't want to be called doctor because I feel that title is only reserved for MDs and the like. *shrugs* I'm even uncomfortable with my students calling me professor because I don't have a phd yet, but they don't listen much when I tell them not to.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't want to be called doctor because I feel that title is only reserved for MDs and the like. *shrugs* I'm even uncomfortable with my students calling me professor because I don't have a phd yet, but they don't listen much when I tell them not to.

Don't worry about. The term "doctor" was not originally for the medical field. :)

 

[Jack21222]

Don't worry about. The term "doctor" was not originally for the medical field. :)

Right, it was originally for a particular Time Lord. Right?

 

[Kevin_Axion]

It's rather odd for a person that practices Medicine to be called a Doctor anyways. Doctorates in the sciences adamantly study the inner workings of their research areas, expanding the horizons of their knowledge. In contrast, a M.D enters a standardized school to leave without visibly effecting the medical field or providing any deeper insights.

 

[jbunniii]

At my company, people with doctorates get the title "scientist" instead of "engineer," but as far as I am aware, the pay scale (and, for that matter, the job) is identical.

 

[TylerH]

But wouldn't be fun to be called a "scientist", while the others are just "engineers"?

I don't know why others do it, but I want to get a PhD for the little piece of paper that I can show to people with anything less, to let them know that I'm better than them, and they need not challenge me. That, and being able to sign my name with the suffix PhD just sounds like butt loads of fun.

 

[Jokerhelper]

At my company, people with doctorates get the title "scientist" instead of "engineer," but as far as I am aware, the pay scale (and, for that matter, the job) is identical.

What if you have a PhD in engineering?

 

[General_Sax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

 

[Reshma]

Opinions on this piece?

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223

The article mentions a Master's in engineering seems more financially rewarding than a PhD in engineering; that is great news, if true.

Interesting, but I would be more interested to hear the opinions of those with a PhD on this forum.

 

[QuantumJG]

I'm definitely wanting to do masters, but committing to a PhD is another story.

I love physics and want to learn more and doing a masters degree I can get more physics knowledge. By the time I complete masters I will have been studying for 5 years and to spend another 4 may be too long as a student. My Maths tutor told me her story about how she spent ~13 years working then did a PhD. Obviously she's older than most PhD recipients in Maths, but she is now doing what she loves.

I personally see this as a great idea, make a decent earning during my mid to late 20's and then come back.

 

[Null_]

I'm only a freshman now, but I'm leaning toward a masters in ChemE, following my BS in ChemE. That is, unless I change my career path to neuroscience, in which case I would get a BS in ChemE and a PhD in something more related to neuroscience. For engineering, I've heard over and over that PhDs aren't worth it unless you want to become a professor, in which case it is a must.

 

[Lievo]

Opinions on this piece?

The topic is interesting, but I don't think I'll trust any of this piece.

First, it makes little sense to talk about the PhD student. In which field? I doubt the situation is the same when you have a PhD in English or a PhD in Physics. This is the most obvious concern, but there is also a lot of bizarre things in the article:

A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009—higher than the average for judges and magistrates.

Before being a full professor, you need to go through your PhD, through 1-3 post-docs, through being assistant professor, then associate professor, then and only then you can be full professor, if you didn't fail at any of the previous steps. Be aware most reaching one step will not manage to go to the next one. Here the paper clearly play on the fact most reader will have no idea of what 'full professor' means.

PhD students and contract staff known as “postdocs”, described by one student as “the ugly underbelly of academia”, do much of the research these days.

Described by one student, really? Here again the paper play on the fact that most reader will have no idea of what a post-doc is: simply one of the most exciting period in your life. The only one in which all what you need to care about is your own research. When one enter academia, things will go differently (the check will be better, but you'll have a lot of things to care about).

In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.

There is no area I'm aware of where you can have a secure full-time job after your post-doc. You'll enter as assistant professor, and this is not a secure full-time job. For this, you'll need to be associate professor -that's the next step.

In America the rise of PhD teachers’ unions reflects the breakdown of an implicit contract between universities and PhD students: crummy pay now for a good academic job later.

I hope no one present the deal this way. The deal is: crummy pay now to have 1 chance out of 20 for a good academix job later. If you were not aware of that, please be by now.

Proponents of the PhD argue that it is worthwhile even if it does not lead to permanent academic employment.

This is the interesting question: most PhD won't have academic employment. Is their PhD helpfull for other jobs?

Research at one American university found that those who finish are no cleverer than those who do not.

If you're two time cleverer than the average of your collegues, and the amount of work you can do is 80% of the average, I've little doubt you won't make it. Managing to finish have little to do with intelligence, and a lot to do with amount of work you can produce. Here the apper play with the common sense idea that the best student are the most intelligent. Not necessairly.

five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts.

Laughable statistic. If you have a perfect carrer, then 5 year after your PhD you are assistant professor at best, and this is a temporary contract. The guys that are not on a temporary contract, that's because they leave academia.

Ok enough reading and commenting. At this point I'm not interest to finish reading it.

 

[D H]

This topic keeps reappearing at this site. The answer to the question "is a PhD worth it" is "it depends". If the PhD was in a field such as theoretical ecology, maybe not. A PhD is not going to magically come to your rescue and create job opportunities if you don't get along with people or can't express yourself well. A PhD will similarly not come to your rescue if you are so drawn to minutiae that you relished spending your entire PhD counting the number of spots on the red beetles that reside on only one kind of tree in the forest. You can't even see the trees, let alone see the forest for the trees. Being able to express yourself, get along with and work with others, and being able to see the big picture are crucial skills. PhDs who lack those skills may find it hard to find a job.

On the other hand, some PhDs are well worth it, even outside of academia. National labs, FFRDCs, and several high-tech companies place considerable value on PhD degrees. This is particularly so if the person with the PhD can communicate with others, can work well with people, and has a good nose for business.

The article in question is rehashing old stats, at least as far as physics is concerned. Yes, there was a glut in the early 1970s and early 1990s. PhD physicists did have to look for other employment then, and did have a hard time finding it. What those rehashed statistics omit to say is that those downturns also hit people with a masters or bachelors degrees in some technological endeavor. Those downturns hit those with a lesser degree just as hard, and maybe harder, than it hit those with PhDs.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Is "I want to spend a few years doing cool things before rejoining the 'real world,' plus as a bonus they call me doctor when I'm done" a good reason to want a PhD?

I plan to pursue a PhD because I'm tired of working a retail sales job, and I don't necessarily want to just get my bachelor's degree, turn around, and start working in another dead-end job. I want to take some time away from all of that and do some cool, intellectually stimulating things.

Then, as an added bonus, people will call me "Dr." and perhaps I'll have a little bit of admiration from some people for making it through. I'm sure it's got to be better then being an exterminator, or a mattress salesman (my previous job and my current job).

I'd chose that over a Master's degree, because I have to pay for a Master's, and still have a full-time job to pay my bills aside from getting the degree. On the other hand, getting a PhD IS a full-time job, completely with pay, plus it's free tuition.

Lastly, if I stop at a master's, I'll somehow feel that I "quit" early, before I went as far as I could go.

Note: long-term salary potential is just about the last thing on my mind. Worst-case scenario, I'm sure I'll be making as much as I make now selling mattresses, and it'll be much more intellectually stimulating than sitting around in a showroom for 11 hours a day waiting for somebody to walk in.

Think these are good reasons?

I am not comfortable critiquing your life choices. I will simply point out that nowhere in your post do you consider what you will do *after* you earn a PhD. Where do you want to be in 15 years?

 

[G01]

No one I know in my PhD program is there because they think it will be a good investment. They are there because they wanted to learn a lot of physics.

Even if I never get a job doing physics when I'm done, for 6 or so years, I was paid (not much, but paid) to delve into a field of physics and learn as much as I possibly could. If that's all I get, then I'm happy with that. I'll figure out what to do from there.

 

[stevenb]

Still annoys me that universities and academics use grad students as cheap labor.

It seemed like a very good deal to me at the time. Full tuition paid, got payed for 20 hours per week at industry commesurate level, as TA was only given 10 hours per week responsibility and then later as RA got payed to do my own PhD research. Then got paid full time salary in summer from research funding, again to do research adding to my experience. Aside from this, enjoyed the whole experience. I even payed off my undergrad loans despite having a deferment for being in grad school.

I can't confirm nor deny the research work of the author of the article, but I can give my example as one data point. And, that type of data point, which is certainly not rare, is not well represented in the article.

 

[D H]

Good attitude, G01 and stevenb!

If you look at a PhD program as a guaranteed route to a cushy job in academia, well you are mistaken. If you instead look at PhD program as a mechanism by which you can exercise you mind to the fullest extent and be paid (perhaps meagerly) while doing so, now that is a different story. Where else can you exercise your mind so? Certainly not out in industry with only a bachelors or masters degree under your belt. The straight into industry route is the road to doing mundane stuff. When else can you exercise your mind so? Not much past 30 or so; the mental capacity to juggle dozens of ideas at once peaks around 25.

Life after the PhD: Not everything in life can be equated to $$$. There is job satisfaction, which is quite high for people with a PhD. That said, some monetary concerns do creep in. One way to keep the financial wolves at bay is to stay employed, and unemployment rates amongst people with a PhD in a technical field is typically very low.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

the mental capacity to juggle dozens of ideas at once peaks around 25.

Thank you for your optimism, things haven't looked more grim to me than now... :-)

 

[jbunniii]

What if you have a PhD in engineering?

Same. They are called, e.g. "Principal Software Scientist" instead of "Principal Software Engineer," even when doing the exact same job. That's about the extent of the ego-stroking, though. It's an engineering company; there isn't any science/research being done.

 

[jbunniii]

But wouldn't be fun to be called a "scientist", while the others are just "engineers"?

I suppose so, but titles alone don't mean very much. You can call a guy a scientist, but if he's doing engineering work then he's an engineer. I wouldn't want to spend 3-5 years of my life (or even more) just to have a different title. If it's that important, one can always join one of the web companies who still have silly job titles like "GUI czar."

 

[Andy Resnick]

Still annoys me that universities and academics use grad students as cheap labor.

I didn't see this earlier.

This is a common sentiment, but after thinking for a bit, I don't see how grad students are "cheap" labor. A full-time grad student costs me (figuratively; it's all through research grants) about $36k/year direct costs (tuition and salary), and another $10k/year (or so) indirect costs (health insurance, etc). $46k/year could buy me a full-time technician with much more skill and ability than a grad student.

I know of several strategies to shift the costs around (grad student fellowships or tuition costs passed to the department/school are two), but financially, graduate students are expensive.

Where there *is* a legitimate inequality is in regards to the professional training (or lack thereof) that I am to provide the student. Graduate school is not a job, it is an apprenticeship towards a job- and not just academic jobs, but any job requiring advanced training.

 

[Andy Resnick]

No one I know in my PhD program is there because they think it will be a good investment. They are there because they wanted to learn a lot of physics.

Even if I never get a job doing physics when I'm done, for 6 or so years, I was paid (not much, but paid) to delve into a field of physics and learn as much as I possibly could. If that's all I get, then I'm happy with that. I'll figure out what to do from there.

I felt the same way in school.

Nonetheless. it is also true that there is a lot of resentment/disillusionment/dissatisfaction, or even outright anger in regards to career tracks involving a PhD. Not just academic careers, but any technical job requiring the advanced and specialized training a PhD represents.

 

[Jack21222]

I am not comfortable critiquing your life choices. I will simply point out that nowhere in your post do you consider what you will do *after* you earn a PhD. Where do you want to be in 15 years?

Anything except retail sales. I haven't even applied to the grad programs yet (that starts next fall), so I don't even know what grad program I will be in. I don't know if I want to continue in physics, branch out to astronomy, do something related to climate research like atmospheric science, or something more practical like nuclear engineering.

So, very broadly, in 15 years, I want to be doing something interesting with my life. I'm not set on any specifics.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Anything except retail sales. I haven't even applied to the grad programs yet (that starts next fall), so I don't even know what grad program I will be in. I don't know if I want to continue in physics, branch out to astronomy, do something related to climate research like atmospheric science, or something more practical like nuclear engineering.

So, very broadly, in 15 years, I want to be doing something interesting with my life. I'm not set on any specifics.

I apologize- I'm not sure why I wrote '15 years'; I should have written '10 years'.

In my experience, in order to have a career (as opposed to a haphazard sequence of jobs), it's important to have both a short-term plan (3 years out) and a long-term plan (10 years out). It took me about 10 years to get where I am now (Assistant Professor), and I am currently thinking about where I want to be in about 10 years (Department Chair or Center Director). My current short-term plan is to secure a line of research funding.

It sounds like you have a short-term plan already: get into a graduate program in one of the physical sciences. But you should also spend some time thinking about what you want to do once you graduate- I'm not going to try to list all the possibilities available to someone with a PhD in a science- but you should at least start by thinking in broad terms like industrial R&D, academic research, big corporation, small startup, etc.

Once you do this, you have a *career plan*- a plan to do what you want to do. Then, it's simply a question of executing the plan.

And don't be afraid to change either the short-term or long-term plan- a PhD is not a life sentence.

 

[Jack21222]

I apologize- I'm not sure why I wrote '15 years'; I should have written '10 years'.

In my experience, in order to have a career (as opposed to a haphazard sequence of jobs), it's important to have both a short-term plan (3 years out) and a long-term plan (10 years out). It took me about 10 years to get where I am now (Assistant Professor), and I am currently thinking about where I want to be in about 10 years (Department Chair or Center Director). My current short-term plan is to secure a line of research funding.

It sounds like you have a short-term plan already: get into a graduate program in one of the physical sciences. But you should also spend some time thinking about what you want to do once you graduate- I'm not going to try to list all the possibilities available to someone with a PhD in a science- but you should at least start by thinking in broad terms like industrial R&D, academic research, big corporation, small startup, etc.

Once you do this, you have a *career plan*- a plan to do what you want to do. Then, it's simply a question of executing the plan.

And don't be afraid to change either the short-term or long-term plan- a PhD is not a life sentence.

I think I'll have a better idea of what I want to do when I graduate when I get closer to graduating. My problem is I can picture myself enjoying any number of careers. The trick is, it's difficult to know if I actually *will* enjoy that career until I'm in it for a while.

A good friend of mine ran into this problem. She got her bachelor's degree in secondary education. She *thought* she'd love being a teacher... until she actually became a teacher. She lasted two years, and now she's working a job that requires only a high school diploma, making as much as she did as when she was in college.

Anyway, I feel I still have time to come up with a career.

 

[Sankaku]

...the mental capacity to juggle dozens of ideas at once peaks around 25.

Not to be hostile at all, but do you have a reference for that? I would be interested to read it.

(I don't disagree with the rest of your argument.)

 

[Lievo]

do you have a reference for that? I would be interested to read it.

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~bradd/gabrieli_2004_nrn1323.pdf

 

[Caramon]

The solution is for all University's to hire more professors and have more classes with smaller class sizes!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Not to be hostile at all, but do you have a reference for that? I would be interested to read it.

(I don't disagree with the rest of your argument.)

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~bradd/gabrieli_2004_nrn1323.pdf

I don't see how that article applies. Specifically, on the first page:
"In longitudinal comparisons, age-related changes from age 20 to 60 tend to be small or non-existent,with speed of processing showing the largest change,whereas changes after the age of 60 have a slope that is roughly equivalent to that found in cross-sectional data[5–7]."

In addition, the resented data in Fig.1 *start* at age 25, while the data on Fig.2 has barely anything pre-30 y.o.

 

[Lievo]

I don't see how that article applies.

I just wanted to provide the scientific evidences regarding this question to the ones interested. In brief: working memory show little or no decline with aging, at least when one controls for processing speed.

I will let anyone decide whether this supports D H view, as my explanations would likely be in vain. :zzz:

 

[fasterthanjoao]

This is a common sentiment, but after thinking for a bit, I don't see how grad students are "cheap" labor. A full-time grad student costs me (figuratively; it's all through research grants) about $36k/year direct costs (tuition and salary), and another $10k/year (or so) indirect costs (health insurance, etc). $46k/year could buy me a full-time technician with much more skill and ability than a grad student.

This is indeed a common sentiment, and it is also an interesting one. I remember when I first started my PhD I went to a faculty talk by one of the department heads - a welcoming type event for new students. He described what life was like during his PhD, but one of the things I always remember him saying was that he, and his colleagues, are extremely grateful to have us all on board. We (PhD students) are the work-horses of the university, and are the ones that will be there when our supervisors have an idea.

The lesson worth taking from my anecdote is that being a PhD student is a privileged position. To be able to work very closely with fine minds is a great thing - I am grateful to the system for introducing me to all of the wonderful people I have met. When you think of it this way, a PhD becomes really quite a remarkable prospect, rather than thinking of it as a very poorly paid research position. You're getting paid with an introduction to the field - an opportunity to work with, and be guided by, one of the world experts in your field. For the majority of the time, you'll be researching - you don't have to worry about filling in the forms, or necessarily doing all of the teaching. You get paid to sit and think - and also have the backdrop of a university to provide a wonderful setting in which to do it.

All of that, and PhDs are also very flexible times. In no other position will you get to really fully dictate your work schedule, or decide where you are flying for conferences that year.

A final remark - I know when I started my PhD I knew almost nothing about the subject in which I was going to be researching. I was also extremely raw - I got good grades, and a good first degree, but I found out pretty quickly that I was lacking quite a lot of skills that I hadn't really realized. I also know that my PhD work took me *a lot* longer to do than it would have were my supervisor doing it himself.