Summary: YOUR Ph.D. means almost next to nothing, but collectively they expand the bounds of human knowledge.
Do you have to live so relentlessly in reality?
Don't we all?
Realism got you down? Here, have a fox...
Sometimes I wonder.
As a parent to five, yes. All shall join me.
I know a guy with a PhD in medieval agriculture with a specific focus on cows. He's one of my brothers wife's friends.
This guy devoted his life to ye olde english cow farts.
He's struggling for employment as one might expect.
whereas I , with my bachelors degree in clowning, have been head hunted for my last two corporate jobs.
You are now CEO of FTX
Who even funds degrees like that?
You end up with fewer job prospects than a GED
A PhD is not the only way to expand human knowledge. This is disregarding a lot of work done by a lot of hard working people.
No one says it was the only way? But one of the requirements of getting that PhD is to expand knowledge so it's 100% applicable
You might be surprised to learn it doesn't actually suggest a PhD is the only way to expand human knowledge. No one was disregarded.
I don't think it's meant to do that. Also if we substitute PhD for learning both will be true.
As their specialised knowledge reaches the edge of the circle, their general knowledge updating should retract.
Everyone has met a PhD that is almost entirely clueless in other areas. Not their fault though, don't get me wrong.
Edit: The person that downvoted must be Dr. Climate Change Denier. Dr. Covid Denier has joined the fray.
It's funny but you see the same thing in sports, or I see it specifically in hockey. Phenom kid gets drafted and at 18 has the social skills of the hockey puck he's playing with. By the time he's 36 he's not the player he once was but is a more well rounded individual with age and experience. When you focus all your energy to become the best at something, like a PhD, athlete, musician, whatever, you sacrifice some things along the way for sure.
That's not universally true. I know several people with PhD who have encyclopedic knowledge completely outside their specialisation. Some people are just super intelligent, talented and have enormous memory. The world is not fair.
The ratio is off. You learn a lot more from high school and bachelor's degree and you learn way less with your master. PhD is just expanding a little bit more on master.
The visual is more about highlighting specialization and its distance from the limit of human knowledge. You often can't represent every aspect of a complex subject at the same time on a single visual. Kinda like how you can't represent the solar system distances and planet sizes to scale on a single page, you have to pick one.
Frustrating to say the least. I feel my PhD accelerated learning in all directions. Not from the program content itself, but the skills involved in the ingestion of high volumes of dense information. This idea that the borders of my world don't extend past some yadda yadda about some tiny subclass of a field is some silly goosery.
Can those "skills involved" be learned elsewhere? Sure, this is just the path I took. Can phDoctors be single minded or general idiots? Sure, I'm an idiot. Do we need some single minded people? Sure, amazing things can be accomplished by singular focus.
But it isn't a mandatory condition or experience of a floppy hat assed (sword in some countries) recipient of this degree.
I kind of hate this image. Its like a way to discredit all the learning done in the formative elementary/high school years. If I would guess, 60-70% of everything I have learned was in high school and thats with me having several published papers.
To be fair, most of "all human knowledge" is stuff like when the last time was that each person on the planet pooped.
I would read that paper.
Go make your little bump in the circle of human knowledge then!
I made a little brown bump.
For your paper, I'm pooping right now. You can add that to your data points
Why do you think it discredis it?
One of my professors used to refer to it as:
Bull Shit
More Shit
Piled High and Deep
They are being incredibly charitable with the width of that column
Knowledge is a grower and a shower
Euler giving the circle two big balls and an erection:
O3--
Eh. It was a stupid misadventure, but it led ultimately to me meeting my wife and making a good amount of money. I managed to eke out a win.
Anyone knows the origin of this representation? I've seen a professor use it years ago and I thought it was his, but I guess not.
It is from Matt Might, here.
Matt Might, a professor in Computer Science at the University of Utah, created The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. to explain what a Ph.D. is to new and aspiring graduate students.
Last cell:
What is this, a PhD for ants?
I appreciate this picture!
Wait, how bad are bachelors' degrees in the US/anglosphere? I was contirbuting to research projects and had a specialization by the time I was done with my five year bachelors' equivalent.
In fairness, I think the system has since been reformatted so that the fifth year is now a (paid for) master's, but still. That graph makes it seem like it's high school with benefits.
College is what you put into it. A lot of people don't get into the networking side of it because it's never really introduced to them. Mostly professors look for those who are "turned on" to bring onto projects like that, that is, those that are engaged and asking questions and curious.
Youngins, lpt: talk to your professors and let them know you are interested and ask questions. It's what you are there for- access to brains.
five year bachelors’ equivalent
In Germany (and Europe, I believe, since the Bologna reforms), a bachelor’s is (usually) 3 years and a master’s is 5 years. That might be why you got to do research and I didn’t. How long are your master’s courses?
*image not to scale
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
