pouët.net

Benefits of being PhD?

category: general [glöplog]
we'll always have a desire for science. people can't stand to be bored. same reason people do drugs.
added on the 2009-06-18 04:37:46 by hexen hexen
Quote:
Phd = scientific demoscemers. Check out what i can do in 30 000 words.


well, to my experience, that's nonsense. the attitude most (not all!) phd's that i've come across had was one of:
1) Check out how I managed to not search for a job for another 3/4 years
2) Check out how I'm absolutely clueless because my home uni sucked and am taking a PhD from a western university to cover up for it.
3) Check out how I'm completely stressed out fulltime because I'm doing such an important PhD so I don't have time to talk to anyone or to stop to think why the hell I'm actually doing this

Type 1 typically produces the 3 required mediocre papers for mediocre conferences, gets the title without much applause, and moves on to take a job he's overqualified for

Type 2 means well, but really missed a decent BSc and MSc education back there in India to ever do serious phd work except maybe in the last year or so. Ends up taking a job he's overqualified for.

Type 3 I don't know, they don't have time to talk to people about it.

I feel only a seriously small percentage of the PhD students at the universities i've been around, really go for doing great and producing kickass results. it depends on the department and group too, but overall imho it's quite disappointing.
added on the 2009-06-18 07:53:39 by skrebbel skrebbel
To be honest, I started this thread because I expected people to troll the heck out of it, and then it turns out as one of the most insightful threads I've seen on pouet. Better that way, I guess.

Most people have commented on what's the benefit of DOING a PhD, which is pretty clear, but the benefits of HAVING a PhD are still not that clear =)

For what I've seen, I guess the biggest benefit is respect.
added on the 2009-06-18 08:20:39 by sol_hsa sol_hsa
Phd = scientific demoscemers. Check out what i can do in 30 000 words.


Phd = oldschool demosceners: Check out my tons of releases (i.e. papers). Respect me because of my title, not because of the content :)
added on the 2009-06-18 08:46:14 by chromag chromag
I forgot to mention one benefit. You can expect more cash when you're invited to do lectures, presentations etc.
added on the 2009-06-18 08:47:42 by chromag chromag
...but...I was trolling :(

seriously tho , namaste, that is an open mind view of things, I like that. I think to many things are allowed to be called a science, simply beause they fulfill the broadest possible definition of the scientific method. The search for wisdom through controlled experiments.There are a lot of things that arent a science that still to some extend rely on just such a method. E.g astrologers, and numerologists. Ask them if they are using a science and they would tell you that there is "a science" behind both. I certainly do not agree with that, but their claim is genuine enough as they too do controlled experiments with test groups and people.
added on the 2009-06-18 09:08:04 by NoahR NoahR
Sol, the benefit of having one or more such titles is cash money. That is what it comes down to. My old man is upgraded to the point where he is worth nearly a hundred thousand danish kroners a month to a company that deals in ...well...countries. Whenever there has been war, or some other collapse of a society, people like my dad come in and rebuild infrastructure from the bottom up. The political, legal system etc. These are prestegious jobs, and only the best of the very best are let anywhere near these positions. The entry ticket to even have you application read by the companies? These titles...They are going to archive your application vertically if you do not have a relevant Phd or preferbly more. that is what they are good for if you take what you do seriously. But if you got one merely as an excuse to drink beer for another 3 years I doubt it will be little but a nice wallpiece to talk about at parties.
added on the 2009-06-18 09:14:01 by NoahR NoahR
I'm hoping to finish up my PhD, in CS, in the autumn. I never really thought about being over-qualified for jobs or the status associated with holding a PhD. I just felt that at the end of my undergrad I had something to offer the world via research. Not something amazing or stupendous or ground-breaking, but something.

I understand people's annoyance with PhDs expressed in this thread too. I think this is due to status issues, and I agree. Titles in society seem a very bad idea. In the case of medical doctors it is understandable, but otherwise I dislike the practice.
I found some of the comments in this thread a bit jealous, or perhaps frustrated. I think this is because of the silly title business associated with PhDs. Really, a PhD should be called something like a "3 Year Research Degree" or something like that.

One final point for any aspiring scientists:
There is a mild misunderstanding of science, imho, progress is for the most part driven by a "general pressure". Of course exceptional people make exceptional break-throughs, but without this "general pressure" (or army of less exceptional scientists) they would certainly fail. So, if you are honest and hard-working, science needs you.
added on the 2009-06-18 09:22:25 by pdx pdx
Quote:
i find it odd that athiests claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive. almost conspiratorially odd.


They present opposite claims about what a valid way of thinking is. Either beliefs need to be based in evidence or they don't. You can't hold both positions at the same time and still be sane.

Quote:
i mean, if i were a super-duper scientist who'd somehow gathered and understood all current scientific theory and could go no further (which i'm patently not), religion would be my next stop.


You'd be a pretty poor scientist if all you managed to do was understand all current science. That's like saying "if I were a super-duper coder who understood all the source code other people had written and could go no further, I'd then start wondering if computers were magical". That's so many different kinds of nonsense.

Quote:
afterall, krishna was explaining metaphysics before we even had a name for it.


You think metaphysics has something to do with science because it has the word "physics" in it?

Quote:
true meditative religion holds the key and science is the language of "God" but it answers very little of importance in and of itself.

i dread to think of the shell of humanity we will become once athiests have completed their rampage :/ will we even have a desire for science?


I dread to think of the boundless stupidity of people who equate atheism with nihilism. The true nihilists are the people who find no beauty in the real world and have to make shit up to have a reason not to kill themselves.
added on the 2009-06-18 11:09:44 by doomdoom doomdoom
hm, it seems that everyone is talking about technical subjects' and nature sciences' phd in here. in humanities, it's all a bit different. especially those types skrebbel talked about are not that present, because with a humanities phd you don't have much to win financially anyway. especially when doing it in soviet history, like i do =)
added on the 2009-06-18 12:15:45 by dipswitch dipswitch
Making a demo would seem easier to me. Phd would scare me right now. Too much work/dedication and if I don't find the motivation I might procrastinate hard. And maybe I would fall in the common categories if I'd do it just for the honour. From the other side, I have never done a really good demo either and probably won't do so I think the best thing is to procrastinate.
added on the 2009-06-18 14:09:28 by Optimus Optimus
I should be more like Slackerney

BB Image
added on the 2009-06-18 14:14:32 by Optimus Optimus
and noone mentioned dick size yet?!
doom, what you wrote is wrong in so many places that I can't even count pr dare to argue against it (sorry, no phd in mathematics).

added on the 2009-06-18 17:58:24 by torus torus
The only obvious err i saw in dooms post was a linguistic one. The opposite of belief is a fact. If scientists came all the way to the end, to the point where they understand exactly how things work. what if they realise that even though they now understand "the how", they are still no closer to explaining "the why". I think that this is how Namastes argument work. What would be left to reasearch when there is nothing left to measure, and if all the measuring has not led to answering the really big question. The why.

Religious people may be backward retards, but they are apparently, and according to loads of, of eachother independent studies, a bunch of very, VERY happy backward retards. Science can stick that in its pipe and smoke it! Bias is the human condition
added on the 2009-06-18 18:22:24 by NoahR NoahR
Religious people are more happy then non religious people.
+
Religious people are more dumb then non religious people.
=
Dumb people are more happy then smart people?
*than
*than
*than
Religious people are more happy than non religious people.
+
Religious people are more dumb than non religious people.
=
god is gay
not as gay as me
more happier is more better!
added on the 2009-06-18 20:26:14 by trc_wm trc_wm
pdx has a giant lead in this thread.
added on the 2009-06-18 20:26:43 by Hyde Hyde
Quote:
doom, what you wrote is wrong in so many places that I can't even count pr dare to argue against it (sorry, no phd in mathematics).


Uhm.. then point out maybe one or two places it's wrong?

Quote:
The opposite of belief is a fact.


I don't know any definitions that allow for fact and belief to be opposites. A belief is something held to be true, whereas a fact is something "known" with some unspecified degree of certainty to be true. You can argue endlessly about what's actually factual and what isn't, but I think all the dictionaries agree that factuality is a question of "known" truth value, and belief is a question of perceived truth value. So the two words are closer to being synonyms than opposites.

Anyway, the question isn't what the facts actually are, the question is if it's reasonable to believe without evidence. In science that's not allowed, and in religion it's required. Things don't get more mutually exclusive than that.

Quote:
What would be left to reasearch when there is nothing left to measure, and if all the measuring has not led to answering the really big question. The why.


Why is that such an interesting question?
added on the 2009-06-18 20:52:53 by doomdoom doomdoom
Doom, I guess it's always difficult discussing religion and faith because it has so many different definitions for so many different people. Yours seems to be quite limited in comparison to, say, Vedic teachings which encourages meditation on the union of material matter and consciousness.

Quote:
Either beliefs need to be based in evidence or they don't.


Then I guess they don't and scientists are all delusional and insane. Our "faith" in established science is an amazing testament to human creativity and imagination (of which religion is a shining example) when you consider the fact that every "accepted" theory of science is derived from axioms. In other words, nothing in even the religion of science can be derived if nothing is assumed by our imagination to begin with.

Quote:
You'd be a pretty poor scientist if all you managed to do was understand all current science. That's like saying "if I were a super-duper coder who understood all the source code other people had written and could go no further, I'd then start wondering if computers were magical". That's so many different kinds of nonsense.


Or you might just be sensible and realize that your computer is not an infinite universe, it's a manmade framework with artificial boundaries and limitations, much like the old material sciences and traditional logic which have pretty much run their course.

Hence you see the emergence of a new sciences and way s of thinking such as grey-logic and Quantum Physics which, as I understand it, are the sciences of possibilities not measurable definite certainties.

The real problem with many atheists is how they wish bound boundless human creative imagination to the temporal "truths" of science. Particularly the worldly material science. I just believe we have much more potential than that.

"It was very important that, a long time ago, we made the decision to separate spirit from science. And so we were able to learn how to do science. But now we’ve learned, and we can take on the richer task of learning to do science when consciousness is part of the experiment." -William Tiller, Ph.D.

So we seem to be coming closer to seeing [quantum] physics and metaphysics (described by many religions) merge. And for the non-PhD'd masses to grasp what it all means and make any sense of it all it all, a sense of spirituality is probably required. Yet ironically society appears to be moving in the backward direction of science to archaiac materialism.
added on the 2009-06-18 21:40:25 by button button
Quote:
So the two words are closer to being synonyms than opposites.


are you high? Belief is (in the context) defined as "something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat by dictionary.com, and fact (in the context) is defined as "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth."......
."
Quote:
Why is that such an interesting question?


Doom. Ok, to you it isn't a very interesting question then. :)
added on the 2009-06-18 22:43:40 by NoahR NoahR

login