Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Race to Nowhere Docu. - screenings in CA, AZ, CO..

http://www.racetonowhere.com/upcoming-screenings

from NYT blog and commentary:
http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-on-students-and-finds-a-ready-audience/

Looks very interesting but it does not seem to be about our "achievement obsessed education system and culture" but about the way eduction is currently done in some schools. But, that is the Bay Area.

This discussion could be carried all the way up into post-graduate education because I've had the Masters vs PHD debate with a number of friends.

It also applies to work environments. Innovation requires time to think and poke around.

What's this debate about?

Val

Whether it is worth it or not to suffer another 2-4 years to get the PHD. Will it really open any more doors? Will you learn anything new or gain any new skills?

This is specifically in the Computer Science, EE, and Chem E fields. Other non-E fields such as actuarial science and financial analysis as well. The tools, projects, and financial and emotional rewards are available almost immediately to those with Masters degrees (and some BS) who have proven skills and reputations.

Why should I struggle until my forties to become the primary in academia when I can be the primary in private firms when I am 30?

If you want to do research, you can do it on company time at a lot of places or on your own using resources far beyond just about any University.

And no grant hassles.

According to Michael Mandel (see link) income for those with professional degrees or doctoral degrees has decreased over the last 10 years. What is the point of continuing past a Masters degree?
http://innovationandgrowth.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/some-higher-education-facts-good-and-bad/

It depends on the degree. A hard degree still commands high starting salaries.

As far as doctoral degrees are concerned... if you have to ask, you definitely shouldn't. People who go into it for the prospects, rather than for sheer compulsion and love of the work, typically don't make it through the degree.

I'd have to disagree there; I did an MSc and then a PhD in Europe (I think you're in Scotland?), and met lots of people who weren't doing PhDs for the love of work. Some of them wanted the letters after their names as a way into very high-paying jobs in finance.

I actually think we produce too many people with PhDs, especially in my field (biology). Many graduates can't find permanent jobs, and they often end up doing things unrelated to research.

There's been some debate in the States about the use of PhD students as cheap labor and their relatively limited prospects when they get their degrees.

And of course, there's Austin's point about constant grantwriting --- even the PhD-level scientists who do get academic jobs end up chasing financing eternally (in the US, anyway). As far as I know, Europeans don't have to scrape up money for their salaries.

I recently read that there 's a growing group of people who've left full-time science jobs in favor of part-time jobs, who do science by squatting in friend's lab or at home.

Val

The point I made was that the "love of the work" is what drives people to go into industry rather than stay in academia. The amount of resources available, the freedom to explore, and the opportunity to solve problems when you are in your 20s vs 40s is a very powerful draw.

Here is an example. My graduate econ prof had some statistical questions about stocks and a math issue. I looked over what he was doing. He thought it was a lot of data - a few million items, but I work with billions of items every day - and his tools - some c-based shareware and excel were nothing versus a modern RDBMS and analytics. It took me seconds to run his analyses after a day of set up. He'd spent months working on it and it took me one long evening.

The sources, data set, and tools used for data analysis in most sciences are all atrocious by modern standards as compared to business-based data processing. This is just one area where academia is hopeless mired in the past.

PHDs need to "maniuplate" the system by finding a firm where they can solve the hard internal problems no one else can while using internal resources to work on their pet projects. They can then cite the firm when they publish. It is a modern twist on the old benefactor approach used prior to "big science"

If you look at Linux as a body of knowledge and not as a tool, then you can see the model for science going forward.

Take away the time writing grants and dealing with the primary and put it to work doing research!!!