6 Comments

Couldn't you say PhD alternatives are evolving by themselves - starting spinout companies has become highly desirable to those who want to flex a different range of skills. New funding models are emerging including various accelerator programmes and Tyler Cowens Emergent Ventures, and Fast Grants programmes.

Interestingly these are not linked to the credentialism of a PhD, in those endeavors results need to speak for themselves (/ people need to sell themselves). The question might be what purpose does credentialism serve is it useful, what is the function of the PhD and academic system, does it do that effectively? If it doesn't is it new credentials that are needed, if yes why?

Expand full comment
Oct 6, 2021Liked by prof serious

Wonderful writeup Prof. Serious. It would be good to understand how the new model that you propose could be carried through an accreditation process. There is certainly a need to explore a process beyond the current PhD model - as you mention above and EngD would be an interesting addition that has a more engineering focus. Having examined PhD in Engineering Schools, I believe this already happens. Perhaps giving this route more formal recognition (and clarifying learning items and focus) would be good. Would be great to trial this? Kind regards, Omer

Expand full comment

The doctorate is despite arduous study not sufficient for commencing an academic career: I regularly see postdoc applications from candidates who have one or even two prior postdoc positions. My conclusion is that there is an oversupply of doctors trained for academic work (and yet might not be sufficiently trained for teaching).

It is interesting to note that some famous researchers did or do not hold a PhD, such as Freeman Dyson and Karl-Johan Åström. Hence, the doctorate is not necessary for a productive research career. And it might not be sufficient for entering academic work. Yes, a reform is necessary.

Expand full comment

Isn't there a contradiction in hoping for greater interdisciplinarity, while also mooting fresh formal distinctions in the qualifications taken by those nominally in humanities vs life sciences vs engineering -- which would inevitably penalise interdisciplinary work/interests? PhD norms already vary considerably by discipline but there is value in the mobility that comes from ending up with "the same" qualification.

I agree with much of the first two paragraphs... especially the (near-)exploitativeness of many PhDs. But I don't see the latter being solved by reforming degree offerings per se. Surely it can only happen by removing bad incentives from academics and universities? That seems to be in the hands of governments and funders. You are right to name research assessment and league tables here of course....

Expand full comment