You must log in or register to comment.
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…
What does the fox say…
Rindidingdingdingding
Thank you, I needed some new material for the wank folder
Sometimes I wonder.
Some admit to it. Others prefer the blue pill.
As a parent to five, yes. All shall join me.
Removed by mod
If I didn’t have to I wouldn’t be doing it.
Are you a soulist?
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.
Presumably you could meet the boundary with “a dollah fifty in late fees at the public library” and find a way to push through from there. You’d have to find a way to publish or share your new knowledge. Studying at uni gives you access to experts in their own thing that likely have knowledge that could help you with your thing as well as a system designed to churn out these papers when you eventually find your thing.
Every day people discover new things but it takes attention, effort, and will to PROVE it’s a new thing and more yet to share that with the world. Too bad you can’t get an honorary PhD for doing that, at least not reliably.
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.
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.
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.
When u look at most people I feel like the trending alternative at 18-50 y is personality of a hockey puck and also skills of a hockey puck, with the reasoning ability of the hockey puck.
I feel so called out. I’m alright in my field but completely clueless outside of it.
Good luck expanding the fields of math and science without a PhD.
Like the guy who found this somehow important new shape not to long ago? I don’t think he has a PhD. But he did contribute. Not saying that it’s easy though.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I expected someone to bring up some shit like that. My point still stands.
Lookup the Einstein problem. I’m talking about the aperiodic monotile discovered by David Smith.
deleted by creator
Yes but how will I feel good that I spent 140k on a piece of paper if I don’t brag about it?
most PhDs are paid a salary.
I’ve been making six figures while getting my PhD. There are plenty of opportunities to get your PhD funded if you are a US citizen. There are plenty more valid places to poke fun at pursuing a PhD but it is very common to have funding and thus no debt.
wtf kind of university are you studying at? We get minimum wage here
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.
But it’s all very basic knowledge.
Common knowledge would be more appropriate. It is known by many people, but it is not basic as in obvious. It took a long time to know what we learn in a very “basic” high school biology course.
And if you actually remember half of what you learned in that course a decade later, people ask things like, “where do you learn this shit?”
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.
One of my professors used to refer to it as:
Bull Shit
More Shit
Piled High and Deep
I guess outside of STEM you have Bull Ass and More Ass?
Only in customer facing positions
My Dad used to say it was just BS piled higher and deeper, similar but I always liked the joke from that phrasing.
They are being incredibly charitable with the width of that column
Knowledge is a grower and a shower
and also by not showing the bigger picture
https://i.postimg.cc/V19Jwzqd/knowledge-circle.png
there would also be an even bigger boundary of “all of reality” or something but obvs that would be infinite and impossible to know
Euler giving the circle two big balls and an erection:
O3–
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.
Great, thank you! This post was not respecting the CC-BY ;)
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.
You can do a bachelor’s in college? Not here. College is typically only two year programs.
College and university are relatively interchangable colloquially in American English. Associate’s Degrees are 2 years. Colleges in Europe etc. are different.
Well, not really over here. You do have to do a bunch of hands-on stuff for credits. Can’t even replace those with more standard subjects.
You can absolutely wing it past all five years, depending on your degree, but between mandatory projects and internships you have to try really hard to not get some level of expertise in the field.
Plus, university curriculums have specializations here, so you get mandatory courses on pretty narrow subjects whether you like it or not. So… I guess there are some differences, maybe? I was pissed when they announced they’d do that masters’ thing here because the price of tuition for that year goes from being a couple hundred to a few thousand for basically the same curriculum, but this is definitely not the first time I notice that the anglosphere assumes there’s a huge difference between the two things.
The UK system is a bit better about those kinds of things, courses tend to be modular with required internships etc. The American system is a lot different and scheduled like high school, but that may have changed since I was in it. It really was dependent on the course, though. I like the UK setup much better.
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?
One year, typically. Some could be two or have a big chunk of on-the-job training/internship.
We used to have a more prominent 3 year degree, but it went semi-extinct in favor of other intermediate education, leaving our Bachelor’s equivalent being 4-5 years, depending on which degree you’re going for. And yeah, I think now they made them all 4 year and have more of a master’s offering.
The thing is that internationally those 4-5 year degrees are still the thing immediately under a masters’ degree, so there is a bit of a mismatch there. That goes some ways towards clarifying that, thanks.
It depends on the course. For my course, the bachelor’s year included a project that was more design based, while the master’s year had a project that was research based, however I ended up working with a PhD student assisting in his research project for my bachelor’s.
It definitely sounds that our system was a bit more standardized than that, which checks out and is both a strenght and a weakness depending on how you look at it.
*image not to scale
I love this
This is the exact same concept that hentai artists use because they don’t know how women’s anatomy works
