Conversation

Replying to
Because most PhDs are crap and would do nothing worthwhile even if funded to unlimited levels. There is no need to flatter the conceits of this crowd. 90% of them have far too high an opinion of themselves. I say this as one of the median ones from a โ€œtopโ€ school.
1
16
Replying to
Yea, I hear that. I never went beyond my bachelors for the same reason, but maybe that's just an argument to make better PhDs/schools? Certainly there's important humanities work to be done during a massive cultural / political shift, and little progress is being made.
2
1
Replying to
I think the PhD is an obsolete mechanism. "Important" is doing a lot of work there. Even in STEM where the case is easier to make objectively ("cure cancer! solve climate!") it is dangerous to let self-absorbed people decide what is "important" on the public dime.
3
2
Replying to and
I think 90% of academia in general should be re-amateurized as a side hustle for people who have a living from other sources. I suspect a talented anthropologist would do better work if they could earn a good wage flipping burgers half-time than as full time researcher.
Replying to
I'm in between: highly skeptical of academic institutions, but think there's likely something between there and fully amateurization. It's probably that there need to be way more / smaller funders who are accountable for results, or perhaps have finite/renewable charters.
1
Show replies
Replying to and
People don't get the extreme moral hazard of funding for PhDs from basically unaccountable sources captured by cartels of their own advisors. It's a self-perpetuating system of self-congratulatory production.
2
2
Show replies