What does having a Ph.D. really mean?

[Luzz]

Most of the time, PhDs degrees provide the theoretical and empirical tools to pursue research. I perceive a disregard of some people who most likely do not have a PhD! I think it comes from ignorance as they believe anyone who goes for a PhD is trying to get just a noble title. Well, in the real world, it means hours and hours of reading, writing and thinking about a subject.
In my experience, literally for 4 years your life is all about doing your research.

[beeksc1]

So far I have discovered that my PhD means I have painted myself into a very small corner and have a hard time finding jobs where a PhD is required or even a plus.

A plus? Is Ph.D a terminal degree?



They should come up with a newer, hipper meaning for "Ph.D."

How about Doctor of Phat!! Yeah!!!!!

[Jeff Corey]

In most fields it is, but in others a M.F. A. or M. L.S. is a terminal degree.

[Piggy]

A plus? Is Ph.D a terminal degree?

No, some people survive it.

[bpesta22]

Nor in most of the States. Indeed, I'm not sure the concept of "protected title" exists in most of the States. What does sometimes exist is a degree requirement as part of a licensure requirement (for example, to practice as an engineer in Texas requires that one be licenced as a "Professional Engineer," which requires a particular degree and sitting an exam). But merely printing something on a passport or a business card isn't "practicing" a profession. In the States, I could call myself the Count of Monte Cristo, Professor of Alternative Medicine at Stanford, and a StartFleet Admiral on my business cards with no legal consequences whatsoever.


Not sure about this. I have a friend who is a CPA in Illinois. He was interviewed for a newspaper in Ohio, where he lives, and it said he was a CPA. He got a letter from a prosecutor a few months later-- it was a criminal thing, not just the CPA people upset over it.

[Lilith]

No, some people survive it.

But the scars remain.

:covereyes

(No, really, it wasn't quite THAT bad)

[phrenicgermal]

The ULC awards honorary doctorates. No course work is required. But why bother when you can buy one for a "support honorarium" of only $2,000 from the University of Berkley, here http://www.berkley-u.edu/

Note: Not UC Berkeley.

When I did it (years ago) I had to read through a booklet and answer some qestions and write a short paper or something. I actually conferred a bit with someone at ULC on my answers.

I know it's paltry but I technically did have to do coursework and earn the degree.

According to their website, that degree no longer requires course work, but many of the others do.
http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=shop&cat=17

[Jeff Corey]

Back in the early 1070s, A friend's father bought a ULC "Doctor of Divinity" in order to establish his hunting lodge in upstate NY as a tax exempt church. It didn't work.
We called him "Father O'Brien" of the "First Church of the Bleeding Deer and Discount House of Worship". {Stolen from Don Imus, back in the days when he was funny.)

[axon]

What does having a PhD mean?

As someone once said,
"Just after you are awarded a PhD it means that you know more than anyone else in the world about that topic. You're also the only one in the world that cares about that topic.".

To me it means you can critically assess information, and have a whole load of knowledge about some subject. It doesn't necessarily mean you are especially good at communicating that information.

[Jeff Corey]

Back in the early 1970s, A friend's father bought a ULC "Doctor of Divinity" in order to establish his hunting lodge in upstate NY as a tax exempt church. It didn't work.
We called him "Father O'Brien" of the "First Church of the Bleeding Deer and Discount House of Worship". {Stolen from Don Imus, back in the days when he was funny.)
Corrected. I'm old, but not that old.

[phrenicgermal]

Back in the early 1070s, A friend's father bought a ULC "Doctor of Divinity" in order to establish his hunting lodge in upstate NY as a tax exempt church. It didn't work.
We called him "Father O'Brien" of the "First Church of the Bleeding Deer and Discount House of Worship". {Stolen from Don Imus, back in the days when he was funny.)

If you just get ordained (which is free) then there are different kits that you can also order that has things like official looking documents and instructions for performing weddings and things (and I know weddings works because two of my friends were married by a ulc person). I ordered one when I did this back in the 90s. One of the things in the kit was a booklet with instructions on how to give something legal church status. I wounder if he just wasn't able to meet the requirements for that?

[Complexity]

As far as I'm concerned, no institution of 'higher learning' that awards someone an 'honarary doctorate' has any business awarding anyone a real doctorate.

I really don't like 'academia'. Give me people that want to learn any day.

[Piggy]

I really don't like 'academia'.

I don't either, Complexity. And I'm wondering... you and I think a lot alike on a variety of topics, have similar verbal styles, even similar senses of humor.

So I wonder, is there a personality type (or types) that just bristles at the academic environment?

I think we both like what's there, what the academy has to offer -- boy, I sure miss having an enormous state university library close to hand! -- but the culture just rubs us the wrong way.

[Simplegreentinhouse]

It is harder to get a PhD in the UK than the US. I hope to get a PhD in Physics in a few years time. That doesn't make me phoney. In Physics one must discover or invent something new to gain a PhD. It is just a few years research and continuous work. I guess different Dr's have different lists.

[drkitten]

As far as I'm concerned, no institution of 'higher learning' that awards someone an 'honarary doctorate' has any business awarding anyone a real doctorate.

I think that you -- and to be fair, some of the recipients -- don't really understand the nature of an "honorary doctorate."

First, a Ph.D. is (almost) never an honorary doctorate; there's actually a laundry list of degrees that must be earned and degrees that aren't; you earn a Ph.D. or a J.D., but are awarded an LL.D. honoris causa (i.e.
as an honor), and if you are in one of the pathologically postnominal cultures like the UK (Sir Neville Small-Faucett, BA, MA, Ph.D., M.D., J.D., PC, MP, LL.D. (h.c.)) you even have to label an honorary degree as such.

Calling yourself "Doctor" on the basis of an h.c. degree strongly violates custom and is considered rude --- to the point where non-frauds almost never do so. Awarding a "real" degree as an h.c. degree is also almost unheard of (I can't think of any accredited schools that award honorary Ph.D.'s.)

Given this --- what's the problem? It's like the "keys to the city" that sometimes get awarded as a civic award. Only a fool would think that that huge ceremonial brass key will actually open any lock....

[drkitten]

It is harder to get a PhD in the UK than the US.

Having worked in both systems, I would argue exactly the opposite.

If nothing else, the time to completion of a UK Ph.D. is about 3 years; in the US it averages 7 and can be much longer. The dissertation standards in the US are much higher; a typical UK Ph.D. dissertation would only be a chapter or two in a US dissertation.

The problem is that there are simply a lot of diploma mills that offer unaccredited Ph.D.'s in the States -- and that there are a lot of people who don't know what a "diploma mill" is and take the degrees at face value. Nothing under US law keeps me from printing up a degree from "Harvurd University" and hanging it on my wall to impress clients, while the Ministry of Education might have something to say about that in the UK....

[phrenicgermal]

It's like the "keys to the city" that sometimes get awarded as a civic award. Only a fool would think that that huge ceremonial brass key will actually open any lock....

Once upon a time they did. The book Frankenstein by Mary Shelly tells of city gates being locked at night.

[phrenicgermal]

So I wonder, is there a personality type (or types) that just bristles at the academic environment?

A lot of my friends have said that I have the personality of a professor and that I should become one of those instead of pursue actuary science. I've never gotten consistantly high marks though because I'm one of those people who is interested in the material and will almost always pay little attention to the steps required to actually get a high score. Also I almost universally do better in an independent study course then when taking a class normally. If I could take all courses independent study then my GPA would be sky high.

[Simplegreentinhouse]

Having worked in both systems, I would argue exactly the opposite.

If nothing else, the time to completion of a UK Ph.D. is about 3 years; in the US it averages 7 and can be much longer. The dissertation standards in the US are much higher; a typical UK Ph.D. dissertation would only be a chapter or two in a US dissertation.

The problem is that there are simply a lot of diploma mills that offer unaccredited Ph.D.'s in the States -- and that there are a lot of people who don't know what a "diploma mill" is and take the degrees at face value. Nothing under US law keeps me from printing up a degree from "Harvurd University" and hanging it on my wall to impress clients, while the Ministry of Education might have something to say about that in the UK....

I was told they hand them out like cup cakes in the US. I understand it takes less time here to get a degree. Are they of the same value though?

[Jeff Corey]

I was told they hand them out like cup cakes in the US. I understand it takes less time here to get a degree. Are they of the same value though?

You were misinformed, as Dr. K said earlier. And I also doubt your previous contention that, "In physics one must discover or invent something new to gain a Ph. D." No doubt, original research is required, but that's putting it quite differently.

[Simplegreentinhouse]

Well. I am a Physics student and at the intoroduction to the degree talk we had on the first day, we were told (by the head of dept, who happens to have a phd) we must discover or invent something new to gain a PhD, and so I am guessing that means we must discover or invent something new to gain a phd. I think I will go by what the university that gives people phd's says. I will accept that I was misinformed regarding your cupcake phd's.

[pgwenthold]

You were misinformed, as Dr. K said earlier. And I also doubt your previous contention that, "In physics one must discover or invent something new to gain a Ph. D." No doubt, original research is required, but that's putting it quite differently.

Whereas it is putting it differently, I don't think it is an unfair characterization. Especially considering the "In physics" aspect. I typically describe it as "creating knowledge." Because of their work, we know something that we did not know before. That sounds very much like "discover...something new."

Granted, the standard for "creating knowledge" isn't necessarily profound. For example, Edison is said to have said he learned 10000 ways to not make a lightbulb, and, indeed, that is knowledge we did not have before.

[Simplegreentinhouse]

I don't mean like that. You do a research PRODJECT. Which on average takes 3 years. You write up a thesis of your idea and prove it. You have to come up with something new.

[drkitten]

I was told they hand them out like cup cakes in the US.

You were (ahem) misinformed.

I understand it takes less time here to get a degree. Are they of the same value though?

No, the US degree is of greater value, in several senses. A US Ph.D. also requires an original research contribution, and the standards for "original research" are usually higher in the US simply because you don't have to rush to publish whatever marginal results you have at the end of three years. The US Ph.D. usually involves a greater body of more in-depth original research --- as I said, a UK Ph.D. dissertation is usually more like a chapter or two (or a single research paper) than a full dissertation (by US standards), which is more like a book or monograph.

Similarly, the US Ph.D. usually requires a high-level qualification exam to ensure that Ph.D. candidates are capable of doing research/teaching in across the entire discipline and not just in their thesis topic. A historian specializing in modern German history, for example, would (in the US) still be required to pass an exam covering topics from literally the entire history of the world, and be required to satisfy the examiners that they could if necessary cover a course on the fall of Rome or post-colonial South America. (Given the job requirements in history, that's almost a necessity, since no history department has enough faculty to cover everything with specialist....)

This is one reason that the world is standardizing on the US system (instead of the German or UK system) for terminal degrees; US Ph.D.'s tend to set the standard for what entry-level research scientists can be expected to do (UK Ph.D.'s are undertrained, especially outside of their narrow field of specialization, and the German habilitazion is not an entry-level credential.) Similarly, since the US Ph.D. tends to require more teaching (as part of the Ph.D. funding), US-based Ph.D.'s are in higher demand world-wide for university faculty positions; it's very difficult to get a job at a US or Canadian university with a UK Ph.D., while it's relatively easy to go the other way (the hardest problem is the work permit, not the job qualifications).

So the simply answer is that, no, US Ph.D.'s are not of the same value as UK ones. They're worth more, because the US program is actually more rigorous and wide-ranging. As I said, I can attest to that from personal experience, having worked at top-notch universities on both sides of the Atlantic. (Oxford and MIT, among others. The MIT Ph.D. students would eat the Oxbridge DPhil candidates for lunch....)

[Simplegreentinhouse]

Wow, that's quite harsh. Lets blame thatcher for the micky mouse degrees. LOL.

One can take as long as they like to gain a Phd here if that was what they wished, but most people do it for the label and not the love of a subject and desire for knowledge.

Oh, well If I were idolistic I would bow down. I already did in my head, lol. Hehe.

On a more serious note, thank you for that information. I now know not to talk lunch with Americans in the future. :)

[drkitten]

Wow, that's quite harsh. Lets blame thatcher for the micky mouse degrees. LOL.


It wasn't meant to be harsh, just descriptive. And, actually, Mickey Mouse degrees (did you know that there's a wikipedia article on that?) are a worse problem in the States than in the UK, simply because the US doesn't have a ministry of education with any teeth to clamp down on the real basketcases. So the English just have to deal with jumped-up former polys with delusions of adequacy, while the US have to deal with outright fraud....

So I think it's perhaps more fair to say that the high end of US Ph.D.s are higher and the low end is lower --- but most people in the US do not take the low-end Ph.D's seriously. Telling the difference between the two may be harder for Europeans, which is where they get the idea that US Ph.D.s are handed out like cupcakes. Just as a Yank might not be able to tell the difference between FormerPoly U. and Redbrick U. (if it isn't Oxford or Cambridge, it's a former poly, right?) most English might not know the difference between South Jesus Bible College and Notre Dame (the second of which is a respected and respectable Catholic-affiliated University).

[Simplegreentinhouse]

Hmmm.. You Americans are extremists. ;)

There is a thing about being from Cambridge or Oxford. But the suicide rates there are much higher. Let me guess suicide rates in the US are greater? I was told that Hull would have been in the OxBridge legue if the inventor of LED had copy righted it. Or something like that.

When I said harsh, I meant overwhelmingly in your face. Hmm... Does that mean the same thing?

[Jeff Corey]

I don't mean like that. You do a research PRODJECT. Which on average takes 3 years. You write up a thesis of your idea and prove it. You have to come up with something new.
Wow! A real research PRODJECT? And you have to prove your ideas? Let us know in three years how that worked out.

[drkitten]

Wow! A real research PRODJECT? And you have to prove your ideas? Let us know in three years how that worked out.

Be reasonable, Jeff. Not everyone is as perfeckt a typist as you are.

And different schools -- and different advisors within the same hallway -- will have different opinions about what constitutes enough "new knowledge" to justify a Ph.D. Frankly, if one of my students came up with 10000 previously unknown ways to not make room temperature fusion, or to not get computers that think-like-people, I'd probably graduate her just to get her the hell out of my office and get some lab space back.

[Complexity]

I don't either, Complexity. And I'm wondering... you and I think a lot alike on a variety of topics, have similar verbal styles, even similar senses of humor.

So I wonder, is there a personality type (or types) that just bristles at the academic environment?

I think we both like what's there, what the academy has to offer -- boy, I sure miss having an enormous state university library close to hand! -- but the culture just rubs us the wrong way.


I've often thought the same about you, Piggy - good vibes.

I just took a job in a small town south of Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota, in which two private colleges are located. I'm moving there at the end of May. I'll have the advantage of living in a two-college town without having to be part of a faculty. I think this will be an excellent setting for me.

[Complexity]

I think that you -- and to be fair, some of the recipients -- don't really understand the nature of an "honorary doctorate."


Perhaps, drkitten, it is you who doesn't understand, or choose to face up to, the true nature of an "honorary doctorate".

Honorary doctorates are bribes that some 'institutions of higher learning' pay to the unworthy in exchange for shared celebrity, financial bribes, or political support.

Nothing more. They are shameful.

[Piggy]

I just took a job in a small town south of Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota, in which two private colleges are located. I'm moving there at the end of May. I'll have the advantage of living in a two-college town without having to be part of a faculty. I think this will be an excellent setting for me.

Ok, that's just too weird b/c I just got offered a new job on Friday.

I won't be moving, tho. Same town. No library for Piggy. :mad:

Glad to hear you'll be near a couple of them, tho. I hope you enjoy your new position.

[Complexity]

Ok, that's just too weird b/c I just got offered a new job on Friday.

I won't be moving, tho. Same town. No library for Piggy. :mad:

Glad to hear you'll be near a couple of them, tho. I hope you enjoy your new position.


Right now, I'm driving about 100 miles per day to commute back and forth. It will be nice to live a lot closer.

A guy I went to high school with is on the faculty of one of the schools, and I'm meeting with some of the faculty of that school about my research. Great fun.

[Jeff Corey]

Perhaps, drkitten, it is you who doesn't understand, or choose to face up to, the true nature of an "honorary doctorate".

Honorary doctorates are bribes that some 'institutions of higher learning' pay to the unworthy in exchange for shared celebrity, financial bribes, or political support.

Nothing more. They are shameful.
You are so full of it. Back in the 1970s a colleague and I petitioned our university to award B. F. Skinner an honorary degree, they agreed and he accepted. None of what you claim was true.

[biostudent]

My university gave Mr. Dressup an honorary degree.

[Jeff Corey]

My university gave Mr. Dressup an honorary degree.

And why not? He was trying to get kids to learn. I recall that Mr. Rogers received a few, also. Probably there were no bribes involved.

[biostudent]

I always loved Mr. Dressup. However, I don't think an honorary degree was appropriate. Personal opinion, of course. There are obviously people who disagree (otherwise these programs wouldn't exist).

I miss that guy, though. He was definitely awesome.

[Jeff Corey]

I was not really familiar with his work, but did he do good stuff to try to educate kids? If so, plaudits to your university.
Only if there was no bribery or mopery involved, of course.

[ingoa]

This is one reason that the world is standardizing on the US system (instead of the German or UK system) for terminal degrees; US Ph.D.'s tend to set the standard for what entry-level research scientists can be expected to do (UK Ph.D.'s are undertrained, especially outside of their narrow field of specialization, and the German habilitazion is not an entry-level credential.) Similarly, since the US Ph.D. tends to require more teaching (as part of the Ph.D. funding), US-based Ph.D.'s are in higher demand world-wide for university faculty positions; it's very difficult to get a job at a US or Canadian university with a UK Ph.D., while it's relatively easy to go the other way (the hardest problem is the work permit, not the job qualifications).



Small clarification: The habilitation in Germany is indeed not an entry-level credential.

Our levels (at least in physics) can be explained easily:
- Diplom (M.S.): You have shown to be able to perform scientific work under supervision
- Doktor (PhD): You have shown to be able to perform original scientific work unsupervised
- Habilitation (no equivalent): You have shown that you can lead a research group

The last is required (or similar documented performance) if you want to become a professor. It also exists in Austria and France.

Judging from my experience in the USA (U Stanford/SLAC, FermiLab/U Chicago) the American and German PhDs are quite similar. The UK one isn't. I worked with grad students from Rutherford Appleton Lab, Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow. These kids were 21-23 had no clue about quantum mechanics and worked at CERN. Americans and Germans were all in there middle to late twenties.

[Complexity]

You are so full of it. Back in the 1970s a colleague and I petitioned our university to award B. F. Skinner an honorary degree, they agreed and he accepted. None of what you claim was true.


Your reading and comprehension skills need some improvement.

Honorary degrees are often given so that the 'institution of higher learning' can try to share in the celebrity of the recipients. This exchange is fraudulent and both parties should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm so glad that you still feel good about helping to arrange for an honorary degree for B.F. Skinner. I wish he'd had the integrity to decline the 'honor'.

I do not think that you did a good or worthy thing.

[Jeff Corey]

Perhaps, drkitten, it is you who doesn't understand, or choose to face up to, the true nature of an "honorary doctorate".

Honorary doctorates are bribes that some 'institutions of higher learning' pay to the unworthy in exchange for shared celebrity, financial bribes, or political support.

Nothing more. They are shameful.
I don't think that I have any problems with reading comprehension. You might have problems justifying the statements above, especially the "financial bribes and political support" part.

[pgwenthold]

Perhaps, drkitten, it is you who doesn't understand, or choose to face up to, the true nature of an "honorary doctorate".

Honorary doctorates are bribes that some 'institutions of higher learning' pay to the unworthy in exchange for shared celebrity, financial bribes, or political support.

Nothing more. They are shameful.



Boy are you clueless.

"Honorary" doctorates are ways institutions use to "HONOR" people who have made significant contributions to society but do not have a "Doctoral" degree from that institution (obtw, as DrKitten notes, they are typically special "Doctoral" degrees - certainly not PhDs).

Moreover, it is often the case that the person receiving the "Honorary" doctorate already has a PhD. For example, Purdue University gave an Honorary Doctorate to Neil Armstrong. He has a Masters degree from Purdue, but got his PhD elsewhere. Unworthy? Bah, personally, I would feel unworthy to be in his presence. Shared celebrity? To an extent, yes, but it is an HONOR bestowed upon the person to recognize outstanding achievement. No one pretends it is anything like an academic degree, except idiots.

The shameful act would come if someone with an "honorary" degree acted as if it meant more than that. It happens, but not usually.

I've seen a lot of honorary doctorates awarded in my life. In all cases, they were extremely worthy of being honored by my institution, having made great contributions to society. I'm glad my institution recognized them.

[JJM]

{snip} "Honorary" doctorates are ways institutions use to "HONOR" people who have made significant contributions to society but do not have a "Doctoral" degree from that institution {snip}

I've seen a lot of honorary doctorates awarded in my life. In all cases, they were extremely worthy of being honored by my institution, having made great contributions to society. I'm glad my institution recognized them.Yes, I agree.

The most nefarious purpose I have ever heard for an honorary doctorate is that it is related to a hoped-for bequest (e.g., an author's personal papers). However, that relationship is usually assured before talk of honoring the person. One year, my doctoral U. gave an honorary degree to a retired chemistry professor (emeritus) from Stanford and Nobel Laureate. It certainly could not have been considered an impressive bribe.

[wilsontown]

One can take as long as they like to gain a Phd here if that was what they wished, but most people do it for the label and not the love of a subject and desire for knowledge.

This seems unlikely to me. You would have to be interested in your PhD work, otherwise you'd just never finish the damned thing. It's difficult enough when you love the research.

[drkitten]

This seems unlikely to me. You would have to be interested in your PhD work, otherwise you'd just never finish the damned thing. It's difficult enough when you love the research.

Which side of the Pond are you on, wilson? Although that's true to some extent on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems to be more true in the US, because there's no fixed time-table for completion of a Ph.D. (it's done when your advisor says it's good enough and sends you in to defend). In the UK things are a little different -- they're done to a tighter and more structured schedule, which means it's easier to simply say things like "fifteen more months and I'm out of here, if I can just keep this up for another fifteen months."

[Kahalachan]

I can honestly say, that in my pursuit of a bachelor's it wasn't the college that made me devoted to science as I am now. It was my own personal interest and wish to be scientific.

Now I did have good mentors in college and professors I would talk to after class. And that made it worth it. To talk to good scientists about what interested me.

I like your tentative definition of a PhD. It is being certified as minimally competant enough to do independant research.

It's sort of like college. Some just go for the paper, do the minimum work needed to get the certification, but don't devote their lives to scientific and academic integrity. Others do.

PhDs are social recognition. You can be called a doctor at that point. Some might just want social status and money but not be competant in their field.

It's sort of how people are in........well.........everything else.

[Wowbagger]

It seems there are no serious arguments against my original tentative definition, yet.

I actually may use that definition in some stuff I am writing. Are there any objections?

Here, for reference, is the definition I offered:
A Ph.D. generally means that, at least at one point in the person's life, they were able to demonstrate the minimum competency necessary to do original work in a given field.

[drkitten]

I actually may use that definition in some stuff I am writing. Are there any objections?

Only that it's so minimal that it fails to capture the general meaning that the public assigns to a Ph.D.


Here, for reference, is the definition I offered:
A Ph.D. generally means that, at least at one point in the person's life, they were able to demonstrate the minimum competency necessary to do original work in a given field.


That's almost like saying that "graduating from college on a football scholarship means that, as at least one point in the person's life, they were able to persuade someone to give them a scholarship." Yes, but why? Generally, you get a football scholarship because you're a good football player (and a good athlete generally). There's a lot of stuff that is not a necessary part of a Ph.D. that is nevertheless common. Like the idea that a Ph.D. implies lots of knowlege about a given field; which is generally true (and knowledge does not evaporate that fast --- a fifteen year old Ph.D. in biophysics still knows more physics than I do, even if s/he's been working as a pastry chef). And it's a good bet that if I need a biophysicist, the Ph.D. in biophysics is a better job candidate than a self-taught lifeguard with a library card.

Make sure that you don't lose sight of the median when you're looking for the minimum.

[Wowbagger]

Okay, so we can modify it a little. How is this:

A Ph.D. generally means that someone was able to demonstrate the minimum competency necessary to acquire expertise, and perform original studies, in a given field, (at least at one point in the person's life).

Perhaps we can skip that last portion in the parenthesis, if anyone thinks it is too wordy.

And/or we can even make it more specific by adding the words: "in front of an established committee of other experts in the field"

[Jeff Corey]

And/or we can even make it more specific by adding the words: "in front of an established committee of other experts in the field"
I'd say" in front of an examining committee of doctoral faculty."

[drkitten]

Okay, so we can modify it a little. How is this:

A Ph.D. generally means that someone was able to demonstrate the minimum competency necessary to acquire expertise, and perform original studies, in a given field, (at least at one point in the person's life).



Oh, the definition is fine. My point was simply that focusing on the minimum may be misleading, because the median differs substantially. It's like asking (in reverse) "how much do athletes make?" The maximum is tens of millions per year -- for perhaps 100 people world-wide. For the other hundred thousand or so professional athletes, it's barely above minimum wage. For the other four billion or so amateurs, it's zero.

It's like asking "how big is a state" and then someone answering "Rhode Island is about 1000 square miles." It's like asking "how big are whales?" and answering "the dwarf sperm whale is about 2m long." It's like asking "how old are countries in Europe?" and answering "Well, Kosovo became an independent country on Feb 18th, less than a month ago."

[Showmeproof]

I am in the process of applying for my PhD in clinical psychology. Unfortunately, you cannot do much in psych without one. I guess it all depends on your major and what degree you need to get a job. Though, in essence, a PhD was probably just established so the universities can make money :)

[JJM]

Oh, the definition is fine. My point was simply that focusing on the minimum may be misleading, {snip}You make a very interesting point, and I agree that the variation is enormous. However, it is sad if one cannot identify a minimum in a field; because that suggests that the PhD does not mean anything. I recall reading an article (ca. 1972) saying that one could count on a certain level of education and ability for a PhD chemist 40 years earlier, and that was no longer true.

I am in the process of applying for my PhD in clinical psychology. Unfortunately, you cannot do much in psych without one. I guess it all depends on your major and what degree you need to get a job. Though, in essence, a PhD was probably just established so the universities can make money :)A PhD in a "profession" (e.g., psych) serves several purposes. The requirement tends to weed out slackers (which is good); but also eliminates people who cannot afford the added expense. At the same time, it reduces competition among those who meet the requirements; which tilts the economics in favor of supply of services (rather than demand). That is good for providers, not for patients.

Any requirement for a doctorate can also supply a facade of respectability that may, or may not, be warranted. My local University used to confer PhDs, in a certain subject, to anyone who (aimlessly) wandered into the department. As a result, whenever I meet someone with that degree, I am left to wonder what it means.

[Showmeproof]

You make a very interesting point, and I agree that the variation is enormous. However, it is sad if one cannot identify a minimum in a field; because that suggests that the PhD does not mean anything. I recall reading an article (ca. 1972) saying that one could count on a certain level of education and ability for a PhD chemist 40 years earlier, and that was no longer true.

A PhD in a "profession" (e.g., psych) serves several purposes. The requirement tends to weed out slackers (which is good); but also eliminates people who cannot afford the added expense. At the same time, it reduces competition among those who meet the requirements; which tilts the economics in favor of supply of services (rather than demand). That is good for providers, not for patients.

Any requirement for a doctorate can also supply a facade of respectability that may, or may not, be warranted. My local University used to confer PhDs, in a certain subject, to anyone who (aimlessly) wandered into the department. As a result, whenever I meet someone with that degree, I am left to wonder what it means.

"At the same time, it reduces competition among those who meet the requirements; which tilts the economics in favor of supply of services (rather than demand). That is good for providers, not for patients."

100% agree with you!!!