The far right in Europe is really the far left...

I really don't believe that having a PhD is an indicator of gravitas in any subject. They are relatively easy to gain, don't actually have to be too factual because the student has to write a thesis ( otherwise their own theory) of their subject, they don't have to be agreed with they just have to be a reasonable argument. "To achieve the PhD degree it is necessary to demonstrate that you have mastered the skills necessary to carry out research to professional standards. The point of the PhD is not to demonstrate your brilliance (although this might also occur), but to demonstrate that you have mastered a set of research skills." This is the point of a PhD, it doesn't mean what you have to say in a subject like economics or politial science is necessarily the correct and only theory, only that you can theorise and articulate it.

I got a PhD. in physics. From a left-coast, ivy-league equivalent university. With honors.

I'm a less than mediocre physicist.

I'm a damn fine engineer. (Peerless, if you ask me. Don't ask me. :lfao: )

I got my PhD. because I had to give direction and supervision to people with PhD.s and they resented it(my not having one.). Boss called me into the office ,and said, pretty much: you're going to get a PhD. Here's where you'll go.This is what your thesis is.Here's your research project. You're advisors will be these guys. Your thesis will be classified upon completion. You have three years, but we'd like to see it done in two. We'll pay for travel to California when you need to go-probably every two weeks or so-and we'll pay you straight time for lab time for your research project.

I got a PhD. In a hard science. Big deal.
 
I got a PhD. in physics. From a left-coast, ivy-league equivalent university. With honors.

I'm a less than mediocre physicist.

I'm a damn fine engineer. (Peerless, if you ask me. Don't ask me. :lfao: )

I got my PhD. because I had to give direction and supervision to people with PhD.s and they resented it(my not having one.). Boss called me into the office ,and said, pretty much: you're going to get a PhD. Here's where you'll go.This is what your thesis is.Here's your research project. You're advisors will be these guys. Your thesis will be classified upon completion. You have three years, but we'd like to see it done in two. We'll pay for travel to California when you need to go-probably every two weeks or so-and we'll pay you straight time for lab time for your research project.

I got a PhD. In a hard science. Big deal.


I'm not saying they are worthless in subjects like science and mathematics etc, but in a subject where you are using your opinion it doesn't prove that your opinion is the correct and only answer. You can do PhDs in subjects such as David Beckham for crying out loud. What doing a PhD in a subject like that proves is that you can research, argument and be articulate, it doesn't prove that David Beckham is the greatest footballer who has ever or will live.
 
No, Irene, but your basic explanation of the process still applies.

And I am a less than mediocre physicist. I am a damn fine engineer-all I ever really wanted to be, but circumstances dictated otherwise.
 
No, Irene, but your basic explanation of the process still applies.

And I am a less than mediocre physicist. I am a damn fine engineer-all I ever really wanted to be, but circumstances dictated otherwise.


Have a look and see what the Cambridge chappies think a Phd is, I posted it up. They've been at this degree stuff since 1284 CE so I think they may know a thing or two about students, studying and qualifications.
 
I'm not saying they are worthless in subjects like science and mathematics etc, but in a subject where you are using your opinion it doesn't prove that your opinion is the correct and only answer. You can do PhDs in subjects such as David Beckham for crying out loud. What doing a PhD in a subject like that proves is that you can research, argument and be articulate, it doesn't prove that David Beckham is the greatest footballer who has ever or will live.

Is it the PhDs in humanities that you consider worthless compared to PhDs in hard sciences, or is it that you consider the humanities themselves worthless? I don't ask this rhetorically, I'm honestly curious.
 
I don't actually think any PhD is worthless, they have to be worked at, researched, put into intelligable language etc, they show academic prowess in whatever subject. What I do think is pointless is holding up a PhD to prove your political thought is correct especially when it's someone elses. Saying 'it must be true this man who has a PhD says it is, therefoer it is' doesn't hold water. You can theorise anything you want to and do a PhD on that subject, look at this one for example. "UNDRESSING THE MOVES: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF LAP-DANCERS AND LAP-DANCING CLUB CULTURE "
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.ethos.493247

It proves someone has done a lot of work, it proves that this person has thought about their subject and may be a good bet to employ but it doesn't necessarily prove that lap dancing is something every child should be learning at school despite the conclusions this person may make. Many economists have PhD, many have theories, they don't all agree with each other, some are polar opposites to each other so citing a man who has a PhD as the sole correct arbiter on the subject of the left and the right is never going to be correct. These people who theorise, and decide that to them the Nazis are left wing are deciding nothing, they are postulating, speculating and conjecturing only, they aren't proving anything.

From the same website as above
'The development of microsatellites for parrots'

And this one
The origins and evolution of the bra
http://northumbria.openrepository.com/northumbria/handle/10145/83473

For the Trekkies

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...rprising-thesis/2006/08/27/1156617211732.html
 
Back
Top