Comments on: Why do people go to university?

By: Boris

Boris — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:14:09 +0000

I agee with Damien but not with Andrew. Though coursework in US PhDs makes them is superior to Australian ones, this is usually not so much at the expense of the research or thesis component, at least in the sciences. In good US universities it takes about 6 years to complete a PhD, so there is time to do coursework AND write a decent thesis (often stronger than in Australia).

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:50:07 +0000

Damien - I agree entirely, though how a PhD should be done can legitimately vary between disciplines. In economics there is relatively low priority given to publishing books, so why get students to effectively write one (also one that has almost no chance of being published, making it worse)? I think coursework would also help deal with the fact that PhDs are as much as a psychological as an intellectual challenge: coursework gives some feedback and a common experience with other students, which would help deal with the uncertainly PhD students face about the worth of what they are doing and the isolation they often feel.

By: Damien Eldridge

Damien Eldridge — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:55:02 +0000

Andrew, at the risk of being slightly off topic (although somewhat related to your comment number 35 on this thread), what are your views on the Australian versus US structure for PhD degrees. I don’t know if this is true of other disciplines, but my impression for economics is that the US PhD is vastly superior to the Australian PhD. the reason for this is that it requires students to complete extensive coursework and pass a variety of comprehensive exams before they proceed to the dissertation. This provides them with a solid foundation of knowledge upon which to base their research.

Disclosure: I am in the process of completing a PhD degree in Economics through the University of Texas at Austin.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:23:59 +0000

I wonder if this is a rort of the RTS system by artificially boosting completions?

By: conrad

conrad — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:11:05 +0000

Andrew and Boris — You can correct me on this one, but I think what you are talking about is what most medical PhDs are already like with or without being done together (I’m sure there are exceptions) — thats why I said initially that medical PhDs often look like clinical doctorates to non-medical people, not, say, the type of PhD that you might get in other areas of science. Thus the important distinction is not so much what they look like, but whether they differ from PhDs done separately. My bet is the distribution is almost identical, excluding a few outliers.
In case you are not aware of what is acceptable for a clincical doctorate, it is possible to (a) basically run a big project for someone else; and (b) look at the outcomes. There doesn’t need to be huge brain-power involved in some areas, although often they are somewhat technical (e.g., put DNA sample into machine to be examined/ask statistician how to analyze data). Sometimes you don’t even need to collect the data. You also don’t need the type of in-depth analysis that one might expect from a PhD in some areas, they can be shorter (thank god), and at good universities the expectation I assume used to be far less.
Its worthwhile noting that this sort of system is potentially usable everywhere that has PhD by publications now. I doubt it would be very hard, for instance, to publish a couple of average papers on topics like health comes in patients of type X or exposed to treatment Y. Some of these might not require any brain-power at all, just a bit of stats that you could potentially pay other people to do if you are part of a big team. Futhermore no-one is going to reject a PhD where a few papers got published, and it probably wouldn’t even be possible in some places where the criterion are written in stone (e.g., 3 papers equals accepted).

By: Boris

Boris — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:25:08 +0000

“Though if this is like the typical Australian PhD, it would not give the breadth required for specialist clinical practice, just very detailed knowledge of one particular sub-speciality.”

At best.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:49:31 +0000

Conrad - Though if this is like the typical Australian PhD, it would not give the breadth required for specialist clinical practice, just very detailed knowledge of one particular sub-speciality. From Sacha’s link it seems more closely linked to training a medical research workforce.

By: conrad

conrad — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:41:34 +0000

Andrew,

I think the time and cost is less than what is the current scenario now. If you speak to some of the young doctors, then getting a PhD appears to becoming the default case due to the scarcity of specialist training and the way candidates are selected (or perhaps I just have ambitious friends). Combining the two makes sense because it reduces time if you assume a different default. I think this is just the continuation of the devaluation of degrees where you now need further degrees to get to the same place. The same is true in psychology, where once you only needed an honors degre, but now need a Masters now, with I think now a further trend moving towards clinical doctorates. Academic stuff is the same — once a PhD was fine, then you needed some papers, now you need some good papers.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:21:17 +0000

It’s news to me as well - and if true a very unwelcome development, adding to the time and cost of acquiring specialist qualifications.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:32:35 +0000

Sacha that is news. I’m quite surprised. Historically medical types tended to specialise through the various colleges and not through the unis (that was seen as a sub-optimal route).