A friend who teaches at a university in Colorado, I pointed to a section of the Economist, "The Disposable academic - Why doing a PhD Often IS A Waste of time, the value doctorate today. "Why do a PhD is it a waste of time?". Strange. Read
The article deals with the glut of PhDs in a world that is there is too much (too? As if the Earth could be too blue!) Some even say that entering the race is like a doctoral enter a Ponzi pyramid scheme, reads.
The main argument made by the author is to ask whether the graduating doctoral students earn more than those of BA. A British study shows that a Bachelor allows 14% have incomes above those that would have gone to university but who decided to take another path. For a doctorate, the average is 26%. Where is the problem?
The comparison fades when compared to the "premium" to get a master's degree, training that takes less time than a PhD 23%.
The study shows that on average have a PhD gives only 3% of "salary benefits" compared to a control. And yet, not all areas: math, computer science, social science and linguistics, this difference fades. And "engineering and technology" (I do not know the French equivalent) or in architecture and education, the advantage disappears completely and becomes negative.
should probably put these figures in Britain. But it is surprising that there is no more difference.
Malus to Doc
The article concludes by telling that new doctors have difficulty finding their place in the market despite their talent. Or rather that the talents acquired collateral Doc are of little use in a world where technical knowledge should be assimilated quickly and presented clearly and simply to a wide audience (as if the care given to the drafting and validation was not more interested).
The article mentions that some universities are beginning to offer their doctoral courses in "soft skill" (um, a translator in the room?) As the communication and teamwork to prepare labor market.
There is no mention in the article other than economic reasons that motivate a person to do a PhD, but the financial argument is still poorly .
Superflue, flute super!
The university seems mired in a redundant knowledge he specializes academically too. Penalized by his perseverance, somehow. Or is it then that the University produces too expert-level "academic" (Particularly in certain fields of study) is not possible to put them in his own body? This is one of the questions asked in the article - which is also ironic parallel with a labor market that complains about a lack of resources specialists & # 233; art. (And back again revived the debate about whether the role of the University is to serve the interests of market or not).
I'm more intrigued by the fact that candidates do not fit. But who does not know a student in this situation?
Common knowledge
I approached a few years ago rising secular knowledge, this knowledge non-academic, who enters compete with a more formal ( see a demonstration I proposed). Maybe the "just good enough " refers to knowledge in business. Access to information via the Internet makes it met a information less attractive than the competence to acquire? This skill, in fact, acquired from the Master.
In areas in turmoil (including Internet), became expert who has read 3 books more than others. In the field of social networks, so-called experts have probably read a few pounds more than his client and take one or two good keywords on Twitter. Do not mix with charlatan. In a world growing informational, these small advances can become impassable chasms in a few years. Expertise metamorphoses. It will come back.
And you, what do you think?
0 comments:
Post a Comment