PhD Expectations
I heard a joke about “PhD candidates been theoretically sound, but technically poor” Whether this is true or not, I do not know. However, I intend to clarify two assumptions from this joke, firstly, “theoretically soundness” and secondly, “technically poor-ness”.
Theoretically sound, I think, the audience think or believe PhD candidates are theoretically sound, because, these candidates are often full of knowledge of their unique area of interest, they have spent time examining, and understanding the underpinning of how things work in their area. And often they relate their thoughts to others in their areas, and therefore, often provide a more comprehensive knowledge on how things work, conceptually speaking. However, they may not in some cases, have the capability to demonstrate all the applicability of their thoughts. I personally think it’s almost impossible for any person to demonstrate exhaustive possibilities of anything though.
Technically poor, I think that “PhD audience” often expect far too much from PhD candidates, they expect them to perform “miracles” in the face of nothing. They expect them to “fasten” and “unscrew” plugs and remove car parts. That’s the only way they can prove themselves. I think this type of reasoning is wrong and generally unconnected with reality! The reality is that, PhD candidates’ posses far more understanding of their environment; they have the capability to demonstrate the “applicability” of things. However, they are not “in a commercial environment” and are not designing tools for commercial consumption. And therefore should not be expected to build “enterprise application” in order to ascertain a claim. I think, we should reserve this expectation when they are employed, then they can use their skills to develop commercial (COS) tools/toolkits for general consumption. Until then, PhD acceptance should be based on their exquisite knowledge of the “object” they are trying to explain. This opinion may not be shared by many, even among PhD’s, but, it is a personal opinion, I’ll be greatly encouraged if you send your comments in this regard.
Theoretically sound, I think, the audience think or believe PhD candidates are theoretically sound, because, these candidates are often full of knowledge of their unique area of interest, they have spent time examining, and understanding the underpinning of how things work in their area. And often they relate their thoughts to others in their areas, and therefore, often provide a more comprehensive knowledge on how things work, conceptually speaking. However, they may not in some cases, have the capability to demonstrate all the applicability of their thoughts. I personally think it’s almost impossible for any person to demonstrate exhaustive possibilities of anything though.
Technically poor, I think that “PhD audience” often expect far too much from PhD candidates, they expect them to perform “miracles” in the face of nothing. They expect them to “fasten” and “unscrew” plugs and remove car parts. That’s the only way they can prove themselves. I think this type of reasoning is wrong and generally unconnected with reality! The reality is that, PhD candidates’ posses far more understanding of their environment; they have the capability to demonstrate the “applicability” of things. However, they are not “in a commercial environment” and are not designing tools for commercial consumption. And therefore should not be expected to build “enterprise application” in order to ascertain a claim. I think, we should reserve this expectation when they are employed, then they can use their skills to develop commercial (COS) tools/toolkits for general consumption. Until then, PhD acceptance should be based on their exquisite knowledge of the “object” they are trying to explain. This opinion may not be shared by many, even among PhD’s, but, it is a personal opinion, I’ll be greatly encouraged if you send your comments in this regard.
posted by Cyril at 12:02 PM
0 comments
