What it means to be a PhD

I had just dismissed a class and was chatting with some students when I revealed that I took public transport to work. One of the students was genuinely surprised, and he asked me why I chose to take public transport. After all, and I quote, "You're a PhD, right? You can drive a Ferrari if you want to."



My reaction to the above.




After I recovered my composure, I realized that your average person on the street does not really know what it means when someone is a PhD. All they really know is that there are two types of doctors: a PhD and a real doctor. Both use the honorific "Dr", but my ability to is probably not what you need if you're bleeding to death from massive head trauma.



The average person's view of a PhD holder is heavily influenced by a number of stereotypes invented for fictional characters in books, movies and TV shows, along with a few super-famous real-life PhD's who spoil the market for everyone. And while there is some element of truth in most stereotypes, they don't usually tell the whole story. Let me examine each stereotype and talk about how closely it matches your typical real-life PhD. Note that I am assuming that the doctorate is in a technical discipline and obtained from a reputable university, i.e., not purchased from a website with a shopping cart.



STEREOTYPE #1: PHD'S ARE SUPER SMART GENIUSES.PERPETUATED BY: STEPHEN HAWKING, ISAAC NEWTON, ALBERT EINSTEIN, AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY FICTIONAL PHDLEVEL OF TRUTH: 70%

If you've got a PhD, the reasoning is that you must be an extremely intelligent straight-A student who can play chess blindfolded and recite pi to a few hundred decimal places while patting your head and rubbing your tummy. Popular culture reinforces this view: other than parodies, you never see a stupid PhD on TV.



Show-offs.



Not to sound immodest, but there is some truth in this stereotype. In order to get into a PhD programme, you usually require a pretty good GPA on your Bachelor's transcript. Although I'm not a straight-A student, I did manage to get above the minimum requirement of a 3.2 GPA back when I started my PhD at the National University of Singapore. So yeah, like every other PhD, I'm pretty good at book learning. However, I certainly would not consider myself a genius, especially on those occasions when I walk into a room and forget what I went into the room for.



Your average PhD is just a reasonably intelligent person who knows a lot about a particular aspect of his chosen field. Granted, there do exist PhD's who are true geniuses, but bear in mind that nobody is good at everything. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, so don't be intimidated by a PhD just because he is better than you at math or programming or whatever. After all, even though I am no match for Stephen Hawking in the field of quantum physics, I'm pretty sure I can take him on at kickboxing.



STEREOTYPE #2: PHD'S ARE MAD SCIENTISTS.

PERPETUATED BY: DR FRANKENSTEIN, DR EVIL, THE ENTIRE FACULTY AT HOGWARTS

LEVEL OF TRUTH: 25%



For those people who can't wait to get out of school, it is easy to believe that you have to be at least slightly mad to spend half a decade of the best years of your life to get a PhD. University undergrads often find their professors somewhat eccentric (I know I did). We also see plenty of examples in popular culture of PhD's with conditions such as necrophilia, megalomania and reallybadlatin-itis.



"Stereotypus Riddikulus!"



There are two parts to the "mad scientist" stereotype, namely the "mad" part and the "scientist" part. Let me first address the "scientist" part, which is the belief that mad scientist types are capable of doing something that defies the laws of physics, is extremely dangerous, and/or is just plain nuts. They also make really good plot devices for some of your favourite B-movies.



Actually, that's not so far off the mark. In order to keep his job, a research professor has to publish lots of papers, which means that he is constantly looking for new discoveries to advance his field. Admittedly, most of these new discoveries are less than earth-shattering ("my algorithm finds solutions to this obscure problem that are 1.87 percent better than the previous best algorithm!"), but every once in a while you get a or , which is all kinds of cool. Like Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who's not a PhD) once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So yeah, PhD's do sometimes invent and discover new stuff, simply because it's part of their job description.



As for the "mad" part, you have my assurance that we're not mad (although that's what a madman might say if someone asked him if he's mad. Hmm...). Perhaps we tend to think outside the box more and have some crazy ideas, but that's how you come up with innovations. Nah, we're just as sane as the next person. In fact, that's how I came up with 25% for the level of truth of this stereotype: according to the World Health Organization, . So look around you. If you see three people who seem completely sane, you know what that means...



STEREOTYPE #3: PHD'S ARE SOCIALLY STUNTED

PERPETUATED BY: SHELDON COOPER, WALTER BISHOP (FRINGE), THAT SCIENTIST PLAYED BY DATA WHO GETS MIND-CONTROLLED BY THE ALIEN IN INDEPENDENCE DAY

LEVEL OF TRUTH: 20%



The Big Bang Theory has made being a PhD seem kinda cool. Actually, if you watch the show, it portrays college professors as being so geeky and nerdy that they experience some kind of underflow error and come out the other side. Most PhD's in popular media range from stuffy old men in suits that speak in faux British accents using multi-syllabic words to awkward pre-pubescent prodigies with thick glasses and a pocket protector (what the heck is a pocket protector, anyway?). You never see a genuinely hip, suave PhD anywhere.



Party animals.



Well, this stereotype is true to the extent that PhD's tend to be socially responsible. We understand the annoyance of a bunch of teenagers having a loud party next door while we're rushing to write a paper before the conference deadline tomorrow. To us, YOLO means that we should make sure that we don't throw our one life away by driving drunk or abusing controlled substances. We're annoyingly sensible in that we know that being stupid is, well, stupid.



Within the boundaries of socially accepted behaviours, though, PhD's span the entire spectrum of cool. My PhD supervisor is this ultra-cool German dude who runs marathons and rides a kick-ass motorcycle. You know Brian May, the lead guitarist of Queen? PhD in astrophysics. There are PhD's who know martial arts, or are licensed pilots, or skydive.



And then there's me, who's a short, somewhat overweight polytechnic lecturer who plays board games and blogs. Like I said, the entire spectrum.



STEREOTYPE #4: PHD'S ARE SEXY SWASHBUCKLING ADVENTURERS

PERPETUATED BY: INDIANA JONES

LEVEL OF TRUTH: 0.001%



Yeah, people don't really think this. I wish.



STEREOTYPE #5: PHD'S HAVE NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AND ARE NOT WORTH HIRING.

PERPETUATED BY: LOTS OF EMPLOYERS

LEVEL OF TRUTH: 40%



After spending a good 4+ years working hard to get your PhD, you might assume that employers will be willing to pay a premium for your services. Unfortunately, this is rather far from the truth. Take a look at the comments forfrom a blog written by a PhD friend of mine and you should get a decent picture of how prospective employers view PhD's.



Suppose you're looking to hire a programmer. One candidate has spent the last four years in a software development firm programming and developing applications, so he's well-versed in the latest Java API's and PHP code. The other is a fresh PhD who has a couple of conference and journal publications but no work experience. Which one would you hire? The first guy, right? After all, you know he's got the skills you're looking for, and he's probably going to be cheaper. Why pay over the top for a fancy PhD?



A PhD? Next!



This, I believe, is the mindset of your typical employer, and it may very well be the correct decision depending on the position you're looking to fill. However, let's not be hasty and consider what you get if you hire the PhD. In order to earn the right to have "Dr" in front of his name, he must "make a significant contribution to the field and advance the state of the art". This does a good job of showing what "significant contribution to the field" implies, and all PhD's go through this process. What kind of person would be willing and able to do this, to spend half a decade of the best years of his life banging his head against the wall hoping to discover something that nobody else in recorded history has discovered before?

Well, he'll require the following traits: (1) sufficient intelligence (or at least book smarts) to get the GPA required to qualify for a PhD programme; (2) the persistence and discipline to plow through volumes of boring articles in order to make sure his idea hasn't already been done; (3) the ability to see all sides of the issue and present a convincing argument that his contribution is useful and significant; (4) the ability to implement his idea (e.g., by coding it) and evaluate it objectively using a scientific method; and (5) language and communication skills that are good enough to get his thesis approved by the thesis committee.



Does this make the second candidate better than the first? Not necessarily, but I would expect the PhD to be able to pick stuff up quickly, be thorough in his work, and possibly find some innovative way to contribute to the company. Maybe the first candidate can do so as well, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss the second candidate based on his lack of working experience. Oh, and just because a guy has a PhD does not mean that he's looking for a 5-figure salary; he may be cheaper to hire than someone with 4 years' experience.



In case you're wondering, I computed my 40% level of truth for this stereotype as follows. Yes, a fresh PhD has no work experience (50%), but he does have experience in working to get the PhD (-10%). And no, I do not agree that a PhD is not worth hiring simply because he's a PhD. This may be a biased view, but as a PhD I have the ability to see all sides of the issue and evaluate it objectively, so you can trust me. Right?



So there you have it. A "PhD", which stands for "Doctor of Philosophy", certifies that this person has the ability to philosophize, i.e., he can think of an argument and support it in an, objective, organized and logical manner. When the mood takes them, a PhD would debate about something for hours, figuring out the pros and cons, using analogies and what-if scenarios, and just figuring the heck out of the problem. These are the sort of people who would argue about whether it should be spelt PhD or Ph.D. or Phd or some other combination (and don't get me started on the plural).



Other than that, a PhD is pretty much like anyone else. Which brings me to...



This is gonna take a while.



STEREOTYPE #6: PHD'S ARE SUPER-RICH.

PERPETUATED BY: ALL THOSE PHD'S IN POPULAR MEDIA. IF THEY'RE FAMOUS, THEY MUST BE RICH, RIGHT?

LEVEL OF TRUTH: 1%



Probably true if you're a Nobel prize winner, or wrote a bestselling book, or have your own show on the History Channel. For the rest of us, no. Just, no. Hell no.



(Picture sources:

knowyourmeme.com

wikipedia.com
Full Post