"I wish I'd written as many words on my lit review as Commonsense has managed on this thread today..."

The main thing my PhD taught me- How to type lots in a very short time.

"Perhaps if the PhD was more a organised qualification"

But its not.

Its an idiosyncratic training to be an academic, is of dubious value to employers and requires you to discard lots if you leave academia.

" it does rely on making a judgement about how likely they are to get jobs"

How is a PhD student (often only 21) in any way equiped to make such a complex decision? Ask the supervisor (who is likely to be extolling the virtues)? Or the equally clueless students already in the system?

"I don't think there should be a restriction on PhD numbers."

That attitude means we all suffer. The limitless supply of PhD graduates means the qualification is devalued for ALL . Professions retain their value by limiting entry, which is why they keep their salaries high,(remember doctors are publically funded too and are on 100k, but they limit their intake of students).

Also check out this article

"It's a rat's life. Universities are abusing young researchers and it's got to stop, says a key study."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2186425,00.html

"Work is going on at the moment to create more secure pathways for contract researchers."

Sorry, but this is too little too late, even if it does come to fruition. Remember, compared to almost all other professions (e.g. medicine, law, accountancy) university lecturers have had a relative salary cut since the 1970s. It simply doesnt make sense for anyone who puts in as much as we do to work for so little, considering that HE is more of a finanical business than banking (Education is worth £28bn to UK exports,according to the Guardian). This cant be justified.

I think the gender issue has already been done to death in other threads so will not ressurect it here. As for work-life balance, do most lecturers complain about having to take work home, doing additional admin plus teaching and research, etc ,etc.

Agree, office politics are in all sectors, but academia is especially notorious for it.

While I do see the merits of your argument, I think there are other issues you may be neglecting.

"By doing research collaboratively ... this should not be exploitative."

True, but it doesnt take away from the fact that supervisors ARE exploitative or neglectful. Just take a look at other posts to see evidence. Shouldnt be the case, but it happens too often to be considered a freak occurance.

"The number of posts in academia has not gone down over the years,"

Again true, BUT you are just focussing on one side of the supply demand equation. The number of PhD students has gone up exponentially while the academic jobs remain the same= chronic shortage. Most grad students initially sign up for a PhD (an academic research qualification designed for academia) with an academic job in mind, and to say otherwise is misleading.

The choice to jump from academia should be exactly that, a choice, not a shove.

I also take issue with your overemphasis on "empirical" evidence. Having just finished a highly empirical, quantitative PhD, I am all too aware of the pre-eminance we afford such research, despite the raft of assumptions and methodological flaws that are inevitable within the process. Qualitative, reflective, and more individualistic approaches can provide just as much to the stock of human knowledge.

I have started to see empirical evidence much like McDonalds, in that it works on a mass market, global scale, and accounts for lots. Although I can understand that a RCT of drug X shows high effectiveness in 87% of the population, I am more interested in whether drug X will work for ME (or for people like me). This is where qualitative methods could have an edge.

Again, following the arguments with great interests. As CS requested, my five major criticisms are:

1) Too much exploitation of PhD students, especially those that serve under "apprenticeship" style supervisors that have to do additional unpaid work in addition to their PhD projects.
2) Too few jobs, yet no restriction on training of PhD students.
3) Lack of long term, secure, clear career pathways (for the majority, not the minority that recieve tenure).
4) The difficulty in maintaining a good work/ life balance (especially for women).
5) The intensity of politics within academia, at the expense of the actual quality of research.

I could go on but these are my key five points.

"many examples of such pointless research, particulary in the arts and social sciences (and I am a sociologist!), that the tax payer should not have to pay for."

I am not advocating that everyone be allowed to research everything. However, most research, which IS passed through various grant committees/ research boards etc, and does constitute some value to the store of knowledge. The research is not always paid from taxes as you mention. Perhaps the farting research was self funded, which is fair enough.

However, I think we can all agree that we dont spend enough on research, and this is frequently mentioned in the press etc.

As for Matt just whining, I think he is being critical in a specific sense, which as a trained PhD he should be. PhDs should challenge the orthodoxy, and I am glad that some people dont just acquiese.

@ Rosy "if I'm honest with myself it's probably because I'm caught up in the whole competition of it all.."

I think this is a huge part of it. Talented, achievement oriented undergrads that want to make their parents proud, show they are the best, try to obtain some elite accolade, make up a huge proportion of the PhD ranks. I can see PhD students that have been in competition mode their whole life and gauge their lives on "How I compare against others/ how can I make myself better?" rather than "What makes ME happy?". In these cases, image is everything and its even harder to quit, because many have never faced failure before.

Then there is the reaction when these people are reunited with less talented former uni colleagues that didnt do postgrad, but are paid more than they are, have better prospects and security, and are at a further stage of life.

Cont'd

"with planning you can choose an area of academic research for your PhD where there is a reasonable supply of academic jobs and posts because it is useful to society"

The nature of science is that it rapdily changes, so topics that may be hot and employable today could be obsolete by the time you submit. Think of all those sexy biotech start ups that went bust. Your specialised training could be irrelevant by the time you agraduate.

"I really would recommend to people starting a PhD to get a couple of years work under their belt in the real world first. "

Agreed, but this presupposes too much. Its always harder to come back to education once you start earning a salary. It also assumes that you will be able to gain relevant work that will maintain your interest.

Cont'd

"Do you want the state to invest large amounts of money so people can research what they like on permanent research contracts at high wages regardless of its use to society?"

Um, yes. Because thats the nature of research. You dont know what research will be applicable at what time. I believe most research DOES benefit society in some way. Obviously, there has to be some guidance, but I feel research is woefully underfunded in this country (cf. the US). Remember, we are currently in a pointless war in Iraq/ afghanistan which costs billions. How much research would that have funded.

While I see Commonsense's view, I would challenge the following:

" If you knew you were unlikely to get a job then what are you complaining about."

As I have mentioned before, very few people talk about the job market. From your days at uni you are surrouned by lecturers, and supervisors obviously dont want to scare away potential research fodder, so they dont state it.

"A quick look through THES or jobs.ac.uk makes it obvious how few academic positions arise in most subjects"

You can't judge a job market soley by the situation vacant column. For example medical doctors are hardly ever advertised, but most find work.

You really need to get someone to read it.

Presumably your supervisor HAS to sign off before you submit it. If he or she is even doing 1/10th of what they are supposed to be, then they will have at least read it and provided their suggestions before you submit to the examiners. If this doesnt happen, for any reason, then something is wrong and I suggest you get help from the appropriate university authorities.

I don't know who told you a 2:1 is a "low degree", but you need to get that idea out of your head. The majority of the PhD students I have met have a 2:1 and it is easily enough to start a PhD from. If thats what you want to do, just be aware what you are getting yourself into.

Masters courses are variable. Some are an essential pre-requisite to work in a certain field, whereas other are cash cows for universities looking to capitalise on students unready to enter the real world. Check out what previous graduates of whichever programme you are interested in joining do when they leave.

I think the part time route may be the solution here. Or if you could get research funding from your supervisor (which is what mine was able to do to cover fees and pay me a stipend during the last few months of writing up time).

I think you need to sit down with your supervisor and thrash out a watertight plan of "By November X will be achieved, and by December we should be at Y", because otherwise I can imagine the university will be very happy to continue to keep collecting your fees if your supervisor is the scatty type that says "Oh I forgot about that, it may be just a little bit longer".