But on that note sleep well and speak tomorrow!

"Now – it is not difficult to discern that what used to be a badge of excellence expressed through the award of a doctoral degree (in the UK since 1917) has been consumed by a number of unintended social processes that have led to the commercialisation of universities and their award structure. What USED TO BE a symbol of research/academic excellence AND a contribution to the level of knowledge in a society has been largely replaced by a “spin the pound” attitude : do your PhD but you must publish something (i.e. any old carp); do your PhD but you must teach a lot of hours and you must teach a lot otherwise you won’t be considered for a job; do your PhD (and so on)..."

I think this post gets to the root of Matt's instincts and attitudes, and is very common amongst academics/particularly older academics so I dispute with you that these arguments have not been had many times before.

I can quite see the personal attraction to many academically minded folk of being able to do their research in ivory towers and only engaging a very small group of people within their disciplines with their research (perhaps with a journal article that only 5 people will properly read), an approach still all too common. But frankly, this situation was never going to last forever. The government of course seeks accountability on behalf of citizens of what universities are doing with citizens' money. Yes of course there is important value in universities as the stock of human knowledge, beyond the immediate requirements of wider society.

Yet I don't think saying to universities that you must strongly bear in mind the needs of industry and the public and voluntary sectors when selecting the research you do is asking too much. Academics sometimes have a very arrogant attitude that they some how 'know better' than those within the fields they study, but what is the value to anyone but the academics themselves if they fail to share their knowledge with others and do research that is of no use to others.

"has been largely replaced by a “spin the pound” attitude : do your PhD but you must publish something (i.e. any old carp); do your PhD but you must teach a lot of hours and you must teach a lot otherwise you won’t be considered for a job; do your PhD (and so on)..."

If someone doesn't publish or make some kind of effort of some form to put their PhD knowledge into the public domain then what is the point of the PhD other than to that individual themselves? Particularly since you don't believe in the importance of developing skills during a PhD that broader society may use. If it is so difficult to get a job in academia, surely teaching does allow the PhD student to develop a skill that will both help them in the academic jobs market and outside it (surely teaching is an important part of most even high flying academic careers at some point)?

The life of the PhD is perhaps even shorter as a general qualification than is suggested by Matt. A lot of successful academics now in their 70's/80's didn't do a PhD, so as a generally required qualification for most academics the PhD is definitely a post WWII qualification. I don't think that the PhD award has been devalued in the sense that to get a permanent post at most elite British universities it is pretty much a requirement (except perhaps in subjects where outside expertise is particularly valued such as business schools). The fact that it has also become more valued by industry doesn't mean that it has to be any less valued academically, and there are many different models and approaches to PhDs to suit different needs.

I have to say we're speaking about different things, unfortunately. You are speaking of indulging industry aspirations, of a PhD having to meet corporate needs, of research having to satisfy quasi-governmental criteria. You concede that, "Yes of course there is important value in universities as the stock of human knowledge, beyond the immediate requirements of wider society". But you place little to no value in this and seek to offer industry/corporate/tax-dollar solutions to problems within academia itself. I prefer to highly value the authenticity and expert capability of offering top-level lectures and knowledge to students for the sake of knowledge, and thus we will always differ on this matter. My answer to the original question remains, "No". What was your answer by the way?

Matt - I am clearly NOT speaking uniquely of PhDs meeting corporate needs. Frankly there are much more efficient ways of linking businesses with university knowledge such as knowledge transfer partnerships by new graduates. PhDs are always a pretty academic qualification, though as I said there are different models to meet different needs. Some people still sit in the library or laboratory and never engage anyone outside academia to complete their PhD so I don't really see that they have been 'infected' by the outside needs of industry.

Yet I would question whether this was a particularly rigorous form of academic research, particularly the arts and social science library based PhD where one can make any assertions one likes (including typical lefty political economy assertions that many academics so love in many cases) without having to check those against empirical evidence.

I don't think it's even really "industry/corporate/tax-dollar" that you are genuinely opposing here it's more having to face an accountability to those who fund our research. You fail to account for why PhDs shouldn't be forced to publish - because otherwise how are they supposed to make a genuine contribution to the body of knowledge given most don't publish and you don't respect the skills they may have to offer the outside world. I think this is a very self interested old fashioned form of academia that while appealing to individual academics can't be allowed to persist. Professions always act like this when more accountability is asked from them.

It's interesting how in your last post you seem to have admitted there might actually be a value to teaching - a progressive position perhaps compared to your earlier posts denouncing PhDs teaching. Yet you've still failed to engage with the fact that while accountability is necessary this doesn't have to be simply about fulfilling the needs of industry. The public and voluntary sectors both need our skills and knowledge as academics, not simply to potentially join them as PhD graduates, but also to help them understand important social and political phenomena by doing useful academic research.

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear there - I mean the pressure to publish during the course of a PhD before the write-up phase when, by definition, a student cannot be expected (generally speaking) to have produced any publishable findings, so why publish? Of course serious publication is crucial once the award of the PhD has been made. I will publish academic papers based on my research in my own time, regardless of what job I eventually take. I agree with your points about PhD suitability for 'other' positions, certainly. I may end up in one of those positions. But my criticisms won't change. As a previous poster said, people should just buy the Dr title from a website, it would be quicker and have the same resonance as slogging for 3 years, which is a shame.

As for teaching, again this is all well and good, I've done it myself in many forms. At interview for an academic position e.g. lecturer it is my belief you should be judged on the brilliance of your PhD research and ability demonstrated through this, not the fact that you stood in a room twice a week and 'teached'. If you look at application forms (and some academic appointments) you see that this is certainly not the case. It's quite bizarre to me I must admit. Anyway, lunchtime beckons

I think in the social sciences if you wait too long to publish you may well be adding to a body of knowledge by publishing 2-3 years after data was collected but it is sometimes a pretty moribund body of knowledge of little use to anyone in the fields your research addresses. I wouldn't feel able to comment fully about the need to publish immediately within natural sciences, though clearly there is value in medical sciences to getting findings into the public domain as soon as possible. Also, the act of writing to the standard of publication is a 'skill', and not some transferrable skill that you seem to dislike, but largely an academic skill if one is writing for a journal. Developing these skills as early as possible doesn't seem to be a bad thing to me. Otherwise one risks getting to the end of the PhD and only then having to develop the skill of writing to a publishable standard.

We are clearly irreconcilable on these things, but lecturing posts are usually at least 1/3 teaching, so surely candidates need to be able to teach. No other public sector appointments process disregards the need for candidates to have a skill that accounts for such a large proportion of the post. Teaching also allows you to share your knowledge with a wider group of people rather than the few people who may read your PhD thesis or journal article.