" those who wanted to learn and develop would suffer who you would not be able to do a PhD under restricted numbers."

Again I challenge this, you can still develop and learn without doing a PhD (and get a living wage to boot!). Again, developing and learning is not what a PhD is for IMO, there are a billion better ways to do that.

BTW, while I will confront his arguments, I dont intend to personally attack commonsense. If I have done this I apologise. I am enjoying this debate, and am glad that he is putting his view across, some of which I agree with in principle at least or in an ideal world. I feel everyone should be able to put their view across without being personally criticised.

Imo Commonsense is trapping himself behind a wall of economic determinism, an elaborate but ultimately flawed view of the problems inherent in the modern PhD-related infrastructure. It seems you aren't interested in the thousands of failure stories this culture generates, despite its echo of excellence that seems more faint the more it is discussed. I presume that you have graduated and are settled within 'the system' already ?

I said a minority of people are capable of doing a PhD and should be able to do one. The numbers doing a PhD are partly governed by the number of studentships the research councils/charities/businesses offer since only a limited additional number of people can afford to fund a PhD from alternative personal/bank loan sources.

Apologies if the economic literacy point was not obvious. Yes I agree if an elite have a degree then it is worth more to them. But I'm more interested in serving the needs of the broader economy. Fewer people go to university in Britain than any other major western economy. We need graduates to serve the needs of the economy with high level skills. Those who use their opportunity to do a PhD with imagination can offer collaborate with businesses to offer innovation consultancy to them, they can set up their own business thus expanding Britain's GDP, or they can offer such similar benefits to the public/voluntary sectors.

I think my position is less idealistic than yours because it is actually the direction that higher education is heading in any way. Supervisors may be in some cases incapabale presently of helping their students make best use of the opportunities a PhD presents them with. But this is changing. I would contend universities ought to be honest that most PhD students won't become academics, but they should ensure their academic staff can prepare PhDs for the many interesting alternative options a PhD can lead to. Some supervisors are already good at this. Perhaps this means a somewhat different group of people would choose to do a PhD than at present: possibly a more entrepreneurial, consultancy interested group rather than it being mainly (as at present) lefty, anti authority types (at least in the social sciences).

At the moment, I think I would. I haven't graduated yet, but hope to do so within the next year. It's complicated my life, damaged my health, crippled my finances, and put me in a strange position regarding starting a family.. but I've learned a lot, and I still think that when I finally defend my thesis, it'll be worthwhile :)

I'm sure although some different kinds of people will be encouraged to do a PhD in the future, an ample number of Matts will continue to follow this approach - after all we are talking about an oversupply of PhD Matts at the moment, yet an undersupply of PhD Commonsense or O Stoll's who see the PhD in a different way. I'm not sure where the oversupply of PhD Matts should go to, but I don't think they should expect the state to offer an unlimited number of tenured academic jobs for them regardless of society's needs.

I fully respect your position CS.

We have very different ideas about what PhD's are for and what they most strongly represent, but there is no doubt that your 'economic-feed-the-masses side' is suffocating the life out of the principles that a PhD was designed to uphold. Best of luck.

I'm off to play 5-a-side on ankles that are legendary for their brittleness, I'm too old for this!

"But this is changing. I would contend universities ought to be honest that most PhD students won't become academics, but they should ensure their academic staff can prepare PhDs for the many interesting alternative options a PhD can lead to. "

Agree absolutely about this.

However, the PhD (as it stands and as it was initially conceptualised) isnt a "super" degree. It is, and it should be, a scholarly path designed to produce academics. The fact that it can theoretically be used to siphon off people to civil service/ industry/ etc is a criminal waste. It would be like giving an elite training to a SAS commando who ends up guarding a canned food supply. Isnt that wrong?
Despite winning numerous awards and scholarships I am currently working as a temp (explains the free time). Isnt that wrong?

As I stated earlier there are different models of the PhD to suit different needs. It is not an either/or issue between highly scholarly PhDs and more applied PhDs. Both are important and we should seek to make use of both. There are plenty of graduates doing temp work as well, but I'm sure if you are as good as you suggest you will in time get a job suited to your abilities in academia or elsewhere. The civil service needs highly developed researchers for all sorts of purposes, including intelligence services, policy research etc - those with undergraduate degrees are not adequately prepared for such roles hence why PhDs are favoured for them.

cs, you are very quick to dismiss bourdieu. i still suggest you read some of his work - you might find that you are mistaken in some of your judgements of him (for example the claim that he doesn't substantiate his claims empirically).

btw what happened to the idea of scholarly independence? the discussion keeps turning about "return on investment" that the state should get out of higher education/research. to that i ask, how many of the important discoveries of the past which enable us our lifestyle today would have been made if only research had been funded that promised to give "return on investment" before it started already?

i'm not saying "the state should pay for my hobby". i'm saying "the state has a real interest in funding basic research, because even if some of it will be 'wasted', there is no way of deciding beforehand which research will and which will not lead to profit"

Well, being a Doctor for the rest of your life is worth the pain, I think.

I agree with Jay2007

The title of Dr.?

Yes, I honestly think it's mostly about the title. There is also the career side of it, and the salary side of it, and -to a lesser extent, since anyone can do it- the intellectual side of it.

But the title is yours forever. You've done it, you're a doctor, and when you're 60 you'll be a doctor. You wouldn't be a Master or a BA, that becomes irrelevant after a few years.