"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."

We can be pretty sure that research on farting in the Middle Ages, which I recently saw a whole academic book published on, is not going to do anything useful today of much merit beyond perhaps contributing to research for the Horrible History series. There are 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. Fair enough if such research can be funded by private individuals.

"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."

But my underlying argument was to research the opportunities thoroughly. Anyone in an industry can tell you how people get jobs if you ask them (so if you asked a few doctors you'd find out where jobs were advertised). But a lot of people do start off through the situations vacant column as an entry to an industry so it's a good place to start, and most public sector professions largely recruit through open job advertisements (including HE!)

This is an excellent thread. However, it still surprises me that people join in without much of an idea of what I, for example, am on about. To clarify ( @ commonsense ) : I WAS FULLY AWARE, at the age of 28-31, what I was getting involved in and what the future prospects were. Please understand this. I am writing up (in sociology) - and I am 50 /50 as to whether I wish to commit myself to the academic sphere or do other things. I am in no rush, I have enjoyed my research (in an unusual area) immensely, and in life generally I am very happy and content. Please accept this for starters!

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)...

Please be aware of what is being said: the potential for PhD researchers to be actively encouraged and helped to produce ground-breaking / exciting / helpful (pick your own) research and findings for their society has been sharply curtailed by an institutional infrastructure that barely cares about the origins of its own award. This is a comment and a criticism of the structure that I gladly got involved with – it has left me deeply unimpressed with the direction of academia as a whole, HENCE being 50 / 50 as to whether to pursue my love of writing and research in academia.

Please do not say, ‘go somewhere else’, ‘go and work for a sector that needs you’ because that was not the reason why I wanted to do the PhD and MISSES THE POINT – my criticism of the current academic structure and culture is NOT indicative of a negative PERSONAL attitude. I don’t care about money, so please don’t make me adhere to a system that adheres to the view that I must abandon my research and teaching POTENTIAL to chase down opportunities I’m not interested in.

I’m still 50/50 but in my three years academia has done virtually nil to ATTRACT ME into its employ; they have offered little incentive, little direction, and little moral fibre as to what academia is about – my own view is that I don’t want to be caught up in that kind of environment, hence a possible move away form it. As for new PhDers, I do not envy them one bit, and wouldn’t recommend one unless they are chasing down an industry position that has the accumulation of cash as a firm priority.

Matt - I've concluded that you just want a good moan about how things aren't perfect in academia - just as they aren't in fact in any other profession or industry. Every industry/profession has its up and downsides. I can't see any of your complaints as being particularly significant. A lot of people want to do a PhD for the pure intellectual stimulation and that doesn't have to mean wanting an academic job when they finish. That doesn't mean they have failed in any way whether they enter business or the public sector afterwards as a career. I have read all your posts Matt and I appreciate your dislike of money, hence trying to quel your anxiety by littering my positive suggestions of how you can use your PhD with references to voluntary sector, social enterprise etc. There are many good instances of the public and voluntary sector making good use of PhD skills and knowledge outside of academia.

"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.

It does amuse me that those of us who wish to challenge some of the less edifying aspects of what we see before us are denounced as ‘moaning’, ‘complaining’, unprepared’, or, the really articulate one, ‘not living in the real world’, or similar. So instead of engaging with the points being made, put-downs and brush-offs are enlisted, which raises a dry smile, because that kind of attitude is precisely what is being called into question...

The other thing which occasioned a smile from my chevvy chase was Commonsense’s fortitude concerning this ghastly coined phrase ‘PhD skills’. When I read that I knew instantly how far the value of a PhD had truly fallen (excuse the hyperbole). PhD skills? Eh? Oh my god, is the PhD not sufficient anymore? As I’ve tried to outline a number of different ways, ‘transferable skills’ are just the latest gimmick from within the walls of academe to gloss over the paucity of the award they are almost duty bound to dish out. I appreciate positive suggestions, but not ones that merely serve to dislocate the thrust of what is being argued. Around 80% of people on here have said they wouldn’t do it again, does that not reveal something and worry people in equal measure? ...

I suppose accuracy is a skill: I haven’t said I dislike money, just that it is not that important to me. And I’m not anxious, far from it. But then, if one doesn’t engage in the arguments being built, the one-word brush-offs are easier to dispense, are they not?

"That doesn't mean they have failed in any way whether they enter business or the public sector afterwards as a career".

To clarify (again): I have never said this, nor do I think anyone else has, and this is not part of my argument.

Matt - I agree there's nothing wrong with wanting to critique the lot of PhD students or academics more generally, but I do think that on balance we have things better than most professions. I have answered your points in my earlier posts, but perhaps not in the way you would like me to. Should you wish to proceed, perhaps you can pick out the five major criticisms you have of academia/the lot of PhD students.

I really don't understand what you expect to learn doing a PhD if not skills. I definitely disagree with you if you think that HE should proceed into the future as a domain where academics don't engage with the outside world, they don't have to account to the tax payer by delivering skills to students and they don't need to prove their value.

Hi CS was just about to hit the hay
No that's fine I appreciate other points of view and take on borad what you say; it just seems that, in particular, the points being made by myself and Badhaircut were not being enagaged with. Such is life on a forum!

I'll pick out my top 5 tomorrow, am sure Badhaircut will get there before me though Aquick one is skills. Huge world of a difference between the expertise and 'top-level' academic ability demonstrated through the praxis of research and the 'transferable (aghast) skills' that put me to sleep within 10 minutes of the first 'class'.