The PhD training usually involves enough pseudo or direct brown nosing to qualify them as sellout whores after digging into one subject, topic, or even a way to look at something... this is ultimately the antithesis of innovation or ideation because nobody who sits on one topic for more than 4 years hiding away in academy is really a good doing anything beyond that one subject and luckily there's usually an industry that will pay for them to do something in that one topic or EU funding for science may cover it, so they fail to ever thirst for a revolution... sellouts. It takes multiple domains of human understanding to simplify something into a more useable "tool" and PhD people are rarely ever going to simplify anything because that means the project is finished and the money is only out in the real world for the end result, not the self praising world of academy.... with their overly PhD complicated jargon-ified mental gymnastics (since the easiest way to lie is to make it so the other person doesn't understand you, hence "financial derivatives" and string theories and all the other horse shit so specialized it requires a PhD lol).S_Parc wrote:As you probably know, I'm neither a fan of Cornfed nor Tsar, however, this simply isn't true. In metro Toronto, there's an expression, where can one find the most PhDs? … flag down a taxi.Contrarian Expatriate wrote:But if I were a Phd (especially in a STEM field), you can rest assured that I would not be living at mom's house. This guy likely has some mental illness that cause an "unemployable attitude."
So he is a loser indeed....
And the same goes for a number of US cities but it's not as bad as Canada, where many ppl have higher education but no opportunities.
In reality, a PhD, without other work experiences, makes one overqualified for many jobs out there. There are only so many HS teaching gigs and many of them are unionized and their members only have some masters in education. The same goes for college instructors. In addition, those exclusive national security jobs already have their recruiters scouring the MITs, Georgia Techs, Carnegie-Mellon's for code breakers.
My GF and I both have undergraduate STEM degrees, however, both of us know that beyond that initial white collar *entry level* diploma, everything else is about already having a pre-existing resume. Even the PhDs I'd seen in industry are more or less, glorified product managers. I even knew a few, who'd taken their PhDs off their resume, to get in the door, but then later, put them back on, to transition into management roles. In other words, it's a fancy MBA for them, not a real research demarcation.
For the most part, only healthcare training, like doctor(MD), nursing, pharmacy, or PA actually require some advanced education. I believe that had this person decided to attend medical school, instead of pursuing a PhD in the sciences, he'd be a practicing pathologist today, even w/o any ppl skills whatsoever.
What a number of STEM graduate students do, however, is take their PhDs off the resume, write Java/Python/Perl/C++ programs in their respective labs, and then, re-package themselves as IT consultants in those areas, using their laboratory as work experience than as education. As long as someone in the lab can vouch for their background, they can typically find contract work which can later jump start a career.
This is the reality of life.
Psych PhD students are the best to mess with, I can read their thoughts off of them and then mess with them. The really smart ones have half the smarts I have and they don't like me after they unmask my intelligence because they know I'm too complicated. Their dance stops when they ask me questions and I give them answers that don't exist in their field of science. It's kinda sad to see them shrink in their own minds, thinking that they'll never know that much. Some embrace the knowledge and light up, those are the fun ones. Needless to say, there aren't too many of those ones