Is a Ph.D. degree important?

Alumni share their opinions and experiences on graduate school...

Warren Brown (BS, University of Arizona, PhD, Harvard 2000)

I have the sense that the PhD is supposed to be a major scientific work in my life. The scientific establishment enforces this by its emphasis on quantity of publications. The result is a lengthly PhD process. And because the end is years in the future, it is impossible not to get depressed and work slow at times. It seems to me, as a grad student, that the PhD is doesn't need to take so long. Rather, if the PhD was less a major life-work and more of a proof of understanding & ability in the field (i.e. one or two quality publications), it could be done faster. A shorter PhD would shorten the lengthly grad-school post-doc post-doc junior-faculty tenure-review process, and add younger minds to the independent research pool. Leaving the PhD-student role and becoming employed earlier (in academia or industry) would add stability to one's personal life more quickly. I feel a shorter PhD cycle would be better for the individual and the scientific community. I note that this timing is not controlled by the individual graduate student, but the advisor, department, and ultimately the community at large. -Warren Brown (GSFC '93) 5th year PhD candidate, Astronomy department, Harvard University

Drew Caffrey (BS, SUNY Geneseo, MS, University of Virginia) (2002)

hi -I am a senior at SUNY Geneseo in NY, graduating with degrees in applied physics and mathematics. I am going to the University of Virginia next year, to work toward a Masters in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. I was not enthusiastic about getting a PhD, and UVA is giving me nearly equivalent funding as the PhD students, to solely receive a masters. I am fully capable of earning a PhD, but I am hesitant to do so. Coming from Physics/math, I am new to the engineering field, but I am definitely qualified. I believe that a PhD in engineering is aimed at mostly academia, but is also good for project scientist types. I feel I am more suited to be a project support type person, not the inventor/idea-producer. It seems that a PhD limits one's job opportunities, focusing those chances to a very narrow realm. I would probably be fine with a PhD, but it seems that at this stage in life, I am not focused enough to decide precisely what topic I would like to dive into. Naturally, I could take a couple years to decide, but I think I would like to get a masters, and then go to work. I have not ruled out more degrees after a masters (MBA, PhD, MA in scientific management, etc). I am curious how this crew could "change" the PhD. It seems pretty standard across the board. I know that my colleages going on in physics are all planning on getting PhDs and the Math kids I know are scared of grad school altogether! I am very happy with my choice for now. I could easily decide to carry on and get a PhD in 2 years... Who knows? I was very close to taking a job at the Applied Physics Lab. The market is so good right now it is a tough choice between grad school and working. That is probably a major factor for this team to think about. So, I hope this helps in some way! take care, -Drew Caffrey (GSFC '99)

Jim Chase (BA & BS, University of Minnesota, SM, MIT 2001)

I think the question, of whether the PhD is right, is a good question, because it is something that I have wondered about for a couple of years. Originally, I believed that I would continue on and earn my PhD. But as I have slowly evolved through the process (and am now completing my Masters), I have a number of doubts. The doubts stem from two primary areas: time & specialization. The extended time necessary seems like a significant portion of my life. When I visited UT-Austin, they informed me that it would be 6-8 years before I would earn my PhD. This single statement ruled them out as of 8:30am on the day I visited. Meanwhile, at MIT the concensus seems to be 3-4 years after my SM program (total = 5-6). This is better, but it will mean sacrificing other areas. Yet, despite this concern, I feel that the time is not an issue that will change. (Actually, maybe some better maximums are in order, so that it doesn't stretch to 8 years). The other area is specialization. I tend to have a broad systems integration focus. I would like to know 'some' structures, fluids, propulsion, controls, and how these systems interact. Unfortunately, the PhD program is typically more focused on 'depth' then breadth. At all of the schools I spoke with (GeorgiaTech, MIT, etc...), there seemed to be a lack of 'Systems' PhD's. Instead, the thesis topics tend to be very specific disciplines. This leads to 'world expert' status of a very refined point. I believe it is possible to change this. The objective should not be an incredible amount of depth, but rather a thorough understanding of a product or process. In the case of systems, the result could be a thorough understanding of the product development process (or a smaller portion thereof). Essentially, the completed PhD student could go into an organization (such as NASA) and be a very competent (assistant?) PI, director, or manager of a project (such as sending a spacecraft to Mars). At any rate, those are just my thoughts from a first year grad student's perspective. -Jim Chase (GSFC '98)

Stephanie Gliege (BS & BA, Rocky Mountain College, Law, Arizona State)

> "Does the PhD need re-vision, re-thinking, and change?" My answer to this important question is yes, the PhD definitely needs re-thinking. When I was working at Ames we would often joke about all of the ridiculous things that our "superiors" (the PhD research scientists that we were working under) would do. We referred to the degree as "getting your blinders on". I had the full intention of pursuing a PhD after graduating from undergrad in biology and chemistry and getting a research assistant job at Ames. After working there for only 9 months I realized that I didn't want blinders, I wanted options, so I decided to go to law school. (Which is the arena I currently find myself deeply engrossed in.) I also decided to go to law school to bridge the gap between law and science, but that's not what's at issue here. I think the PhD produces a person who knows a great deal of information about one specific thing. In this day and age, subject diversity and "cross-field knowledge" are becoming increasingly more important. We need to know not only what we're doing, but also what everyone around us is doing so that we can work together. While I place great importance on gaining expertise in a specific area, I think the degree is way too focused. I don't want to fill the plate of the already over-flowing PhD student. Perhaps a restructuring would be a good idea. To be honest, I have not developed an answer to my "blinders" dilemma, nor have not designed what I think the plan should be. I'm still in the "being critical" stage. I would like to think more about this, but I'm busy putting my law blinders on. Luckily, in law school, we wear them for the first year and then broaden our scope. We're expected to be able to deal with everyting from child abuse to environmental pollution to anti-trust when we're finished. Yes, it's a lot of work, and yes, we do specialize, but because of the nature of the field, we are required to be aware of what's going on around us. If there was some way we could build a level of awareness (not only of other scientific fields, but also of societal events and social awareness) in those pursuing the PhD, this would help my idea. I have to complete this thought later, finals are calling. . . Stephanie Gliege, Arizona State University Law School, Ames '98

Mike Lisano (BS & MS, Auburn, PhD UT-Austin)

To be accepted for Ph.D. studies, it was required that I have a GRE score above some threshhold, good references, solid grades from my earlier education, and some indication (in the form of essays) that I was/am "ambitious" to be a technical leader in my field. Earning my Ph.D. required a certain nominal amount of coursework, written and oral qualifying exams, a few years of research, a dissertation and a successful defense. The question in my mind is, was this sufficient to prepare me for a career as a "lead-engineer/analyst/designer/ researcher" in today's space program? I would say that my Ph.D. experience did in fact prepare me for many of the technical challenges involved. But there were many things I was not prepared for. For example, (1) very few projects in the real world are really looking for nth-degree accuracy/precision, as my professors were. The technology issues of the day outside of engineering academia are the design of reliable architectures, fault tolerance, graceful degradation modes, and, most importantly, testing, testing, testing, to validate a design. (2) very often, the most important projects require a team effort, where there are people with diverse technical backgrounds trying to develop a new system while learning how to communicate with each other, and also learning not to wish to kill each other from time to time. If you are working alone on a derivation or analysis, luxuriating in the joy of mathematical symmetry and scientific truth, and no one is bothering you for an answer according to some schedule or budget, your project, however fascinating, is probably not actually being funded. (3) communication (with teammates, with customers, with clients, with subordinates and superiors) is the constant key to engineering success. The more complex and new your system is, the more urgent it is to be willing to spend some part of the time clearly, explicitly communicating your status and plans for future progress. It is also important to learn how to be persuasive, especially when funding is on the line. These are things that a really good engineering Ph.D. program should somehow impart these real-world ideas to the student. -Mike L. (GSFC '93)

Phil Romig (PhD, University of Nebraska, Lincoln)

The first question one should ask a prospective Ph.D. student is "Why do you want to get a Ph.D.?". To some degree the student's answer to this question dictates the response to the issue at hand. Students answers fall into three broad categories (1) I want the power and prestige that comes from having a PhD, (2) I want to work in an academic environment where I can teach and do research or (3) a PhD is needed for the industry or government sector job I am interested in. Students who answer (1) are probably not going to make it through the program and are not really relevant to the current discussion. As a new Ph.D. graduate who is taking a university position I feel that I was fairly well served by my Ph.D. program. If properly administered students should spend enough time in the classroom to form educated opinions about how teaching should be done (opinions they will need when they are called upon to teach) and they should have done enough research so as to have established the beginnings of a research program that they can take with them to their faculty position. The students who are not being served by the current post-masters program. These students can be broken down into two additional categories (1) students who expect to be project managers at companies with a large Ph.D. work-force (and so they believe they need a Ph.D. to manage Ph.D.s) and (2) students who want to do research in an industry (or government lab) setting. Each of these groups should be addressed separately. I realize that I have (a) gone over the 2 paragraph limit and (b) not made an useful suggestions about how to change anything, but I figure that is what the experts out west will be doing. To summarize, I believe that there are people who benefit from the Ph.D. (me for example) as it is currently administered but others may suffer as a result of attempts to make the Ph.D. a one size fits all solution to a diverse set of needs. -Phil Romig, (GSFC '93)

Mark Wilkinson (BS & MS, Utah State)

Most PhD programs emphasize the in-depth study emphasize the exhaustive study of a highly-focused topic in a tightly-defined field. This needs to change. Most of the great leaps in technology have involved the integration of several disciplines. The future will be no different. Examples include: Artificial Intelligence - Psychology and computer science. Handicap Assistance - Mechanical engineering and biology. Cybernetics - Mechanical engineering and biology. biology. Cybernetics - Mechanical engineering and biology. Virtual Reality - Biology and computer science. Nanotechnology - Electrical engineering (VLSI), mechanical engineering (MEMS), and chemistry. PhD programs should be developed that have provisions for multi-disciplinary (but highly specialized) graduate study, such as those suggested above. Mark Wilkinson, NASA Academy Alumni Association (GSFC '93)

Enectali Figueroa (BS, University of Puerto Rico, MS & Ph.D. Stanford 2001)

PhD's (and I will only be referring to those in science since that is what I know) are not such a good deal these days; if your ultimate goal is money, that is. I believe that in our current society education and knowledge have fallen down the tiers of the definition of success. Our society brings up its members in a world where the goal is "to make it" and the definition of that is mostly material. In this scenario, a PhD in science is one of the worst investments a person can make. Getting an MBA or a Law degree takes about half the time and pays at least double the money. Furthermore, while one is a graduate student, living conditions and pay are abysmal when the quality of the individuals and the time spent at work are taken into account. All this is true if your goal in life is the accumulation of wealth. I am happy with my life as a graduate student. I consider that the current system of serfdom while learning the ropes to become a scientist is instructive and effective in teaching aspiring PhDs what they need to know. I have no qualms about the process or the length, I don't believe it can be done in much less time. There is an immense amount of knowledge that must be absorbed to become a leader in a scientific research area. This takes time. It takes practice. Mistakes must be made and corrected. In the end, one comes out of the graduate student experience a different person; one is now a scientist. This transformation requires the "boot camp" ways of graduate school. My currency is knowledge, and I feel I have been paid handsomely. -Enectali Figueroa (GSFC '95)

If you would like to share your thoughts on graduate school , send them to equintan@estrellas.arc.nasa.gov