 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years
> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
> is a PhD different?
How is a PhD different?!?
A PhD is *entirely* different from a BSc. Most people, myself included to some
extent, float through a BSc, just making sure they pass the tests and get the
homework in on time. Professors spoon-feed students the basics of assorted
fields, and a mutual understanding has arisen that as long as students can
repeat what the professor told them, they'll get the degree. The very fact
that so many can make it through undetected says volumes about the amount of
personal responsibility expected. That does NOT mean it's worthless, and does
NOT mean it's easy. You learn a lot getting a BSc but never really have to put
yourself out there.
For a PhD, you have to do the work. You go out and find the relevant books and
papers. Your advisor may give you something to accomplish, but you have to
figure out how to make it happen. Sure, there are a few classes, but the
emphasis is entirely on the research. *No one* floats through a PhD. Some may
put in more effort than others, but to get the degree you have to demonstrate
that, whether your research is really revolutionary or not (it's probably not),
you are not only capable of comprehending and conversing in your field, but that
you are capable of actively researching, contributing to, and expanding your
field.
Think of a project you did for your BSc. I don't mean to assume, but if it's
anything like projects I did, there was a clear set of guidelines and
requirements. It only amounted to making something work. Once that was done,
the project was done. For a PhD, the project requires that you can make sense
of the field, figure out where the voids are, learn the prerequisite material
yourself, and ultimately discover something no one else knows the answer
to--and along the way, you interact with the best and most knowledgeable people
in your respective field.
Now I'm not trying to devalue a BSc, and I'm not trying to overstate the value
of a PhD or the people with them (this wouldn't include me anyway). I'm only
trying to state the facts--that to say a BSc and PhD are really not so
different is simply not the truth. They are different. Very different. And
employers will recognize the difference.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> to get the degree you have to demonstrate
> that, whether your research is really revolutionary or not (it's probably not),
> you are not only capable of comprehending and conversing in your field, but that
> you are capable of actively researching, contributing to, and expanding your
> field.
Oh, one more thing to add: If you're saying, "That doesn't sound like me...,"
well it doesn't sound like me either. As was pointed out, just like a math
class, the point of it is to develop those skills. If you already had them,
you would have no use for the degree. Don't sell yourself short though. You
appear to have figured out digital filters and a bit of knot theory on your
own, among other things. That's not PhD-level research, but that's the same
kind of effort and skills it requires. One purpose of an advisor is to channel
that effort so that you can learn what you need and not get lost.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:53:19 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care
>>> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
>>
>> I've found that when I get paid to do something it mysteriously becomes
>> interesting ???
>
>Heh. You clearly get paid very much more than I do. ;-)
Could be ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me the
> CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set now.
>
> The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has
> Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock 'n
> Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink
> Floyd". I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a time,
> but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I have
> the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).
If it's on the LP, you're probably stuck with that, because it seems
they lifted that bit out for copyright reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(radio_series)#Musical_copyrights
I've never heard that version before...
>> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how badly
>> they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty good apart
>> from that though.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all. I also
> didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he was just
> reading the lines.
Essentially Zaphod is about right in the film, but in the previous
versions the character managed to stay likeable, never becoming outright
unpleasant. You just want Martin Freeman's Arthur to pummel him. In the
other versions it's much more low-level jibing and Arthur gives as good
as he gets in most cases. ("Well, go bang your heads together, foureyes!")
Mos Def was actually better than I expected. Unfortunately the original
actors' interpretations are so firmly embedded in my mind that I doubt
anyone else will do it as well to my ears... although, as you say,
Stephen Fry was excellent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:17:30 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>OK, but I still think there's something to be said for knowing what your
>real strengths and weaknesses actually are.
True but not a lot. I believe that introspection is bad for you, I also believe
that analysis, public displays of grief and talking about your (not aimed at
you) feelings are amongst the worst things that you can do for your mental
health.
<Sits back and waits for the avalanche>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Not true. If you're going for a technical position, even if it's
>> unrelated to your field of study, the fact that you are capable of
>> completing a PhD says a lot. It says you stick with the job, have a
>> capacity and interest for learning, have experience in
>> communication/dissemination, etc... and that's ignoring the
>> field-specific skills.
>
> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years
> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
> is a PhD different?
A *good* BSc says you have a capacity for learning. I'm not convinced it
says anything more than that. My first degree certainly didn't equip me
with the ability to communicate effectively with my professional(!)
peers. If anything, it made me want to avoid giving presentations and so
forth even more! The experiences gained in a PhD are as valuable, and
real, as actual work experience. They're the same thing. For all intents
and purposes, you can regard a PhD project as a proper job.
That said, be proud of the BSc, it's still a valuable achievement and
puts you firmly in a higher category than most. But just think: you hold
the thought of a PhD in very high esteem - why shouldn't others too?
>> Speculative queries
> [snip]
>
> Well, maybe it's worth a giggle. ;-)
Absolutely. Worked for me. And I wasn't even looking for it with the
deliberation that you (hopefully) will be!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and
>>>> got horribly lost...
>>>
>>> You should look up "universal quantification" and "existential
>>> quantification" on wikipedia.
>>
>> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.
>
> What exactly is the problem? Other than that the upside down E and A are
> not part of the ascii character set?
I don't know. I would imagine I'm looking at one specific technical
term, and I'm therefore not seeing the entire background context that
goes with it, so it doesn't make much sense. Something like that.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years
>> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end
>> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
>> is a PhD different?
>
> How is a PhD different?!?
>
> A PhD is *entirely* different from a BSc.
> They are different. Very different.
Agreed.
> And employers will recognize the difference.
This is the part I'm dubious about.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > They are different. Very different.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > And employers will recognize the difference.
>
> This is the part I'm dubious about.
Then I don't understand. Employers (both the people doing the hiring and the
people doing the thinking) obviously look for *something*. I think we can all
agree on that. Then the question is what. Experience? Certainly.
Communication and interpersonal skills? Without a doubt. Knowledge or
specific skills? Yes, or maybe slightly less as long as you can learn. It
seems to me (and I can only answer from my understanding, not personal
experience) that a PhD shows all of these qualities.
Is the point of contention that you might not have exactly the right specific
skill? I believe Mr. New said that he learned a new programming language in
almost all of his jobs. Even if they don't have to take it on faith that you
can learn, then shouldn't the fact that your research was funded indicate that
someone out there is willing to pay for what you have?
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> And employers will recognize the difference.
>
> This is the part I'm dubious about.
Don't know about UK, but there are quite a number of jobs in the US
that require at least an MSc. And if it's research, they almost always
require a PhD.
In electrical engineering jobs, it's almost a given that you won't be
part of product design unless you have the MSc.
So of course, some employers recognize the difference.
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
