Current Events > What % of the discourse does a PhD know about their field?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic

---

The square root of your mother

---

Panthera posted...

The square root of your mother

pwned

---

Teh_Dr_Phil posted...

pwned

You showed up a half hour later to add this?

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

You showed up a half hour later to add this?

Dude you got pwned, just accept it and move on.

---

n%

---

Also what is the nature of the leap from undergrad to grad work? I did a graduate program but it was at a community college

---

It's an interesting question because of the phrasing. By %, do more frequently discussed topics weigh more heavily? When we say field, do we mean something as general as physics or as specific as a sub discipline of a sub discipline of a sub discipline? There is also academia vs industry to think about. People involved with either are going to be focused on different things. Broadly I would say it is less about knowing the whole field as it is about being able to familiarize yourself with other parts of the field with independent and well informed research, as needed.

The nature of the work probably depends on what you're studying. For me, if was less frequent assignments that are typically longer, classes that require a lot more independent learning for success, and of course a research component alongside your classes. I just finished the last class I'm probably going to take and will hopefully finish my PhD by August or next December.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Also what is the nature of the leap from undergrad to grad work? I did a graduate program but it was at a community college

undergraduate work is supposed to demonstrate that you learned the concepts. Graduate work is supposed to demonstrate that you've applied those concepts in a novel way. The big step is that you go from being able to repeat something someone else has done to having to build/research/claim something new. The exception being that in some cases you can do a literature survey or aggregate paper that simply summarizes a field which (extremely IMO) is the lazy way out.

If you're just talking about coursework it isn't any harder, IMO, just more specific.

In terms of % discourse for a field, it's gotta be something in the single digits or low double digits. You become more specialized as you go up in education and the result is you know a lot about a very specific piece of a field but more likely only have a summary understanding of a field as a whole.

---

Jabodie posted...

It's an interesting question because of the phrasing. By %, do more frequently discussed topics weigh more heavily? When we say field, do we mean something as general as physics or as specific as a sub discipline of a sub discipline of a sub discipline? There is also academia vs industry to think about. People involved with either are going to be focused on different things. Broadly I would say it is less about knowing the whole field as it is about being able to familiarize yourself with other parts of the field with independent and well informed research, as needed.

The nature of the work probably depends on what you're studying. For me, if was less frequent assignments that are typically longer, classes that require a lot more independent learning for success, and of course a research component alongside your classes. I just finished the last class I'm probably going to take and will hopefully finish my PhD by August or next December.

Congrats on making it so far!

When I look at philosophy grad programs it looks like you're in some ways at the mercy of what the course offerings are. But there are also courses that are foundational and etc. So I guess that's where the independent learning comes in.

---

s0nicfan posted...

In terms of % discourse for a field, it's gotta be something in the single digits or low double digits. You become more specialized as you go up in education and the result is you know a lot about a very specific piece of a field but more likely only have a summary understanding of a field as a whole.

Jabodie posted...

By %, do more frequently discussed topics weigh more heavily? When we say field, do we mean something as general as physics or as specific as a sub discipline of a sub discipline of a sub discipline?

I guess I mean something that is more specific to philosophy since it is a historical discipline. Like, I could see someone being an expert on Aristotle, and then someone else being an expert on the status of Aristotle in contemporary philosophy. But my question is probably more aligned with "how much do I need to know about something to be able to talk about it"

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I guess I mean something that is more specific to philosophy since it is a historical discipline. Like, I could see someone being an expert on Aristotle, and then someone else being an expert on the status of Aristotle in contemporary philosophy. But my question is probably more aligned with "how much do I need to know about something to be able to talk about it"

Your question is unfortunately highly dependent on the audience. What you need to know to talk to a general audience is a much lower bar than getting published on the topic, for instance. For a historical discipline, and this is an anecdotal observation made from having friends with those types of degrees, is that in order to make a name for yourself you need to find something extremely niche because everything else has been done already. So, like.... nobody is going to pay attention to you in academia if you're "an expert on Aristotle" as a new grad. You'd had to be, like, an expert on "records of Aristotle's mannerisms and dress from third party accounts and what that implies about his regional upbringing and/or who his inspirations may have been."

---

Hmm. I'll put it this way. My expertise is nonlinear dynamic modeling in steel structures for earthquake simulations, and other topics associated with that. If I wanted to do the same thing but with reinforced concrete, I would have to review a lot of information.

However, I am familiar with a wide range of subjects in structural engineering due to coursework, conferences, and discussions with my colleagues. But for in depth knowledge on 95%+ of those topics, I would refer to somebody else. And that doesn't include the topics I know nothing about (which is most of them tbh).

True expert knowledge in a wide range of subjects in a field can only come from many years of experience imo. A PhD won't give you that, but it is a step toward it. It is also not a necessary step imo.

---

<1%

---

s0nicfan posted...

Your question is unfortunately highly dependent on the audience. What you need to know to talk to a general audience is a much lower bar than getting published on the topic, for instance. For a historical discipline, and this is an anecdotal observation made from having friends with those types of degrees, is that in order to make a name for yourself you need to find something extremely niche because everything else has been done already. So, like.... nobody is going to pay attention to you in academia if you're "an expert on Aristotle" as a new grad. You'd had to be, like, an expert on "records of Aristotle's mannerisms and dress from third party accounts and what that implies about his regional upbringing and/or who his inspirations may have been."

Yeah.

Like apply the question to something totally different - driving a car. How much driving experience should you have before you can drive a car? Well, very little actually. You can drive a car around a parking lot when you're first learning. How much driving experience to drive on the road? Unassisted? On a race track? Etc.

---

Panthera posted...

The square root of your mother

Damnnnnnn

---

Define "field"

If I continued on to do a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, I might specialise in fluid dynamics, but may not be an expert in heat transfer in solid objects, which are both in the field of mechanical engineering

---