Is there a difference between holding a PhDs and having real world skills

carlowplayer

Am wondering as I want to know does not having a PhDs mean you can't do independantly research that can't be researched particularly the sciences ie if I work for a science based company and if make a discovery ie develop a new drug can I take credit for it or can you do say research on a virus and get recognition on the work and be published in academic and scientific papers

Kamik

The chances are that the credit will be published as the work of that Laboritory/Academy/Company rather than you by name.

carlowplayer

Kamik wrote: »

The chances are that the credit will be published as the work of that Laboritory/Academy/Company rather than you by name.

So is there any difference in terms of knowledge and practical skills between a researcher working in company and a PhD

Kamik

Only that one has thorough teaching and is Qualified also has the scroll to prove their attestation.

carlowplayer

Kamik wrote: »

Only that one has thorough teaching and is Qualified also has the scroll to prove their attestation.

So a researcher could be just as knowledgeable as someone with a PhD and capable of being credited with work in scientific journals

kisaragi

carlowplayer wrote: »

So a researcher could be just as knowledgeable as someone with a PhD and capable of being credited with work in scientific journals

It depends on the people in question and their relative experience I'm sure? Most people publish during/before obtaining their PhD -it's not a requirement to hold a PhD to publish if that's what you're asking?

As to whether you have the right to publish work you did for a company... I think it would depend on the contract and whether you own the intellectual property rights to the work.

Kamik

carlowplayer wrote: »

So a researcher could be just as knowledgeable as someone with a PhD and capable of being credited with work in scientific journals

But AFAIK that has never happened, credit is usually passed to the establishment.
It would embarrass those suitably qualified otherwise.

carlowplayer

kisaragi wrote: »

It depends on the people in question and their relative experience I'm sure? Most people publish during/before obtaining their PhD -it's not a requirement to hold a PhD to publish if that's what you're asking?

As to whether you have the right to publish work you did for a company... I think it would depend on the contract and whether you own the intellectual property rights to the work.

I was wondering asides from the prestige to get jobs in academia what is the point of a PhD?

chocksaway

carlowplayer wrote: »

I was wondering asides from the prestige to get jobs in academia what is the point of a PhD?

PhDs lead to more management or project lead roles in industry

carlowplayer

chocksaway wrote: »

PhDs lead to more management or project lead roles in industry

And it's not possible for anyone who has working as a researcher to have said management or project lead roles over time(and if so how long would they have had to working as a researcher to gain such roles)

Kamik

I believe you mean a general researcher and not a project researcher.
Most project researchers are already qualified in their field.
Most general researchers rarely stay at that level and prefer to move on up the ladder with a qualification.

kisaragi

carlowplayer wrote: »

I was wondering asides from the prestige to get jobs in academia what is the point of a PhD?

To get cheap teaching labour for universities :P

Seriously though, I guess in my case I did a BA in Psychology for my undergraduate degree which is basically useless - whereas now I am just finishing a PhD in neuroscience so in a sense I switched areas. I couldn't work in an industry research lab with a degree in psychology - I had hardly any lab experience, but now I have research careers in both academia and industry as options.

From a societal/economic view I guess PhD students are necessary because we do a lot of research for relatively little money. You learn a lot about doing research from a PhD - both in terms of techniques and also through all the literature you have to read/understand. I don't have any experience in industry, but I certainly wouldn't have been able to draw up a decent research project straight out of my undergrad - whereas now I would at least have a couple ideas and an understanding of what is and isn't feasible.

carlowplayer

kisaragi wrote: »

To get cheap teaching labour for universities :P

Seriously though, I guess in my case I did a BA in Psychology for my undergraduate degree which is basically useless - whereas now I am just finishing a PhD in neuroscience so in a sense I switched areas. I couldn't work in an industry research lab with a degree in psychology - I had hardly any lab experience, but now I have research careers in both academia and industry as options.

From a societal/economic view I guess PhD students are necessary because we do a lot of research for relatively little money. You learn a lot about doing research from a PhD - both in terms of techniques and also through all the literature you have to read/understand. I don't have any experience in industry, but I certainly wouldn't have been able to draw up a decent research project straight out of my undergrad - whereas now I would at least have a couple ideas and an understanding of what is and isn't feasible.

How long did it take you to complete your PhD?

kisaragi

carlowplayer wrote: »

How long did it take you to complete your PhD?

4 years! I'll be handing it in in October.

carlowplayer

chocksaway wrote: »

PhDs lead to more management or project lead roles in industry

What would be the difference in work done by a researcher and a project leader

carlowplayer

kisaragi wrote: »

4 years! I'll be handing it in in October.

Is that a general length of how long it takes or can it take longer or shorter

Kamik

carlowplayer wrote: »

What would be the difference in work done by a researcher and a project leader

A project leader does a hell of a lot more than just research, plus they have extra responsibilities.

carlowplayer

Kamik wrote: »

A project leader does a hell of a lot more than just research, plus they have extra responsibilities.

Like what?

Black Swan

In addition to (hopefully) expanding your knowledge, understanding, and research skills, as well as getting a publication or two, a PhD should enhance your career opportunities in your field. In our lab you cannot be a PI without one. Furthermore, research follows money, and competition for grants and contracts has been very competitive since the Great Recession. Anything you can do to improve your qualifications (PhD, grants, publications, presentations, research experience, etc.) should increase your chances of getting funded when replying to RFPs.

How long does it take? Depends upon your field, research topic, and funding. A friend of mine walked the stage this Spring after 7 years in chemistry, while another got his in management after 4 years.

Kamik

carlowplayer wrote: »

Like what?

Research, source, supply, administration, personnel, health & safety, results, etc.

riffmongous

Strangely all of the non-academic people I have done projects with have no interest in publishing, some of them even already have PHDs and just are not interested. Which works well for me as I can get first author on the research that comes out of it

Kamik

riffmongous wrote: »

Strangely all of the non-academic people I have done projects with have no interest in publishing, some of them even already have PHDs and just are not interested. Which works well for me as I can get first author on the research that comes out of it

Strange! you say, but that situation is very common.

kisaragi

carlowplayer wrote: »

Is that a general length of how long it takes or can it take longer or shorter

Yes, generally 3-4 years for a PhD. I've never heard of anyone doing it in less than three years, but there are a lot of people who take longer than four - usually because something went wrong and they had to re do a lot of work / had a big delay in data collection, or else due to personal issues arising. Most funding is for four years now so any longer and you have to start paying for yourself!

Black Swan

kisaragi wrote: »

Yes, generally 3-4 years for a PhD.

Outside of PhD programmes, there are other doctorates (DPharm, PsyD, EdD, DBA, DPA, etc.) that cater to the professions that can be completed in 3 years. I have a javahouse acquaintance that is ABD after 2 years classes beyond the masters, has an approved and funded research topic, plus the first 3 rough drafted chapters, and expects to finish his EdD in a year. These degrees focus on practical applications, not research as a future career.

avalon68

carlowplayer wrote: »

So a researcher could be just as knowledgeable as someone with a PhD and capable of being credited with work in scientific journals

From my experience, anyone without a PhD (or who is not a current PhD/masters student) would be employed in a technical capacity (at least in a university environment). They do get credit on papers sometimes, but usually mid rather than first author. They would not lead projects, but would follow the directions of scientists with PhDs. In an industry setting, you would probably also hit that "glass ceiling".

ancapailldorcha

avalon68 wrote: »

From my experience, anyone without a PhD (or who is not a current PhD/masters student) would be employed in a technical capacity (at least in a university environment). They do get credit on papers sometimes, but usually mid rather than first author. They would not lead projects, but would follow the directions of scientists with PhDs. In an industry setting, you would probably also hit that "glass ceiling".

My PI said more or less exactly this to me the other day. I'm attempted to get into academia at the moment and am working as a technician to this end. I've been assured that I will be listed as an author on any publication we get. I asked about being first author and he wasn't as receptive to the idea saying I'd have to do a lot of reading and that it would take up a lot of my time. I'm not sure if I'd be able to do one given that most of my experience is completely grounded in the more formal world of industry.
A PhD is definitely a big plus in industry IME. In the last place I worked, it would have been impossible to climb the ladder without one. My boss told me that the PI didn't respect people without them. The qualification itself won't mean much unless some of the selection panel have PhDs themselves. It's more about selling yourself and showing what you learned in your PhD ie, writing papers, giving talks and designing experiments.

blankblank

From what ive seen PhD = more credibility

fishtastico

From my experience, it's a lot like driving. Sure, you might be driving your da's car since you were 12, but holding a licence proves that you've been taught to do it properly and you've been examined in a standardised way. A PhD really just shows that you've been taught the correct way to research, write, and perform critical analysis of other people's work. Not saying that you can't learn it on the job, it's just hard to prove.