OP has two problems, one of which is being a Russian national stuck in a state which is collapsing over decades, and the other is being stuck in a postmodernist mire:
"Identity, values, ideology, post-modernity; critical discourse analysis, rhetoric, persuasion, functional grammar, genre analysis, sociolinguistics, metapragmatics. At least in my hands, each new framework became another way to support a conclusion I had largely reached in advance"
They know the solution: Popperian falsification. "But it has one property much of my previous work lacked: reality gets a vote".
It ain't much, but falsifiable work is honest work. I hope they get to the (physical and metaphorical) place they need to live.
I have a PhD, because at the time I wanted a career in academia, and I enjoyed research. I did a short post-doc, because I still wanted a career in academia, and enjoyed research. I quit academia because I no longer wanted a career in academia, and I didn't enjoy the research (or my boss).
I don't regret my wasted years. Sure, I would have likely earned more money, but it was fun, and made me who I am.
I do find it a bit of a shame that my current and previous employers couldn't give two hoots that I have a PhD etc, but oh well.
EDIT: I have a PhD and post-doc experience in Cell Biology, and now work as a software engineer at a fairly large hardware company.
I have found it a bit frustrating that I am more junior on the company scale than most people my age. In some respects, I have lots more experience with people my pay grade, but in others, not so much.
I trained and qualified as an Industrial Electrician (not on the same scale as a PhD academically but not a trivial amount of work to do either) and decided I loved the theory and hated the practical.
I'm a software engineer and none of that training has ever been directly applicable (though some of the engineering and planning aspects generalised have).
> I had no idea what a p-value was or why the hell anyone would take the logarithm of a number.
And that my friends is why people need to pay attention in school. Some time around 9th grade or so, the logarithm is taught and it's a mystery how anybody can go through modern life without knowing what it is.
A few years back I sat across a financial advisor who wanted to sell me a certain product and I asked him how long it would take for those proclaimed 3.8% yearly to double my money. He took a calculator, entered 1.038 x and then counted how often he had to press = for 2 to appear. I shook my head and walked out the door.
Of course not everything is about money. But exponentials play a role everywhere. Not having a basic understanding is failure of the school system ... or society that it is embedded in.
A lot of careers have very effective feedback loops for telling you that you're progressing, while being almost completely silent on whether the destination is one you actually want
Well said. When I was a grad student, chasing what would have been a doomed career in cellular neuroscience, I was unfortunate enough (fortunately in the end, perhaps?) to get struck down by a significant depressive episode. This ended up being the feedback signal I needed to consider changing things up, and I did.
In the end you will die. Religion can possibly offer you something for after death (depending on if you choose the correct one - this is an argument I am intentionally avoiding even though I have opinions). Very few people have a career in religion and thus for most your career will have nothing to say.
Genetically if you don't have kids you are a dead end. You career will have some bearing on the life you give you kids (if you have any, I'm not trying to say you should!) but otherwise I believe it should stay out of your kids life.
Similar to the above, most people live with a married spouse (common law marriage: a legal marriage is not required for this discussion, though it may or may not matter for other purposes). While many people do meet their spouse through their career this is not required and the career itself has nothing to say about it. (historically kings and queens did marry for career reasons)
Note that both kids and a spouse implies you shouldn't allow your career to take up too much time even though many will try to.
Many people have hobbies. Even if you love the things you do at work, odds are your mind cannot handle doing it once you are done with work: your career cannot tell you anything about them. There are many people who pick a career because the things like love cannot support the life they otherwise want to live: their career can't tell them about the destination because it is purely something they do to get there.
All of this is to say that even if your career would offer you help on the destination, you should ignore it.
Its more complicated. Even somebody who is a dead end- can feed back into a extended clan-family and thus enrich the survival of related traits.
And when you contribute to a societey that overproduces resources, thrives scientifically and does not carry a load of parasites, then your career actions may push the cohort fitness.
This of course implies that the offspring of dedicated focus personal has desert flower traits- meaning every offspring will be dumb as a rock, and pro at procreation. Meaning clever people will have "Hippie" pregnant machine offspring and the "spiritual" birth-machines will have hyper-analytical "dead-enders". None of them happy with the state of the world.
Life as they say- finds a way- to make you despair with the result of the affair.
It is far more complicated. I touched on the high level, but somebody in philosophy can write books on the subject (they probably know about many many books on the subject).
This is a great observation about “what matters”, though I imagine it falls on mostly deaf ears here at HN where many of us make success in our careers the destination.
I came to a similar conclusion during my masters, with less data and a less well-articulated rationale. I realized that I already had a talent for intellectual bullshittery, and grad school was encouraging it rather than giving me core skills. Looking around at fellow students, the same was true of them, and the competitive environment reinforced this tendency in all of us.
I learned to be more self-critical of my thinking than others were, and to recognize when others weren’t holding me to a higher standard. And I left.
> But you may know the move: when a project or career no longer survives a basic question, you respond by making it more elaborate.
When I'm defending a political position and it's going so badly that I have to add epicycles, I know I'm on the wrong track. But if I go back to first principles and develop a simpler internally consistent argument, it is usually insanely extremist to modern sensibilities.
Turns out that human morality and logical consistency are usually strangers.
This is the element of Russia vs. reality of the rest of the world. And not even just Russia - the entire post-Soviet space is like that. Totalitarian regimes create their own bubbles, ruining countless lives and stymieing overall progress and well-being of our species.
I have a horrid memory of interviewing "a kid" for an entry level engineering job during on-campus recruitment. The "kid" had just finished his PhD in chemistry following a master's and bachelor's in the same field.
He was now closer to 30 to than to 20, was interviewing for the same job that a BS-grad can go after, and wasn't competitive compared to them.
I asked him why he had spent so much time in chemistry just to pivot and he just literally didn't know. It was hard to look at his graduate education as anything other than a wasted decade that actually has set him back career wise.
One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one? We think of PhD designating that someone has committed to the field and pushed a little edge of the frontier forward through sheer motivation and brillians and it was just hard to imagine this being true for this guy.
A friend of mine did a PhD in computer science solely and specifically so he could prove to himself that he could do a sustained, multi-year solo project and complete it. He then got a job he totally would've gotten 4 years earlier as well, with just the MSc. When asked (eg by recruiters/interviewers), he always said "because I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it" and personally I find that a very satisfying answer.
All I'm saying is, not everyone doing a PhD and then leaving academia was accidentally climbing up the wrong ladder. Some did it on purpose, just to admire the view.
I think some people get on this train and they don't really know where to get off or what to do whenever they do get off. So inertia keeps them riding along, doing something that is comfortable (even if they don't enjoy it) to postpone figuring out what to do next. Eventually the train gets to the end of the line and they have to get off and figure something out.
I think this is part of the tragedy of our parents generation pushing college at all costs. It is very hard to know what you want to do for the rest of your life as an 18 yo. Even worse to take on all the debt in the world for something you don't end up loving or without a good path to repayment. In previous generations, some of these people would have done a stint in the service or taken a gap year but now there is too much pressure to know "now".
Academia is not a waste of time just because it doesn't translate into "productivity" and wealth. Some people enjoy the pursuit of knowledge, and find great meaning in it.
Increasingly the arts are being defunded based on a similar argument, and humanity as a whole is worse off because of it.
There is a real conflict here. People are getting loans for their education. A loan is an investment, and should only be taken if it will pay off.
If you are getting education because you are interested in the topic but won't get a job in it: I fully support this. However you should not take a loan out to get this education: there are too many other things to do in life that you also will want to do. Worse the loan means you cannot change your mind later if you are wrong (or you can, but you will still have to pay for the mistake instead of whatever you are interested in today).
There is one other reason for education: to become a better citizen (don't fall for bad politics). However that should be to everybody and I haven't seen much evidence that higher education really helps much.
While it would be insane to get a PhD if you had to pay for it, at least in the US you are paid a stipend (if not a good one) so you can generally avoid any debt. There is definitely an opportunity cost though.
While I agree with you, I also have to acknowledge the absurdity of some schools having kids define their own crazy undergrad majors, while plunging them into large amounts of debt. They should at least have to sign a waiver that says, "I acknowledge that this degree will likely not be a good investment".
Oh hey that’s me! Not literally me. Probably I was a little better off. But I was recently in a similar position, and feel like my PhD was a lost decade in some ways.
The answer, as I’m sure many already know, is idealism and a certain kind of naïvité. It’s not an absolute naïvité, but it is some kind of belief in the value of doing something that isn’t “mere” careerism. You think it’s noble to contribute to science. And you do contribute, a teeny eensy weensy bit. You also find out that it’s not everything you imagined it would be. And then you’re 30 and one day you unblind yourself. You look at the job market, and how much money various jobs actually pay. More importantly, you realize quite suddenly that money can actually make your life better, and that, whatever damage it might have wrought on your soul to pursue it, it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit. And the fresh grads who went straight into tech and finance making $300k (hold on, you can make $300k? Wait a second, that’s not a senior executive salary? That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?)… just naturally understood.
Then you try to explain this on a message board or something. You don’t want pity, you just want some connection, or maybe even a, “that’s ok, that’s how we learn, life is a twisty path.” But half the people call you a class traitor. The other half call you a mediocre sucker.
> it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit.
ding ding ding. This is the real kicker. This is why it’s a waste of time to pursue. Want a PhD? A home? A family? Pick one or two. With the amount of time and effort it takes to achieve those these days, you won’t get to have them all. So you have to pick one. At 17/18 it’s easy to see the coming decade as longer than it really is, and opportunity cost will catch up to you quick.
I think it depends on how much you enjoy/value your career. I spent a lot of my twenties working in random startups, doing work that I question the ultimate value of.
Looking back on it, I think I'd probably had preferred to spend the time doing a PhD in philosophy or art history, if only for the lifestyle and knowledge. It turned out okay in the end, but I do think there is a real lack of "intellectual rigor" in most market-based jobs compared to academia.
> Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one?
The value of a PhD is what it brings to you. It will cost vast amounts of unpaid toil and tears, and it will not give you a well-paid job afterwards. But if you love the idea of discovering something genuinely new about this world, having the sheer freedom to dive into a research question without fear or restraint can be exhilarating.
And sure, you can also get a PhD by doing the minimum and letting your supervisor carry you through. But why would you throw years away on something you didn't care about, with nothing but a subsistence living allowance as a reward? You're only cheating yourself at that point.
> The value of a PhD is what it brings to you. It will cost vast amounts of unpaid toil and tears, and it will not give you a well-paid job afterwards.
This should probably be legally mandated to be printed on the application forms, like a Prop 65 warning.
Your needlessly condescending description of the event coupled with the power imbalance of the situation suggest to me that you got the answers you expected to get simply because that’s what you were looking for
In my situation I started my PhD in a time before AI, and now that AI solves the problems I grappling with whether or not I should continue in this profession.
At the age of 17 or 18 how do you actually know? My kids are going through this now. He's like I don't even know if I want to be an engineer, people just tell me I'd be good at it.
One thing I always hated about university education is how it’s entirely designed nowadays as a sort of “coming of age experience” for teenagers coming out of high school.
I don’t have any higher education. I was stupid and arrogant and thought it would be a waste of time and money. However even if I did attend at 17/18, I almost certainly would have squandered it. I wouldn’t have been mature or aware enough to understand how and where to focus my time and energy in such a setting.
By about my mid-late 20s I felt like I had a better idea of what I could or could not get out of such an experience, but by that point I had a life and bills to pay and a job to attend to allow for any of that. There’s barely any time or money for education now. I’ve thought about trying to go back for the last decade, but it just becomes less realistic every year.
I think that gap you described of not ready but able vs ready but not able is exactly what the college experience is for. I also don’t think everyone needs to bridge that gap by going to college.
For me personally, I had a ton of fun squandering my college years taking a wide variety of classes that could have become a passion but ended up not. I would not have been able to do that outside of a structured environment that gave each subject a pass/fail opportunity in my life that cost only a semester.
That isn't the right question. The right question is can you do it, and will it pay enough to provide "a good life" (whatever that means to you). If you love [whatever] more power, that is the best case. However don't lose track of the fact that in the end no matter what job you pick there will be times when you have to do something you hate (not something unethical where you should quit, just something you hate), but you need to do something to be a good citizen.
If your kids already have a good career picked out I encourage a secondary study in some hobby thing. Go ahead and sing in the choir even though as an engineer it is a waste of time - that is fun and that is good (there are thousands of other fun things). Just don't lose sight that the goal is a good life and this will include things you don't want to do but have to anyway.
That resonates. I just advise to make decisions that broaden your future options. And you don't have to choose now, just get in take some classes, look around. He is in the local orchestra (one of the youngest), coaches skiing and kayaking at a pretty high level. His grades are off the chart so he's got to go to university, I wouldn't be inclined to push that now days but his results are too exceptional to do that to him. I just say get a degree, get a trade (coaching fits that well enough), start a business - those could be your five to ten year goals right now.
A PhD demonstrates the ability to think deeply about something. It thus isn't useless for any good job. However there are often better trainings for that job.
At least chemistry is objectively useful knowledge. Even if he would rather work in software engineering, there are a lot of places where domain expertise like that is very valuable. Plenty of software in the sciences.
Many would dream to be top scholars of their field, to the point it feels like a personal mission. The reality kicks in for the first time when you can’t progress through the system anymore, be it 25 or 30.
Graduate school is not about passion and pushing frontiers. It is about training new researchers. It is it not a place that I would recommend to anyone who has real passion or brilliance in any field.
You think that researchers lack passion and cannot push frontiers?? Research and passion are not dichotomous, they are (or at least should be) synonymous.
(I am genuinely sorry for whatever bad experience that's led to this bitterness, though.)
Nothing wrong with it. However what is right about it? The world needs research, and that means researchers. However for every person in research the world needs a very large number of people in non research. The guy who works at the local sewer plant isn't doing research, but the world would fall apart if nobody did that job, while the world would still continue with nobody in research (I wouldn't want to live in either world, but the world of no more research is better than the world of no more sewer systems)
As another poster mentioned, I also wanted to add that this attitude is why there is so much stress and pressure on kids these days to figure out everything in their lives by the time they're 22. It's pretty amazing to me that anyone can look at a PhD in Chemistry and say that was a wasted decade. Why was he not competitive? What skills were you looking for? In what way are you already biasing candidates based on your preconceived notions about what makes someone helpful, useful, intelligent, etc.
I know broad generalizations aren't too useful, maybe this specific person had real significant shortcomings compared to the other 22 year olds you interviewed, but I encourage you to consider why we are doing "all of this" anyway (is it money? productivity? prestige? big houses?) and why someone might prioritize going so far in a field to actually CONTRIBUTE something new to the field (as one does through a PhD). Maybe consider why someone might not slot perfectly into your idea of the perfect economic pawn, though nevertheless have chosen an absolutely fine way to spend ones life (or ten years of it).
I would have felt that he was at least technically savvy; and, beyond that, he might have the spark of one of the best qualities of a future colleague i.e. interesting-ness - one can't underestimate that.
beware: you can spend your life avoiding the thing you know you must do. You can even become rich or famous or get any other external validation you deem important in the process of not doing the thing you know you must do.
The thing you know you must do probably is an internal thing, but can also be an external thing. It's hard to navigate this, but no one cares if it's hard.
> any passage could be interpreted that way through a sufficiently flexible framework (and enough imagination), it was difficult to say what evidence would prove the claim wrong
Statistics has been great for social sciences is the foundation of any rigor in the field. There are many 'valid' statements about society that can be drawn using statistics.
At an individual level, those statistics are fairly meaningless. You can bucket yourself into any number of statistical groupings but being a representative datapoint or an outlier doesn't really explain nor does it solve anything.
> Much of my research began with a large claim about society (e.g., "consumer culture constructs identities") and I then searched texts for language that could illustrate that claim. Because almost any passage could be interpreted that way through a sufficiently flexible framework (and enough imagination), it was difficult to say what evidence would prove the claim wrong.
Doesn’t sound like you’re doing science, to me.
In fact, this is the crux of the whole reproducibility crisis in social sciences, is it not?
This also stood out to me, such that this article really has no bearing on the validity of advanced degrees in the sciences. Case in point, if you got a "Doctor of Sciences" degree and "had no idea what a p-value was or why the hell anyone would take the logarithm of a number" that is clearly not a scientific degree.
to be honest, there's no interest in studying capitalism unless you study its mechanisms critically. and i fear yours was foucault-slop, pseudo-radical drivel that didn't even aspire to change anything. no change = no direction = no meaning.
there's some philosophical interest in the question, altho i cannot say exactly where. but if you start from a statement like that and your thesis is mostly a display of what you read, it's barely social science. it is social theory at best, and not particularly good social theory either.
the interesting questions - especially in social sciences - are the hows and not the whys. the mechanisms. that would have been more empirical and more interesting.
push it further and you'll find you're doing marketing research, which is applied sociology anyway: who buys what, and how, and maybe why, at the end.
but twenty years of foucault-slop isn't bad at all. at least you chilled.
I’m Canadian and have hired non-Canadians. I have also have been hired by Jews and Indians, and, to be fair, Canadians (though almost entirely in Canada).
This reads like Claude in its abstraction ... I'd rather hear the story about what degree you actually got, what the dissertation was, and some concrete experiences of being disillusioned along the way, etc.
Complexity becomes a way to postpone the verdict. etc.
Agreed. I think there is a much better story hiding under the surface but I wouldn't read a follow up because it's like Claude is holding them hostage for content.
"Identity, values, ideology, post-modernity; critical discourse analysis, rhetoric, persuasion, functional grammar, genre analysis, sociolinguistics, metapragmatics. At least in my hands, each new framework became another way to support a conclusion I had largely reached in advance"
They know the solution: Popperian falsification. "But it has one property much of my previous work lacked: reality gets a vote".
It ain't much, but falsifiable work is honest work. I hope they get to the (physical and metaphorical) place they need to live.
I don't regret my wasted years. Sure, I would have likely earned more money, but it was fun, and made me who I am.
I do find it a bit of a shame that my current and previous employers couldn't give two hoots that I have a PhD etc, but oh well.
EDIT: I have a PhD and post-doc experience in Cell Biology, and now work as a software engineer at a fairly large hardware company.
I'm a software engineer and none of that training has ever been directly applicable (though some of the engineering and planning aspects generalised have).
And that my friends is why people need to pay attention in school. Some time around 9th grade or so, the logarithm is taught and it's a mystery how anybody can go through modern life without knowing what it is.
A few years back I sat across a financial advisor who wanted to sell me a certain product and I asked him how long it would take for those proclaimed 3.8% yearly to double my money. He took a calculator, entered 1.038 x and then counted how often he had to press = for 2 to appear. I shook my head and walked out the door.
Of course not everything is about money. But exponentials play a role everywhere. Not having a basic understanding is failure of the school system ... or society that it is embedded in.
Genetically if you don't have kids you are a dead end. You career will have some bearing on the life you give you kids (if you have any, I'm not trying to say you should!) but otherwise I believe it should stay out of your kids life.
Similar to the above, most people live with a married spouse (common law marriage: a legal marriage is not required for this discussion, though it may or may not matter for other purposes). While many people do meet their spouse through their career this is not required and the career itself has nothing to say about it. (historically kings and queens did marry for career reasons)
Note that both kids and a spouse implies you shouldn't allow your career to take up too much time even though many will try to.
Many people have hobbies. Even if you love the things you do at work, odds are your mind cannot handle doing it once you are done with work: your career cannot tell you anything about them. There are many people who pick a career because the things like love cannot support the life they otherwise want to live: their career can't tell them about the destination because it is purely something they do to get there.
All of this is to say that even if your career would offer you help on the destination, you should ignore it.
And when you contribute to a societey that overproduces resources, thrives scientifically and does not carry a load of parasites, then your career actions may push the cohort fitness.
This of course implies that the offspring of dedicated focus personal has desert flower traits- meaning every offspring will be dumb as a rock, and pro at procreation. Meaning clever people will have "Hippie" pregnant machine offspring and the "spiritual" birth-machines will have hyper-analytical "dead-enders". None of them happy with the state of the world.
Life as they say- finds a way- to make you despair with the result of the affair.
I learned to be more self-critical of my thinking than others were, and to recognize when others weren’t holding me to a higher standard. And I left.
When I'm defending a political position and it's going so badly that I have to add epicycles, I know I'm on the wrong track. But if I go back to first principles and develop a simpler internally consistent argument, it is usually insanely extremist to modern sensibilities.
Turns out that human morality and logical consistency are usually strangers.
He was now closer to 30 to than to 20, was interviewing for the same job that a BS-grad can go after, and wasn't competitive compared to them.
I asked him why he had spent so much time in chemistry just to pivot and he just literally didn't know. It was hard to look at his graduate education as anything other than a wasted decade that actually has set him back career wise.
One interesting question is how does someone do that to themselves?
Another interesting question is - what is the value of a PhD when someone uninterested in the field and not-that-thought-out about it can get one? We think of PhD designating that someone has committed to the field and pushed a little edge of the frontier forward through sheer motivation and brillians and it was just hard to imagine this being true for this guy.
All I'm saying is, not everyone doing a PhD and then leaving academia was accidentally climbing up the wrong ladder. Some did it on purpose, just to admire the view.
I think this is part of the tragedy of our parents generation pushing college at all costs. It is very hard to know what you want to do for the rest of your life as an 18 yo. Even worse to take on all the debt in the world for something you don't end up loving or without a good path to repayment. In previous generations, some of these people would have done a stint in the service or taken a gap year but now there is too much pressure to know "now".
Increasingly the arts are being defunded based on a similar argument, and humanity as a whole is worse off because of it.
If you are getting education because you are interested in the topic but won't get a job in it: I fully support this. However you should not take a loan out to get this education: there are too many other things to do in life that you also will want to do. Worse the loan means you cannot change your mind later if you are wrong (or you can, but you will still have to pay for the mistake instead of whatever you are interested in today).
There is one other reason for education: to become a better citizen (don't fall for bad politics). However that should be to everybody and I haven't seen much evidence that higher education really helps much.
Something could be valuable despite being "useless" but not in this case.
The answer, as I’m sure many already know, is idealism and a certain kind of naïvité. It’s not an absolute naïvité, but it is some kind of belief in the value of doing something that isn’t “mere” careerism. You think it’s noble to contribute to science. And you do contribute, a teeny eensy weensy bit. You also find out that it’s not everything you imagined it would be. And then you’re 30 and one day you unblind yourself. You look at the job market, and how much money various jobs actually pay. More importantly, you realize quite suddenly that money can actually make your life better, and that, whatever damage it might have wrought on your soul to pursue it, it would at least have enabled you to own a home one day. Maybe have kids. Shit. And the fresh grads who went straight into tech and finance making $300k (hold on, you can make $300k? Wait a second, that’s not a senior executive salary? That’s a normal-ish bourgeois white-collar HCoL salary that people make fresh out of school? Hold on, that’s basically a starting salary in that world? WHAT?)… just naturally understood.
Then you try to explain this on a message board or something. You don’t want pity, you just want some connection, or maybe even a, “that’s ok, that’s how we learn, life is a twisty path.” But half the people call you a class traitor. The other half call you a mediocre sucker.
ding ding ding. This is the real kicker. This is why it’s a waste of time to pursue. Want a PhD? A home? A family? Pick one or two. With the amount of time and effort it takes to achieve those these days, you won’t get to have them all. So you have to pick one. At 17/18 it’s easy to see the coming decade as longer than it really is, and opportunity cost will catch up to you quick.
Looking back on it, I think I'd probably had preferred to spend the time doing a PhD in philosophy or art history, if only for the lifestyle and knowledge. It turned out okay in the end, but I do think there is a real lack of "intellectual rigor" in most market-based jobs compared to academia.
The value of a PhD is what it brings to you. It will cost vast amounts of unpaid toil and tears, and it will not give you a well-paid job afterwards. But if you love the idea of discovering something genuinely new about this world, having the sheer freedom to dive into a research question without fear or restraint can be exhilarating.
And sure, you can also get a PhD by doing the minimum and letting your supervisor carry you through. But why would you throw years away on something you didn't care about, with nothing but a subsistence living allowance as a reward? You're only cheating yourself at that point.
This should probably be legally mandated to be printed on the application forms, like a Prop 65 warning.
I don’t have any higher education. I was stupid and arrogant and thought it would be a waste of time and money. However even if I did attend at 17/18, I almost certainly would have squandered it. I wouldn’t have been mature or aware enough to understand how and where to focus my time and energy in such a setting.
By about my mid-late 20s I felt like I had a better idea of what I could or could not get out of such an experience, but by that point I had a life and bills to pay and a job to attend to allow for any of that. There’s barely any time or money for education now. I’ve thought about trying to go back for the last decade, but it just becomes less realistic every year.
For me personally, I had a ton of fun squandering my college years taking a wide variety of classes that could have become a passion but ended up not. I would not have been able to do that outside of a structured environment that gave each subject a pass/fail opportunity in my life that cost only a semester.
That isn't the right question. The right question is can you do it, and will it pay enough to provide "a good life" (whatever that means to you). If you love [whatever] more power, that is the best case. However don't lose track of the fact that in the end no matter what job you pick there will be times when you have to do something you hate (not something unethical where you should quit, just something you hate), but you need to do something to be a good citizen.
If your kids already have a good career picked out I encourage a secondary study in some hobby thing. Go ahead and sing in the choir even though as an engineer it is a waste of time - that is fun and that is good (there are thousands of other fun things). Just don't lose sight that the goal is a good life and this will include things you don't want to do but have to anyway.
in LLM terms low to no reasoning is better than ultra.
(I am genuinely sorry for whatever bad experience that's led to this bitterness, though.)
Nothing wrong with it. However what is right about it? The world needs research, and that means researchers. However for every person in research the world needs a very large number of people in non research. The guy who works at the local sewer plant isn't doing research, but the world would fall apart if nobody did that job, while the world would still continue with nobody in research (I wouldn't want to live in either world, but the world of no more research is better than the world of no more sewer systems)
Because the system arounds you encourages it.
I would have felt that he was at least technically savvy; and, beyond that, he might have the spark of one of the best qualities of a future colleague i.e. interesting-ness - one can't underestimate that.
On the other hand
> he just literally didn't know
That would have been disappointing to hear.
The thing you know you must do probably is an internal thing, but can also be an external thing. It's hard to navigate this, but no one cares if it's hard.
The field of social research in a nutshell
At an individual level, those statistics are fairly meaningless. You can bucket yourself into any number of statistical groupings but being a representative datapoint or an outlier doesn't really explain nor does it solve anything.
Doesn’t sound like you’re doing science, to me.
In fact, this is the crux of the whole reproducibility crisis in social sciences, is it not?
to be honest, there's no interest in studying capitalism unless you study its mechanisms critically. and i fear yours was foucault-slop, pseudo-radical drivel that didn't even aspire to change anything. no change = no direction = no meaning.
there's some philosophical interest in the question, altho i cannot say exactly where. but if you start from a statement like that and your thesis is mostly a display of what you read, it's barely social science. it is social theory at best, and not particularly good social theory either.
the interesting questions - especially in social sciences - are the hows and not the whys. the mechanisms. that would have been more empirical and more interesting.
push it further and you'll find you're doing marketing research, which is applied sociology anyway: who buys what, and how, and maybe why, at the end.
but twenty years of foucault-slop isn't bad at all. at least you chilled.
Complexity becomes a way to postpone the verdict. etc.
Meh