Comments like the granparent's frustrate me. Often they're from people who have good reasons, but I feel that it paints a skewed picture. I have a PhD, but am no longer in Academia. However, I think the "systematic" problems with academia that people talk about stem from a misunderstanding about what research and peer review are.
A PhD has _nothing_ to do with coursework and _everything_ to do with conceptualizing, managing, and completing projects then finally _communicating_ the results. Yes, it's about original research, but that usually doesn't mean that it's done in isolation.
Yes, you need to be conversant in your field. Yes, that means being up to date with what other people are doing. At the end of the day, though, the key question is, "Can you convince other people to buy into your work?".
A large part of it, for better or worse, is salesmanship. (Also know as "communication".) That's by design. If you can convince several intelligent, skeptical, and yes, biased people that you are right, then there's a good chance that you are.
People are human. They have agendas. It's not a perfect system. Nonetheless, peer review mostly works. I think there are things we can do to improve it, but the picture most people seem to have of academia is overly pessimistic, i.m.o. I would argue that it works fairly well, for the most part.
A PhD has _nothing_ to do with coursework and _everything_ to do with conceptualizing, managing, and completing projects then finally _communicating_ the results. Yes, it's about original research, but that usually doesn't mean that it's done in isolation.
Yes, you need to be conversant in your field. Yes, that means being up to date with what other people are doing. At the end of the day, though, the key question is, "Can you convince other people to buy into your work?".
A large part of it, for better or worse, is salesmanship. (Also know as "communication".) That's by design. If you can convince several intelligent, skeptical, and yes, biased people that you are right, then there's a good chance that you are.
People are human. They have agendas. It's not a perfect system. Nonetheless, peer review mostly works. I think there are things we can do to improve it, but the picture most people seem to have of academia is overly pessimistic, i.m.o. I would argue that it works fairly well, for the most part.