We are clearly irreconcilable on these things, but lecturing posts are usually at least 1/3 teaching, so surely candidates need to be able to teach. No other public sector appointments process disregards the need for candidates to have a skill that accounts for such a large proportion of the post. Teaching also allows you to share your knowledge with a wider group of people rather than the few people who may read your PhD thesis or journal article.

I think in the social sciences if you wait too long to publish you may well be adding to a body of knowledge by publishing 2-3 years after data was collected but it is sometimes a pretty moribund body of knowledge of little use to anyone in the fields your research addresses. I wouldn't feel able to comment fully about the need to publish immediately within natural sciences, though clearly there is value in medical sciences to getting findings into the public domain as soon as possible. Also, the act of writing to the standard of publication is a 'skill', and not some transferrable skill that you seem to dislike, but largely an academic skill if one is writing for a journal. Developing these skills as early as possible doesn't seem to be a bad thing to me. Otherwise one risks getting to the end of the PhD and only then having to develop the skill of writing to a publishable standard.

It's interesting how in your last post you seem to have admitted there might actually be a value to teaching - a progressive position perhaps compared to your earlier posts denouncing PhDs teaching. Yet you've still failed to engage with the fact that while accountability is necessary this doesn't have to be simply about fulfilling the needs of industry. The public and voluntary sectors both need our skills and knowledge as academics, not simply to potentially join them as PhD graduates, but also to help them understand important social and political phenomena by doing useful academic research.

I don't think it's even really "industry/corporate/tax-dollar" that you are genuinely opposing here it's more having to face an accountability to those who fund our research. You fail to account for why PhDs shouldn't be forced to publish - because otherwise how are they supposed to make a genuine contribution to the body of knowledge given most don't publish and you don't respect the skills they may have to offer the outside world. I think this is a very self interested old fashioned form of academia that while appealing to individual academics can't be allowed to persist. Professions always act like this when more accountability is asked from them.

Yet I would question whether this was a particularly rigorous form of academic research, particularly the arts and social science library based PhD where one can make any assertions one likes (including typical lefty political economy assertions that many academics so love in many cases) without having to check those against empirical evidence.

Matt - I am clearly NOT speaking uniquely of PhDs meeting corporate needs. Frankly there are much more efficient ways of linking businesses with university knowledge such as knowledge transfer partnerships by new graduates. PhDs are always a pretty academic qualification, though as I said there are different models to meet different needs. Some people still sit in the library or laboratory and never engage anyone outside academia to complete their PhD so I don't really see that they have been 'infected' by the outside needs of industry.

The life of the PhD is perhaps even shorter as a general qualification than is suggested by Matt. A lot of successful academics now in their 70's/80's didn't do a PhD, so as a generally required qualification for most academics the PhD is definitely a post WWII qualification. I don't think that the PhD award has been devalued in the sense that to get a permanent post at most elite British universities it is pretty much a requirement (except perhaps in subjects where outside expertise is particularly valued such as business schools). The fact that it has also become more valued by industry doesn't mean that it has to be any less valued academically, and there are many different models and approaches to PhDs to suit different needs.

"has been largely replaced by a “spin the pound” attitude : do your PhD but you must publish something (i.e. any old carp); do your PhD but you must teach a lot of hours and you must teach a lot otherwise you won’t be considered for a job; do your PhD (and so on)..."

If someone doesn't publish or make some kind of effort of some form to put their PhD knowledge into the public domain then what is the point of the PhD other than to that individual themselves? Particularly since you don't believe in the importance of developing skills during a PhD that broader society may use. If it is so difficult to get a job in academia, surely teaching does allow the PhD student to develop a skill that will both help them in the academic jobs market and outside it (surely teaching is an important part of most even high flying academic careers at some point)?

Yet I don't think saying to universities that you must strongly bear in mind the needs of industry and the public and voluntary sectors when selecting the research you do is asking too much. Academics sometimes have a very arrogant attitude that they some how 'know better' than those within the fields they study, but what is the value to anyone but the academics themselves if they fail to share their knowledge with others and do research that is of no use to others.

I can quite see the personal attraction to many academically minded folk of being able to do their research in ivory towers and only engaging a very small group of people within their disciplines with their research (perhaps with a journal article that only 5 people will properly read), an approach still all too common. But frankly, this situation was never going to last forever. The government of course seeks accountability on behalf of citizens of what universities are doing with citizens' money. Yes of course there is important value in universities as the stock of human knowledge, beyond the immediate requirements of wider society.

"Now – it is not difficult to discern that what used to be a badge of excellence expressed through the award of a doctoral degree (in the UK since 1917) has been consumed by a number of unintended social processes that have led to the commercialisation of universities and their award structure. What USED TO BE a symbol of research/academic excellence AND a contribution to the level of knowledge in a society has been largely replaced by a “spin the pound” attitude : do your PhD but you must publish something (i.e. any old carp); do your PhD but you must teach a lot of hours and you must teach a lot otherwise you won’t be considered for a job; do your PhD (and so on)..."

I think this post gets to the root of Matt's instincts and attitudes, and is very common amongst academics/particularly older academics so I dispute with you that these arguments have not been had many times before.

Matt - I agree there's nothing wrong with wanting to critique the lot of PhD students or academics more generally, but I do think that on balance we have things better than most professions. I have answered your points in my earlier posts, but perhaps not in the way you would like me to. Should you wish to proceed, perhaps you can pick out the five major criticisms you have of academia/the lot of PhD students.

I really don't understand what you expect to learn doing a PhD if not skills. I definitely disagree with you if you think that HE should proceed into the future as a domain where academics don't engage with the outside world, they don't have to account to the tax payer by delivering skills to students and they don't need to prove their value.

Matt - I've concluded that you just want a good moan about how things aren't perfect in academia - just as they aren't in fact in any other profession or industry. Every industry/profession has its up and downsides. I can't see any of your complaints as being particularly significant. A lot of people want to do a PhD for the pure intellectual stimulation and that doesn't have to mean wanting an academic job when they finish. That doesn't mean they have failed in any way whether they enter business or the public sector afterwards as a career. I have read all your posts Matt and I appreciate your dislike of money, hence trying to quel your anxiety by littering my positive suggestions of how you can use your PhD with references to voluntary sector, social enterprise etc. There are many good instances of the public and voluntary sector making good use of PhD skills and knowledge outside of academia.

"You can't judge a job market soley by the situation vacant column. For example medical doctors are hardly ever advertised, but most find work."

But my underlying argument was to research the opportunities thoroughly. Anyone in an industry can tell you how people get jobs if you ask them (so if you asked a few doctors you'd find out where jobs were advertised). But a lot of people do start off through the situations vacant column as an entry to an industry so it's a good place to start, and most public sector professions largely recruit through open job advertisements (including HE!)

"Um, yes. Because thats the nature of research. You dont know what research will be applicable at what time. I believe most research DOES benefit society in some way. Obviously, there has to be some guidance, but I feel research is woefully underfunded in this country (cf. the US). Remember, we are currently in a pointless war in Iraq/ afghanistan which costs billions. How much research would that have funded."

We can be pretty sure that research on farting in the Middle Ages, which I recently saw a whole academic book published on, is not going to do anything useful today of much merit beyond perhaps contributing to research for the Horrible History series. There are many examples of such pointless research, particulary in the arts and social sciences (and I am a sociologist!), that the tax payer should not have to pay for. Fair enough if such research can be funded by private individuals.