On a separate matter, for me, no, just getting the PhD / Dr title is NOT enough. It's a part, but not the most significant. I was asked why I was doing it in a class in my first year by someone who is now one of my two supervisors: my answer was

"To contribute to the stock of knowledge about our society". Simple as that.

So the BIG reward is publishing something that will (significantly in some cases) advance the levels of knowledge available in the areas my thesis covers, and stand the test of time and the scrutiny of succeeding authors/researchers. Just completing the 3.5 years is not enough in my book, so to speak.

Matt - Of course my points are one sided you hardly expect me to make your arguments for you do you? :-p However, should you wish to read a really one sided view (which even I see as pretty radical) read the Vice Chancellor of Hertfordshire's opinon piece on page 14 of this week's THES who writes about "a new generation of commerce-friendly universities". For these new kind of "business-facing" universities he advocates, he does not even qualify his vision (as I have qualified mine in this thread) by making reference to serving the public and voluntary sectors or broader society.

Ann - I'd love to debate radical feminism with you and gender studies, but I think that would be going too much 'off topic'.

My dear 'commonsense' thankyou for letting me down so gently - going 'off topic' can become so messy, i never ever discuss radical feminism on a first forum anyway

Here an argument is made for a new kind of business facing university, though the point is not rammed home quite so clearly as in the THES article referenced above.
http://perseus.herts.ac.uk/uhinfo/library/y50635_13.doc

I guess in this case folks like Matt might wish to develop proposals for alternative forms of university, given the underlying argument of this piece is about differentiation in the university sector. Although this is slightly moving off the point 'Would you do it again', I'd contend it was still pertinent since it may very well be that within the next few years the experience of doing a PhD will come to vary more significantly according to the kind of university you choose to do it in.

cs, you say "I don't think it's right to make the PhD a more valuable qualification by letting fewer people do it. That's the point I'm mainly disagreeing with."
well, to get away from that bourdieu discussion which is really off-topic: let me say that i do not think it's right to make the PhD more valuable by letting fewer people do it any more than you do. i do not believe that that is what bourdieu says, as you apparently do, but i believe we can happily disagree on this point - what bourdieu said and what not - and do not need to further pursue it here.
i see a problem perhaps if a PhD has no value because it doesn't mean anything - if it doesn't mean you learned anything nor that you did some research. why get a title if it doesn't signal anything at all? then you'd be better off putting your time into attaining skills and showing people what you know in other ways. i do not think it's quite that bad yet, though.

Hmmmm Commonsense is starting to sound a lot like Johannstein...could the two possibly be related?

I dont know who Johannstein is? But it does show that although you lot like the illusion of debate, you actually all sound similar because tbh I can't tell much difference between Shani, Matt, SixKitten, Radicalann, bla bla bla.

Quite a nice little piece in the Education Guardian (page 10) about this topic (more or less). Might be in the online version.

"But what about all those "transferable skills" I am acquiring? I am good at note-taking, typing, claiming expenses and dealing with bureaucracy. Am I going to end up as a very expensively trained PA?"

• Commonsense would laud this as precisely what is great about PhD's, I mean, look in awe, skilled in note-taking and bureaucracy, the opportunities to serve the economy are endless, thrilling. And related to the PhD of course, hence being 'transferable'. I may look into the PA option actually....

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2191648,00.html

Matt - a PhD in the appropriate subject can lead to a number of exciting and high level career options in all sorts of companies, that you would not be able to get into without one. However, if you are saying that some ivory tower academics would make more impact on the world as a high level PA, then I quite agree with you! It's up to you to make use of your PhD to develop high level skills beyond the administrative. The ESRC for a start offers opportunities to its funded students to spend time working in government departments and to learn how to translate their PhD knowledge into a business.

'a PhD in the appropriate subject can lead to a number of exciting and high level career options in all sorts of companies, that you would not be able to get into without one'.

Like...?

Develop appropriate knowledge in any subject - a niche consultancy business.
Maths/physics - intelligence services.
Science - major science companies - BP, Shell etc.
Economics - government economist.
Sociology - commercial research consultancy.
Ask your careers advisor for more options.

Any number aatually appears to be 4 or 5.

Golf pro - ask your careers advisor for golfing opportunities with a PhD. I think 5 opportunities is sufficient to give you a flavour.