Signup date: 29 Nov 2005 at 8:07pm
Last login: 19 Jul 2009 at 9:00pm
Post count: 740
Commonsense: well, in history it sometimes has taken a century to realise how useful had been some apparently useless scientific discoveries...Nowadays academics are expected to predict the usefulness of something that has even not been discovered yet even before they get given a money for the research on it
There was an article in THES about this issue. Several Nobel prize laureates said that if they early in their career would have had to meet the criteria that are set for academics in many universities nowadays, they would have been kicked out of their jobs very early on and would never got to the Nobel. I do believe them.
I have received ridiculous letters from HRM saying that they did not choose me for the job because 'somebody had a higher qualification' (the job was in my field). I wonder, what is higher than a PhD?
Another annoying thing is that before PhD I had no problems finding a job and even head-hunters were contacting me...that is not the case now.
One serious publication+ one extended book review.
But I think it very much varies between subjects. For example, in history it is normal not to publish anything during a PhD and then a book some years later while in natural sciences a paper per year is average.
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest