Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science...
Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic.
A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of specialization, your ability to write and do presentations, and your taste in research problems. These are all things take a lot of time to mature.
The problem with graduating fast is that (a) you wouldn't be able to do internships, (b) you would severely limit your ability to grow your social network (via workshops, conferences, internships, department service, etc), (c) you would limit your ability to deepen and broaden your portfolio of research, and (d) you limit the time your ideas have to percolate out into the rest of the research community and industry.
While I can't speak directly about your friend's experiences, learning how to do peer review and learning how to write first drafts are really important skills that can indirectly help with coming up and executing on a dissertation idea.
Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.
To make "next to nothing" concrete: MIT EECS PhD students are currently paid about $4700/mo. This is substantially less than they'd make in industry, but it's around the US median personal income across all working-age adults, and well above the average 24 year-old. They frequently make a substantial extra at summer internships, putting them well above US median in the years when they do.
Also: it is school, not just a job. They are developing deep expertise and specialized skills. As a result, among other things, their earning potential tends to be significantly higher coming out of the PhD than out of undergrad.
You're looking at students at a top tier university in a field that pays extremely well. The numbers are going to be at the high end for what a grad student can make. A quick search for PhD salaries suggests that $20-35k/year is more common.
The median wage number you cited is also for the total population. According to this graph the median wage for college graduates is around $7k/mo. I'm fortunate to make very good money but I'd still notice a $2k/mo pay cut.
That's MIT. At a state university my friends were making in the ballpark of ~30k.
And yes, that is "next to nothing" compared to the salaries they make now after quitting and just finding work. And their outlooks are in significantly better shape, whereas one friend was highly depressed before.
People can also develop "deep expertise and specialized skills" through their work, and network via conferences, generally paid by their employer. Well, if they can find a job as a junior nowadays.
As someone who graduated with a 7.5 year long PhD last month,
I feel like PhD stipends are not a major problem. Like I got $40K in a low CoL area, but accounting for tuition and overheads I cost my advisor closer to $150K/year.
Now why are tuition and overheads that high is a reasonable question and it ties into inefficiencies in broader American administrative processes, but I cost society and taxpayers $150K/year, and that I'm doing it for societal benefit is honestly only partly true. The first 6 years was just me building real skills and letting myself be frustrated, and maybe in the last 1.5 years I did things that justify the $1M bill and more.
Even if I did eventually do things that justified the $1M bill, I think most students don't. The larger value IMO lies in a workforce trained in the failures and frustrations of grad school. While I could rattle of plenty of limitations of academia/grad school, I'm not entirely convinced that me being shortchanged/underpaid was one of those things.
It's great that you recognize that the last 1.5 years were the period you feel like you did things to justify that bill. However, much like juniors everywhere, you justify all of your pay because we are not paying you for your skill at that moment, but for who you will become.
Even more so for PHD work because the expectation is that after the training you will produce many things that make the cost of training you essentially negligible.
I worked a ton in grad school, and it definitely sucked at the time.
But it’s crazy to complain about getting paid to go to school. A grad stipend is there to minimally support you so you don’t have to get another job and can focus on your research. It’s not supposed to be a career!
It’s not crazy… the wages are below food prep. What would be crazy is paying to help someone else’s career. That’s why a well known rule of thumb for graduate program evaluation is whether or not they pay their grad students.
If they pay their grad students, then at least the time the grad students spend creates enough value to offset the cost of paying them.
If not, stay far away from the program.
Also, regarding the career comment: If graduate school is not at least the first step in a given career (it should the second, undergrad being the first), how/why do you expect gifted intellectuals to spend their prime wage earning years doing it?
Most people do not have access to enough wealth to spend prime wage earning years toiling to help someone else’s career with no return on investment.
I was working retail in Eugene, Oregon during the 2014 University of Oregon grad student strike. I had a little bit of a chip on my shoulder because I was working retail with a master's degree in physics (because I did not have the endurance to complete a PhD, but had not yet accepted that fact).
My then-partner was part of the strike. One of the strike demands was higher wages as teaching assistants. And while I worked 40 hours a week, for $11/hr, I made considerably more and worked fewer hours than her. She put in probably 30 hours a week just on her teaching load, plus an additional 30 hours split between explicit course work and dissertation work.
It's crazy that a job that requires excellent marks while completing a 4-year degree pays worse, has worse working conditions, and is considerably more competitive to get into than a job selling office supplies.
One of the other things the grad students were demanding (which they only sort of got) was paid parental leave, because they did not fail to notice that most of their professors were in their late 30s or early 40s before they could afford to stop work long enough to start a family. It was very rare for two academics to have children together, because of the heinous, career ending financial cost to having children when you were young enough that their high school graduation date was before your expected mortality.
It would be crazy if the university were getting nothing out of it, but your work as a PhD student benefits not only you but the university as a whole. I think it would be reasonable to give students a living wage. I don't think anyone is expecting to make 100k.
I think the key difference is that: "going to school", sure you need a living stipend, but the actual research phase has serious WLB and working condition issues
Most applicants know that that outcome is antithetical to pursuing a PhD. It's common knowledge that a PhD involves 5-7 years of academic work (read: low pay) in pursuit of becoming an expert in a specialized topic. You don't enter a PhD program expecting to immediately make money or to graduate as soon as possible. It's not a coding bootcamp.
I agree with you. It is definitely what the PhD student signed up for. But like I said in a sibling reply I think if we are worried about having fewer grad students (not saying that we should be), then we may need to change the incentive structure surrounding the PhD programs to make it more worthwhile for people to invest the time and energy. Because how it is currently going it seems to me like fewer and fewer people are going to consider it worth the investment just for the credential alone.
re: incentives, my proposal was always to let schools pay their football and basketball players, but require that grad research assistants are paid the same.
Football and other sports are marketing and their wages should be paid for by that department. Along with proof the marketing return on investment is there.
Grad students should be paid for their work as well.
Isn’t this sort of how all terminal degrees work? MDs, JDs, etc are all putting the candidates through the wringer, for relatively low wages, until they’re “experienced”. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s common knowledge it’s the way things work if you want to have those magic letters of a terminal degree next to your name in your email signature.
Don’t want to deal with the machinations required? Opt for the masters track or just get an Undergraduate degree and spend 20y working your way up.
In the US, phds and professional degrees are more or less geared toward students who are comfortable enough financially to stomach the opportunity cost of 6-10+ years of additional education, unpaid or underpaid residencies and internships, and long apprenticeship hours (which prevent backfilling financial gaps) before making “real” income.
Most of the other comments are basically saying this ("the pay is too low for too long for not enough reward").
Anecdotally: I'm teaching a course in "How To Be Successful In College" (not it's real name) at the US community college where I teach Computer Science. I've got more than 1 student who are going to get a credential for nursing because there's just no way they can spend 8-10 years in school to become a doctor.
Would they be good doctors? The question is moot because it's never gonna happen.
I don't know that people even care, at that. The way most are forced to interact with the healthcare system, a doctor is just a nurse in a white coat who's also a bit of an asshole (aloof and/or smarmy). Especially when they misdiagnose or miss a diagnoses.
>The way most are forced to interact with the healthcare system
If you have an advanced CS degree, and I come to you with a complex issue concerning my desktop, and you spend 15 minutes filling out a digital intake form, 2 minutes tapping the tower, and finally tell me to power cycle whenever it comes up, I have every right to call you no better than a Geek Squad agent.
Let's be less pompous and let conduct speak for itself. If you're a skilled and highly-trained professional, demonstrate it. No credit for phoning it in, no credit for limiting your level of consideration and attentiveness to what a nurse is capable of. You're not owed prestige.
JD isn't a terminal degree. There's two higher degrees I think.
MDs and JDs are professional professional qualifications, which makes their situation a bit different from purely academic degrees. For example the ABA acts kind of like a cartel.
I don't think I disagree with you, by the way. I'm just more unhappy about it. All of these sclerotic, even corrupt, institutions acting like aging vats for talented youth, all to exclude newcomers and to maintain hierarchies...they're not ideal.
Yes, but I think as time goes on, fewer and fewer people are going to consider those letters next to their name worth it for the years that they need to invest. So, I am just saying that if MIT or whoever else is worried about having fewer grad students (not saying that they/we should be), then maybe it's time to change how it works.
Can you define that with more specificity? I find that academics have a major blind spot where good career means "the path I took" to the exclusion of all other paths.
>Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science
And your CV says another 6 dropped out. What was good for their careers?
The vast majority (>75%) of Computer Science PhDs leave academia. [0] Becoming a "world expert in a specific topic" is overfitting skills for a sub-niche of a specific career. There certainly aren't enough jobs in academia.
Yes, they don't realize it or lie to themselves because ~50% dropout.
Given the attrition, I really question if PhD programs are honest with incoming prospects. Law schools and business schools are similarly "guilty" of pimping outcomes.
ITT: it's people complaining about being overworked and mislead in their PhD programs.
> Yes, they don't realize it or lie to themselves because ~50% dropout.
I think there's some misinterpretation here. Not staying on in academia after PhD (common/modal) is not the same as not getting to complete a PhD (rare).
In CS/tech, those who exit academia after PhDs get paid $300K-$500K in the industry. I don't think there's any misleading going on.
>is not the same as not getting to complete a PhD (rare)
BTW, your perspective is bizarre.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that PhD candidate attrition is rare. Maybe at MIT where only 20% don't finish (within 10 years -- which is generous), but these are already pre-screened superstars. Most other places converge around 50%.
As for salaries, the median salary for CS PhDs outside academia is $180k. That means a lot are lower and probably aren't working at big tech with full comp pushing them above $300k. [0]
PhD programs have remarkably high attrition rates prior to graduation (ie dropout). I don't know that it's 50% and obviously it varies by institution and field but it's quite large.
>In CS/tech, those who exit academia after PhDs get paid $300K-$500K
Yes, I'd like to see data on what percentile gets this and breaks even for lost wages from their PhD years. IMHO, it's not fair to generalize this outcome. I could be wrong.
A research professor typically graduates dozens of PhD students. Perhaps there was a post-war bootstrapping period where every one of those students got a tenured position somewhere, and in turn also trained dozens of PhD students; but it's pretty obvious it's not realistic to expect this to continue indefinitely. We're way past saturation right now. Certainly very few are going to get their own tenured positions, and as for the rest, it depends on the winds of funding availability in industry.
A very US-centric perspective. Whereas the folks in Europe do it in 3-4 years, come to the US and do a 2-3 year postdoc (with higher pay than a PhD student), and are ahead of their American peers.
Also, depending on where you do it in Europe, the pay as a PhD student is higher. At the extreme end, I knew students getting paid $60K/year in one country, while I was getting $24K/year in the US.
> A very US-centric perspective. Whereas the folks in Europe do it in 3-4 years
Yes it is.
In most European universities, you will graduate in 3-4y.
And there is simple reasons for that: The funding associated with a Phd in many European country is 3-4y. So if you do not graduate, you actually become a burden for your lab.
A US thing again? My friends all did 3 year bachelors, 3 year PhD. Some dragged out the PhD to 4. Those who do a masters do it in one year, and typically don't do a PhD. Some undergrad courses are 4 year and you get a masters at the end. And my UK bachelors was recognized as equivalent to a US masters degree for visa purposes.
Maybe this is CS-specific? Finishing physics PhD from high school in 6 years sounds just not enough time. Even exceptional people I know in my field needed at least 7-8 (3+4 or 3+2+3). 3 years into theoretical physics grad school is around the time people start doing decent research
It's common, most of the people I know from the UK system did their PhD in 3-4 years.
In Europe you just study what it says as well. You happy to do a bachelor's in physics, your classes are all physics. You don't read shakespeare and learn french.
You can also do this in high school, so you can from age 16 be studying just physics and math.
I did none of my degrees in US, and my physics degree was 95% math and physics.
Physics degree is quite sequential anyway. You can't do QM in your first year or QFT in your second year.
I've checked random people I know from oxford and none started after 3-year undergrad and those how did after 4 all did 4 year dphil (small sample size warning). 4+4 is reasonable.
Maybe things have changed. We did QM in our first year at Imperial. I suppose we have to make allowances for Oxford. Got to fit the poetry in somewhere. =)
Obvious disclaimer: At this point we are talking about outlier colleges/universities.
But to give some examples, I know colleges (both in US and abroad) where people did real analysis and abstract algebra in their first year (and why not - neither requires prerequisites other than maturity).
I know a college (in the US) where they did Jackson for E&M in the 3rd year (and some advanced students did in the 2nd year). In most US universities, people normally do Jackson in the first year of their PhD.
I think it's rare to do QM before 2nd year, but in principle, as long as you know calculus/diff eq, you can get going on it. The catch is that the interesting applications require other branches of physics (e.g. E&M). When I did QM, all those applications were part of QM II anyway.
But yes, again, these are outliers and I wouldn't want to say it's the norm in the whole country.
Yeah 3 - 4 is typical in STEM at Imperial, depends on the scholarship or funding source. The standard funding tends to assume 3 - 3.5 years, but I vaguely recall that in some departments supervisors had a habit of forcing people to stick around for a few months without funding.
In some countries, the PhD program is fixed at 3 years. You either graduate by then, or you're out (in reality, they give some option for you to pay to continue, but almost no one can afford it). I suspect in those places, people have done a 2 year MS.
I agree with all those things, but we should be starting that training in middle school. Deconstructing arguments, making reports, giving presentations, solving open ended questions. Many of these things involve a modest amount of critical thinking, prediction and self-reflection.
Are those PhDs being paid with a decent salary? If not, I can’t agree with your statement.
PS. I did my PhD in an EU country where it’s treated as another researcher job with salary and benefits
PhD candidates in the US usually get somewhere between $25K and $50K stipend, also some level of benefits (typically health care). Sometimes there is a tuition waiver (student does not need to pay grad program tuition).
In my case I was making $32K/year with a tuition waiver and health benefits around ~2000, in SF, which was barely enough to rent a shared apartment and eat food. The only way I could rationalize it is that I was maximizing my future freedom (job choice).
Yes, I suppose you could try to justify it as "this is the price you pay for having the freedom to build your own research plan in the future" ("maximizing your future freedom") but in reality, this just sets you up for more of the same- getting a faculty position (pre-tenure) with a low salary, and immense pressure to bring in funds via research grants/publish papers.
I eventually tired of the process and moved to industry because the struggle wasn't worth it.
No it's typical. It's just that your stipend is usually just x amount of Dollars + whatever tuition is so you never have to care what it is and you don't pay it directly per se, it's just included in your stipend. Someone pays for it at the end of the day though.
Yeah, I distinctionly remember a postdoc I knew who was irrationally excited to move to a role where they were going to get paid $35k, in 2010s money, and they were damn excited about it. And they were moving to a high cost of living area (from a high cost of living area). I was utterly flabbergasted because they were very smart, very technical and should have been earning 5-10x that. I feel like they didn't know what they were worth and academia had utterly failed to teach them that.
I don't know how they paid any of their accumulated (I assume) student debt, let alone had an even decent standard of living.
In France STEM PhD are expected to last 3 year and the funding is sized like that. It is also considered as a job. It is only done if salary is funded in most cases.
Often it spill over a bit and I guess France travail (French job agency managing insurance for people losing their job) should often be cited /thanked in Phd student thesis for funding the final steps of their manuscript.
There are limited internship culture during the phd itself Afaik.
However phd is never started at Bachelor level, only after Msc that last two years and requires an internship or research projet.
I heard a person saying a bit like you that it is not enough to grow a Real expert though compared to US phd. But Oftentimes postdoc always follow for Longer and longer
It’s also a set of credentials, which might be immediately useful for one reason or other. All those other things you can do outside of a program, especially if you’ve already got the network or career trajectory to support it.
I agree that completing a PhD under the time originally agreed may not be good, as you lose some of the learning opportunities that come with the apprenticeship (yes, it is) program.
However, taking more time than the standard length, whatever it is depending on the university or country where you are pursuing the title, is also something universities and specially PIs should be actively avoiding.
Maybe I have this view because I got mine in NL, where a PhD is a job with a defined length (4 years) and if you go over it, you don't get paid. So yes, it is an apprenticeship, but you should not be doing work for free in any case. Becoming an expert and the (relative) independence on how to do your research are of course selling points of the PhD, but a job is a job.
>The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic.
In my opinion and from my experience, this is an odd expectation considering that a PhD is the absolute beginner career stage in research. It's the equivalent of being trusted to not mess up the morning coffee run.
A PhD is only indicative of having demonstrated the ability to complete research to a level that satisfies other researchers. Many of the things you describe are things one is expected to learn in their postdoc and as a junior researcher.
I finished mine (computer engineering) in ~5 years, practically 7 since I transferred near the end of a 2 year masters program. I was/am blessed with a good supervisor though.
All of the things you mention can also be done as a PostDoc. Which might be even better for social networking, broadening your research portfolio, etc. than staying in a single PhD position for the duration of a PhD + PostDoc.
> Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career.
this is such a "trust me bro it's good for you" con.
i graduated in 3.5 years and went directly to FAANG where i make 2x the highest paid TT at the T10 school i graduated from. do you really have the gall to tell me that it wasn't good for my career to accelerate my PhD and thereby minimize its cost (i.e., opportunity cost).
> A PhD is more like an apprenticeship
the vast majority of advisors have no skills other than how to hack the pub game. they literally have zero clue about the research. the remainder are the "exceptions that prove the rule".
As much as I would have loved to get out in sooner than six years, I tend to agree. In hindsight, if I'd treated it like a job and just done the coding and writing necessary to get the projects I published out the door, I could have done it in three, maybe two. But that would have missed the whole point.
We're working on AI user testing, to make it dramatically faster and cheaper for product managers and dev teams to find major usability issues with web sites. Give us a web site and a task users would do (e.g. "Add a pink shirt to the shopping cart"), and we have some AI users try their best to do the task. The output is a report with a prioritized list of problems identified, plus narrated videos that show each AI user trying the site.
If you want to try it out, we offer some free credits at https://fuguux.com
Any feedback you have would be incredibly helpful! We're considering more kinds of reporting, support for QA testing, better integration with CI/CD, and more.
Note: we don't want to replace real user testing, but rather complement it. With AI user testing, you can get quick feedback on potential usability problems in hours for a fraction of the cost, making it so you can iterate much faster. We advocate doing user tests with real people to understand problems that require domain knowledge or nuance.
Two concepts that help explain the original article are Diffusion of Innovations and Social Proof.
Diffusion of Innovations is a widely cited theory explaining why people do or don't adopt any kind of innovation, from boiling water to eating limes on British ships to installing telephones. The concept of innovators, early adopters, and late adopters comes from this theory. More relevant to this post is that this theory posits five factors contributing to adoption, one of which is Observability: you can easily see other people gaining benefit from an innovation. The more Observable an innovation, the more likely it is to be adopted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
The other is Social Proof. Seeing what other people are doing, especially those that are similar to you in some way, can help steer your behavior, often in subtle and unconscious ways. There are studies about how simple signs like "people who stayed in this hotel room re-used their towels" or "most of your neighbors are reducing their electricity usage too" can shift people's behaviors, even without people explicitly realizing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof
My colleagues and I used these concepts in several pieces of research on what we called Social Cybersecurity (joking that the term "Social Security" was already taken). The insight we had was that cybersecurity has very low observability, making it hard for innovations to diffuse through one's social network. That is, I don't know what your cybersecurity practices are, and vice versa, making it hard for best practices to be adopted.
One intervention we did was a large-scale intervention on Facebook to improve observability, showing that simple messages like "108 of your friends use extra security settings" did increase clickthru and adoption rates of those settings.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2660267.2660271
Nearly 20 years ago after reading Diffusion of Innovations I decided to use everything in the book. The company ran off a few svn servers (formally cvs) and so I ran a handful of Git courses at my work to help us ultimately migrate to Git (this was early days of Git). I explicitly tried to find folks not just near me, but physically around the office building across all of the floors, teams, and orgs. They were my early adopters and when random folks would come to me either curious or for help I would bring them to the "local" expert and together solve their problem, from there they had a local expert and little hubs sprung up. We had the standard svn => git mirror going when the time came to convert to Git full time in the office it was very painless and a complete success.
I was too young to understand that this is how you run a successful "transformation project", I simply was having fun using every trick from that book and done the same playbook a number of times over my career.
I saw Jim Clark (founder of SGI, Netscape, Healtheon) talk one time about entrepreneurship. He said something that compactly explains a lot of issues humanity faces in general: "One person's inefficiency is someone else's bottom line."
A lot of the things that the original post shares has this characteristic. Sure, things in US healthcare are wildly inefficient, but that's how a lot of these companies make a lot of money. And they will lobby and fight to the death that cash flow.
I've used The Design of Everyday Things in many classes I teach. I would agree that it's not practical, but that's not its goal. Instead, it gives you frameworks for thinking about things as well as vocabulary for talking about those things.
Off the top of my head, some of the key ideas include:
* Affordances, that objects should have (often visual) cues that give hints as to how to use things
* Mental models, that every design has three different models, namely system implementation, design model, and user model, and that the design model and user model should try to match each other
* Gulf of Evaluation (the gap between the current system state and people's understanding of it) and Gulf of Execution (the gap between what people want the system to do and how to use the system to do it)
* Kinds of Errors and how to design to prevent and recover from them, e.g. slips (chose the right action but accidentally did the wrong thing, e.g. fat finger) vs mistakes (chose the wrong action to do)
What's particularly useful about Norman's book is that these key ideas apply for all kinds of user interfaces, from command-line to GUI to voice-only to AR/VR to AI chatbot. I'd encourage you to think about this book in this kind of framing, that it gives you general frameworks for reasoning and talking about UX problems rather than specific practical solutions.
DOET (neé Psychology of Everyday Things) deeply influenced me. Articulated things I had observed, experienced. Expanded my thinking.
I was using, teaching, and developing for AutoCAD at the time. Knew nothing about UI beyond my intuition. Just perplexed by how difficult it was for most to use.
Reflecting back, Norman's treatment of mental models and kinds of errors were the most impactful, evergreen design challenges I faced.
I read the Design of Everyday Things and most of it was painfully obvious examples and was overly philosophical.
Design is solving problems so they're intuitive for the user. Obviously a door with a handle shouldn't be a push door, I don't really think you need to write a book about it. And the types of people creating bad design are generally constrained by cost, time, or practicality, not necessarily by education.
> Obviously a door with a handle shouldn't be a push door, I don't really think you need to write a book about it.
It’s common to illustrate principles with examples that appear obvious, i.e. that everyone agrees on, so that after having it conceptualized as a principle, you’ll apply it in less obvious circumstances. Many things are obvious only in hindsight.
> And the types of people creating bad design are generally constrained by cost, time, or practicality, not necessarily by education.
That’s not true, because a lot of flawed design is being promoted and defended in public as the thing to do.
> Obviously a door with a handle shouldn't be a push door, I don't really think you need to write a book about it.
And yet we've all encountered push doors with handles many times.
> And the types of people creating bad design are generally constrained by cost, time, or practicality, not necessarily by education.
Good design is far cheaper and easier than bad design in the long run. Being able to articulate the benefit of good design such that stakeholders provide the resources for good design is perhaps one of the most important reasons to have such an education.
uh, the fact that this is written down and carefully put in frameworks is a good thing. Otherwise you can say any academic book is intuitive. the fact that it sounds obvious means they're getting the message across. because lord knows it was needed and there's plenty of failed products and ideas because of shitty design.
Wanted to share this funny SETI@home prank that Monzy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Maynes-Aminzade) did in 1999, where he created a fake VB app that tricked a coworker into believing that his computer successfully found an extraterrestrial signal.
Lichess has a series of puzzles you can try where underpromotion is the theme (which is unfortunately a major giveaway to solving these puzzles, since they otherwise be rather hard to solve)
In May earlier this year, the New York Times had a similar article about AI not replacing radiologists:
https://archive.is/cw1Zt
It has similar insights, and good comments from doctors and from Hinton:
“It can augment, assist and quantify, but I am not in a place where I give up interpretive conclusions to the technology.”
“Five years from now, it will be malpractice not to use A.I.,” he said. “But it will be humans and A.I. working together.”
Dr. Hinton agrees. In retrospect, he believes he spoke too broadly in 2016, he said in an email. He didn’t make clear that he was speaking purely about image analysis, and was wrong on timing but not the direction, he added.
And even more to enforce it if granted. You can have all the patents in the world but with without being able to file against infringing parties they’re just documents.
If what is behind the patent is granted free to use, what’s to enforce? How would I infringe on “free to use for everybody “? I believe OP’s idea is to file the patents defensively to block others from filing stupid patents as in TFA.
Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic.
A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of specialization, your ability to write and do presentations, and your taste in research problems. These are all things take a lot of time to mature.
The problem with graduating fast is that (a) you wouldn't be able to do internships, (b) you would severely limit your ability to grow your social network (via workshops, conferences, internships, department service, etc), (c) you would limit your ability to deepen and broaden your portfolio of research, and (d) you limit the time your ideas have to percolate out into the rest of the research community and industry.
While I can't speak directly about your friend's experiences, learning how to do peer review and learning how to write first drafts are really important skills that can indirectly help with coming up and executing on a dissertation idea.