In Industry Needs an Education in the Value of a PhD, Joshua Doližal tells a tale of Elissa Gurman, a woman who went to work in the consulting industry after earning a doctoral degree in English literature. As the title suggests, Doližal uses the story of Dr. Gurman to argue that people in the business world ought to appreciate the abilities of people with academic doctorates.
Like others of her ilk, Dr. Gurman wrote a dissertation, a book of several score thousand words that dealt, in considerable depth, with a well-bounded subject. (She explored the way that British and American novelists of the nineteenth century dealt with the phenomenon of falling in love.) Indeed, both those who succeed in their quest for an academic doctorate and those who fail to acquire that certificate invariably agree that the production of a thesis is the biggest hurdle that would-be doctors of philosophy must overcome.
In order to complete a dissertation, a graduate student must lay out the framework for a multi-year project, solve the many small problems that arise in the course of executing that plan, and commit to paper a hundred thousand or so well-chosen words. At the same time, he must immerse himself in the language, lore, and legends of a time and place other than the one in which he lives, thereby acquiring a powerful tool for making sense of the here-and-now.
Of course, a person who writes a serious book in places other than a university also does these things. Indeed, as someone who wrote three complete books before producing a doctoral dissertation, I can safely say that the two activities have much in common. That is, the differences that separate the composition of a thesis from the making of a monograph pale in comparison to those that distinguish the construction of one book from the composition of another.
With this in mind, I recommend that any reader contemplating the pursuit of a PhD consider the alternative of writing a book extra muros. In particular, I ask that you imagine yourself in the position of an employer comparing two candidates for a job that requires long-term planning, fluent writing, and the ability to see things that others might miss. Both candidates possess the same set of skills. However, while one presents you with a calling card emblazoned with the letters PhD, the other hands you a printed book with his name on the cover.
I was a college trained (Ph.D.) chemical engineer, had a career as an applied scientist, and am now retired. I think my formal education was very useful for my career.
I am also autodidact in the social sciences, wrote a book, and started a substack as a retirement hobby. A disadvantage of being self-taught is that I know a lot about those elements I chose to study and little about other elements of the field. This can give one tunnel vision, creating a risk of becoming a crank.
An advantage of being an autodidact is the interdisciplinary approach one is free to take. But the very interdisciplinary nature makes it hard to get peer review as a check against becoming a crank. One of my objectives of starting a substack is to try to bring my work to the attention of someone with the chops to critique by work.
Excellent points Bruce!