What PhD area of study is most/least useful to society??

[ColorlessGreen]

The VP that didn't know that canned vegetables were already cooked.

I just learned that canned fruits came pre-prepared quite recently. Like, a month ago. I was mocked pitilessly for wondering why canned pears were always so much mushier than fresh.

[glasses]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread with anything more than a sigh - I'm so tired of academic grudge matches. We have more in common than this question recognizes (and man, I resent that tagline!). But I was preparing for my 12th grade class tomorrow, and found a perfect quotation that reminded me of this thread. So I refer you to Tom Stoppard, Arcadia, and its interdisciplinary, academic cast of characters:

Hannah: It's all trivial - your grouse (science), my hermit (history), Bernard's Byron (literature). Comparing what we're looking for misses the point. It's the wanting to know that makes us matter.

Can't we all just get along?

Fabulous. No better response exists.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

I think people are overlooking that the question is about PhD areas - not just jobs in general.

Therefore, because farmers and farming is so important, is agricultural sciences one of the most important PhD areas? More so than English (I am not trying to step on toes here!)?

And I also don't think this is a battle involving the "pursuit of the mind" - biology, history, and literature all explore different large, esoteric questions, each worthy on their own accord. However, the question is what is the most useful for society. Arguably, that would be the area that benefits the largest portion of people in a population.

Hence my vote for agricultural sciences.

[coyabean]

I just learned that canned fruits came pre-prepared quite recently. Like, a month ago. I was mocked pitilessly for wondering why canned pears were always so much mushier than fresh.

As we say in the south: Bless your heart.

[waytooold]

I may want to kiss you for this response.

I am reminded of how many "well-educated" people I have known over the years:

The VP that didn't know that canned vegetables were already cooked.

The copywriter that couldn't sew a button on a shirt.

The law professor that could not get a verb and subject to agree with the laws of gravity much less each other.

The tv producer that thought money coming out of an ATM machine was magic.

The HR VP that could not change a flat tire.

All this pretense makes me itch. Useful people make things grow and work.

And then I think about ....

The VP who decided to make lifesaving technology free to people who could not afford it.

The copywriter who just last week wrote a solicitation so persuasive (and so pro bono) that it raised nearly half a million dollars for Drs Without Borders.

The law professor who does four death penalty cases per year to try to bring justice to our barbaric society.

The TV producer who took "Roots" and turned it into a national dialogue.

The HR VP who insisted on a just and fair response to the economy, and persuaded the CEO to seek concessions from everyone and as a result, the company laid off no one.

I am a little tired of the idea that only those who work with their hands are noble or useful. Noble people come in all packages, as do people who just take up space. I know lazy farmers who let fields lie fallow and collect government subsidies and brilliant, hard working farmers that are stewards of the land. I know brilliant thinkers who influence policy, and those who stay home and play video games. Because I grew up in a large city, I know nothing of agronomy, but I do know about survival in the face of adversity, embracing diversity and making the most of what one has. These, I think, are equally useful.

Useful is not what one learns, but what one does with what one learns. Ideas, as well as actions, are useful.

Edited February 10, 2010 by waytooold

[American in Beijing]

Most useful: http://www.hotcourse...t/programs.html

LOL, a good friend of mine is actually talking of applying there. He's a wine buff. But I would hardly imagine a PhD is necessary for something like that . . . maybe that's the place where they train the future wine-making professors!!!

Most Useful: History (I may be a bit biased, )

Least Useful: Anything involving dinosaurs . . . I can understand why the field would be interesting, but it lacks any apparent relevance to modern life.

[1f3_2kf2]

LOL, a good friend of mine is actually talking of applying there. He's a wine buff. But I would hardly imagine a PhD is necessary for something like that . . . maybe that's the place where they train the future wine-making professors!!!

Most Useful: History (I may be a bit biased, )

Least Useful: Anything involving dinosaurs . . . I can understand why the field would be interesting, but it lacks any apparent relevance to modern life.

Wait you must have made a mistake, you flipped those around"

Most Useful: Anything involving dinosaurs

Least Useful: History . . . I can understand why the field would be interesting, but it lacks any apparent relevance to modern life.

There I fixed it for you.

[JerryLandis]

History is very useful in any cocktail party situation. And in Trivial Pursuit.

[coyabean]

And then I think about ....

The VP who decided to make lifesaving technology free to people who could not afford it.

The copywriter who just last week wrote a solicitation so persuasive (and so pro bono) that it raised nearly half a million dollars for Drs Without Borders.

The law professor who does four death penalty cases per year to try to bring justice to our barbaric society.

The TV producer who took "Roots" and turned it into a national dialogue.

The HR VP who insisted on a just and fair response to the economy, and persuaded the CEO to seek concessions from everyone and as a result, the company laid off no one.

I am a little tired of the idea that only those who work with their hands are noble or useful. Noble people come in all packages, as do people who just take up space. I know lazy farmers who let fields lie fallow and collect government subsidies and brilliant, hard working farmers that are stewards of the land. I know brilliant thinkers who influence policy, and those who stay home and play video games. Because I grew up in a large city, I know nothing of agronomy, but I do know about survival in the face of adversity, embracing diversity and making the most of what one has. These, I think, are equally useful.

Useful is not what one learns, but what one does with what one learns. Ideas, as well as actions, are useful.

Wow you know some impressive people. I suppose I do not. However, my point remains that formal education does not equal worth and neither does the inverse. Producing something that makes a positive impact is actually my point, as is that people along the spectrum of education can and do produce. It is NOT the domain of the highly educated.

[jordy]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread with anything more than a sigh - I'm so tired of academic grudge matches. We have more in common than this question recognizes (and man, I resent that tagline!). But I was preparing for my 12th grade class tomorrow, and found a perfect quotation that reminded me of this thread. So I refer you to Tom Stoppard, Arcadia, and its interdisciplinary, academic cast of characters:

Hannah: It's all trivial - your grouse (science), my hermit (history), Bernard's Byron (literature). Comparing what we're looking for misses the point. It's the wanting to know that makes us matter.

Can't we all just get along?

Agree. As future educators and leaders of our respective fields, we should know better than to be having such a judgmental and pointless debate. Let's set an example of collegiality.

[TMP]

Most useful? Any PhD relevant for helping to build and organize Obama's library and archives (history, sociology, political science, economics, psychology, etc) Right now. With the entire country (and world!) fixing their eyes on our ever-so-popular President, we need them to collect all the data, photographs, blogs, articles, etc, etc, etc and compile them into a very well-organized archive for the future generations.

I pity any historian who attempts to study Obama 50 years from now because of the sheer volume of scattered information s/he will encounter.

Least useful? *whispers* Archaeology (my roommate's one! But she's made good argument for the Classics part so I accept that part)

I have to say, Planet Earth has kept me from criticizing scientists.

[Roll Right]

Everything is useless to someone.

[fuzzylogician]

Everything is useless to someone.

...and something is useless to everyone?

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread with anything more than a sigh - I'm so tired of academic grudge matches. We have more in common than this question recognizes (and man, I resent that tagline!). But I was preparing for my 12th grade class tomorrow, and found a perfect quotation that reminded me of this thread. So I refer you to Tom Stoppard, Arcadia, and its interdisciplinary, academic cast of characters:

Hannah: It's all trivial - your grouse (science), my hermit (history), Bernard's Byron (literature). Comparing what we're looking for misses the point. It's the wanting to know that makes us matter.

Can't we all just get along?

I love Tom Stoppard.

And yes, I agree. I do wish that the whole "Useful" to society thing would be dropped. The guy who sweeps roads in NYC is just as useful as a medical doctor (I mean, who wants to live in a litter-infested city?), and as rat-catchers were useful in the Middle-Ages. And that didn't require PhD's. Although... do you think that when the universities were founded in Paris / Oxford, they included "Rat-Catching" studies?? hmm.

EVERYTHING IS USEFUL. Yes, even Lute playing.

[JerryLandis]

But I think the issue here is that sitting at a desk all day reading old texts and arguing in academic journals with a couple people in your field (all the while, being read by a very small audience) does not have the same practical value that curing illness, sweeping the roads, and catching rats have.

Whenever I sit and listen to someone read a paper, and then there is the question/answer discussion at the end, I often listen to the experts flinging around their apt, but obscure information in very serious tones and have a little laugh to myself. Sure, it's impressive, and I do consider it important for people to keep the information and dialogue alive, but it does often seem quite petty and silly to me. I definitely understand why people who work in more "practical" areas think that history is a useless subject, especially when that person might be the electrician who woke up at 7 to come here and fix my light switch, while I sit comfortably on my couch reading in my pyjamas.

When I tell people I major in history they often say "Oh, how wonderful. We can learn so much from the past, since history always repeats itself." It's nice of them to say that, but frankly I don't think there is very much about the present that can be learned from a discussion of the early middle ages. I just study the period because I think it's interesting, i.e. for selfish reasons. I suppose I'll redeem myself to society eventually by teaching (a more "useful" activity), but as far as publishing is concerned I consider that a matter of personal self-advancement. Only a very small number of medievalists become elevated to the incredibly important, "eminent" status on the international level, and most of their discoveries and suggestions about the period are still completely unknown by anyone who is not himself a medievalist. I doubt I'll manage to become one of those people, so I can't imagine that the advancements I throw all my mental energy into will really be of any "use" or value to many people, let alone to society at large. Oh well - probably for the best though, because if I became a doctor I'd probably kill a lot of people by accident.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

People! This is PhD area versus another PhD, not just jobs in general. The OP specified this. As I've mentioned previously, I really think this should change the dialog.

[Roll Right]

People! This is PhD area versus another PhD, not just jobs in general. The OP specified this. As I've mentioned previously, I really think this should change the dialog.

Advances in agriculture allow for a food surplus, which is the only thing that allows humans to specialize in something other than food production. While these advances occured long before the establishment of a PhD in agriculture, I think food systems and agricultural studies are still the foundation of a functional society.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Roll Right

[JerryLandis]

Don't know if your post was directed at me Armadillo, but I was discussing a specific discipline of PhD - my own! Not gonna rag on anyone else's though for fear of internet freakout argument.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Don't know if your post was directed at me Armadillo, but I was discussing a specific discipline of PhD - my own! Not gonna rag on anyone else's though for fear of internet freakout argument.

No, it was not directed at you. I just sense a general tip toeing in this thread.

[jordy]

I only realized this just now when I reviewed my last comment, but my post seems to have bumped this conversation back up to the top when it was just starting to die down (11 days prior). Sorry people. Can I rewind a couple days please?

[1f3_2kf2]

I still think dinosaurs are the most important area of study

bump

[The Pseudo grad student]

LOL, a good friend of mine is actually talking of applying there. He's a wine buff. But I would hardly imagine a PhD is necessary for something like that . . . maybe that's the place where they train the future wine-making professors!!!

Okay maybe I'm being a little oversensitive here but since I do go to UC Davis, I have to defend it's honor. Wine making or the major viticulture is a lot harder than it seems. Surprisingly a lot of Chem PhD decide to go and work in the wine business since it is very specialized and delicate. We also get funds from a wealthy benefactor (namely Robert Mondavi) so it's important in supporting the school as well as people who enjoy drinking wine. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge the major.

In reply to the OP, that is a most subjective question so I choose not to answer. Everything has a purpose in society so judgment really can't be made.

[BongRips69]

I'd say linguistics... language is the only truth humanity knows.

[Multiple Infusions]

I'd say linguistics... language is the only truth humanity knows.

As a fellow mathematician I am appalled that you would say this!

[wahineilikea]

My two NZ cents are that is the PERSON getting the PhD is more important than the field itself. Anyone can do anything with the knowledge and leverage they've earned, and they can use it to be a good person or an asshole. I know people in academia who are bitter recluses and those that are so wonderful I want to cover them with chocolate and eat them up.

I can only speak for myself in that I HOPE my PhD in music education will benefit society. Music brings joy to families and communities, and as my specialty is in global/multicultural education I hope I can contribute to world peace as well by using music to foster relationships between cultures. That's taxpayer's money from the state of Washington well spent, right?