Is it better having a bad PhD done or having no PhD?

Question

I'm close to the end of a troubled PhD experience. However this closeness might be extended to the infinite if I would get to the point of having something that is good enough. I might be too self-critical (maybe considering the standard of my institution) but at the moment the best scenario is ending with something that I wouldn't use after and I would prefer to not show it around.

Also I'm not very interested in the subject itself, so if my PhD has to be a visit card for my further steps in academia, it might be better to don't have it. I don't want to be framed in this "expertise".

My unique motivation is putting an end to this story, get the credit and the title, continuing in academia saying I have a PhD, but without showing it around as a good trophy.

I'm basically facing this dilemma:

• On one hand I must consider that "it's just a PhD" so I'm not going to change the world with it. It's enough doing something proper and giving my small contribution to the research... in other words, it doesn't have to be perfect.
• On the other hand, if this has to be something that is going to specialize my academic career and in which I should build my reputation and be recognized as an expert of this, I prefer to disappear from the scene.

There are few aspects to consider:

Even if I might be too self-critical, there are objective problems in my work (which are not my responsibility in larger part)

It can be possible that with some tricks the institution and supervisor might close an eye on this, since they have their slice of responsibilities and support my finalization.

Shortly, all the PhD has been done without following any of the supposed methodology and criteria. I had to put a bunch of material together, even if unrelated to the actual research, just because they are of a direct and personal interest of the supervisor. Thus, it should be my responsibility to make sense out of them and create questions, answers and a dissertation out of it... whatever it is. You can imagine what the result can be.

Will this PhD affect my future steps in the academia?

Answer 1

You can change topics/fields after you graduate. Use what you've learned to find a job (or postdoc or whatever) that fits you better in something you're more interested in.

For the record, nobody who isn't on your committee will read your dissertation. Done is better then good.

Answer 2

The fact of the matter is that, for almost all purposes, a year or two after graduation, nobody actually really cares about what the PhD was about. What they care about is that you have the formal qualification of having a PhD -- it's the letters you need, not anything more specific that comes out of the process.

So yes, having a mediocre PhD is far far better than having no PhD.

Answer 3

Not having a doctorate will definitely affect your future in academia. It means you have few options and only poor ones at that. The doctorate should do a couple of things for you. First, its real intent, is to teach you how to do research in some field along with a deep background in that field. But the other, maybe even more important in these modern times, is that it is a credential that gets you in the door to a permanent position in academia (or a research lab, perhaps).

Your other recent question here, along with what you say here, suggests you have seen the worst of academia. But, it isn't all like that. A "bad" doctorate is probably in your eyes only and there are elements of imposter syndrome in what you write. A lot of people judge themselves more harshly than is justified by the facts. Don't be that person. Some others, of course, are incredibly arrogant. I think you've met some of those and won't emulate them.

I've also been writing in a few recent answers that research is open ended and can't be scheduled or the outcome predicted. It is a study of the unknown and, while we hope to shed light where none exists it is an uncertain process. But it is a process and it has variations.

My advice: Get it finished. Make some contacts that will support you in a job search. Get away to a place with supportive contacts. You can change research fields in a large or small way. I made a large change once and small changes several times over a 40 year career. Make tomorrow better than today.

Answer 4

In most disciplines and most countries, a completed PhD is above all else proof that you have been successfully trained to do scientific research in a discipline, with focus on a specific subfield of it.

I wrote "with focus on" and not "exclusively in". I wrote "subfield" and not "topic".

So, as regards academia,
completed Phd =

a) I am qualified to be a professional scientist -so you have the professional credentials to start working in academia as a autonomous scientist. The "autonomous" is the critical component here.

b) I know my way around a discipline - so you have the credentials to work in a university/research Dpt that has something to do with this discipline.

c) I know my way around a subfield of this discipline - so, and as long as you do not have accumulated published work that tells something else, we will consider you for positions that have to do something with the subfield of your PhD.

d) I am an expert in the topic of my PhD - no you are not. In order to (may) be recognized as an expert in the topic of your PhD, you have first to successfully publish peer-reviewed papers on this topic.

You're not an expert, you're not even a specialist, so no, you are not defined by your PhD, even if you 'd wish so. But as long as you don't have something else to show, the PhD will open the door but will also somewhat constrain you professionally at the beginning -and this is reasonable. "Open the door" is the critical component here.

And, it appears you are working towards "having something else to show." Well, nowadays in many cases people don't go from PhD to work in academia as autonomous scientists, they first do postdocs. So complete your PhD, and maybe turn these other collaborations of you into a post-doc if need be.

Answer 5

At this point in your PhD, considering that you are so close to defending, it's much better to finish. The only ways I could really see a completed PhD hurting your future career would be if the dissertation were fraudulent (not just flawed, but if you actually made up data or citations), plagiarized, or otherwise profoundly unethical. None of these seem to be the case based on your question.

An incomplete PhD after several years of effort can be much more of a CV red flag than a mediocre PhD. Unless you presented solid evidence to the contrary, a big employment gap with an incomplete PhD could suggest to a future employer that you were a perfectionist who had trouble getting things accomplished, or that you were incapable of compromising to get things done, or that you had more trouble than most people managing interpersonal conflicts. Conversely, you can use your experience finishing a PhD to argue that you can take a complex project all the way to the finish line, and that you are capable of compromising or "managing upwards" to work with others when necessary.

Overall, my impression is that you may be prone to seeing your work in a more negative light than others will. For one thing, while I believe you that there are "objective problems" with your dissertation, this is also true for almost all completed research. Further, as the person who has performed this research, you are probably in the best position to notice these problems. You mention yourself that your standards may be unreasonably high. Finally, in my experience it is not uncommon for people to have crises of disillusionment and self-doubt when they are approaching a major deadline, inflection point, or time of change in their academic career, or when they are about to show something they've produced to the world. In other words, the feelings you're feeling right now are normal, but may also be distorted relative to how others will perceive you. I think it will probably be important to keep that in mind given that you're making a major life decision right now.

Answer 6

It looks like a dilemma between future remorse (of having done, against present costs) and future regrets (of not having done, against present benefits).

Those who completed a PhD are generally glad to have completed it, whether they enjoyed it (nicely done, what a joy) or not (eventually done, what a pain). Take note: probably this readership is biased towards people who did complete a PhD. There are surely plenty of people blissfully and lastingly happy for after not having completed their PhD study; respect. To a guaranteed extent, we all are bound to proceed at our own risk.

I wish to bring in my experience in which the very topic of my PhD turned up to be relevant for my job just two employments after. And not because I was seeking anything to establish this relevance. I kind of realised that, "after all", I already had a baggage of useful notions stored in long-term memory. Stories are anecdotal, but please do not rule out future serendipity.

Additionally, the title offers a 'wrap' of certification that a story tale has not: think of shortlisting in any job application. Without a PhD you might hit a glass ceiling afterwards. Also outside academia.

I could finish with a bang with the classical "what does not kill you makes you stronger", but there are certainly other pills of wisdom pointing in the opposite direction.

My two cents.

Answer 7

Academia is challenging for those without PhD's. It's challenging for those with PhD's, but more so for those without. It is difficult to plan on an academic career without a PhD. Of course, this depends on how you define academia. If "teaching calculus in a college", for example, is part of your definition, certainly this is more possible without a PhD than, say, starting and maintaining a research lab in the life sciences.

You must also define "bad". If a university allows to defend and bestows a degree on you, you've met their requirements, and have proven you have the skills necessary to earn a degree. This is hardly "bad". You seem to be defining "bad" as "in an area I have no real interest in", and I can hardly speak to that.

I'm going to say I disagree with those that say nobody cares about what your PhD was in two years after you get it. People WILL very much care if you can be competitive for funds in the area you propose to do research in. If you can't make a credible case for that, you'll find the job market to be very tough. If you don't think your current PhD path can help you make this argument, you're putting yourself in a tough situation.

It's time for you to lay out your career goals. Where do you want to end up? What sort of research do you plan to do? Are there steps that you can take along the way that help you develop the portfolio you NEED that make use of the portfolio you HAVE? Can you start by doing research in the field in which you're training, and morph it to the area you want to end up in?? How long do you think this will take? Will it be worth it in the end?

For your proposed academic career, mot getting a PhD has its cons. Getting a PhD that doesn't advance your career has its cons. Jumping off the current path and working towards getting the PhD that you want has its cons, too. From where you are now, you don't have a perfect path. Careful planning, at this point, is your only best hope of finding a path that's the least objectionable to you.

Answer 8

I concur with the (nearly?) unanimous view that it is far better to complete the PhD than not. This is about as close to a no brainer as I've seen.

But I didn't bother to post just to rehash what everyone else said.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you could benefit from counseling. You start the 2nd sentence "I might be too self-critical." You go on to suggest you might end up being ashamed of your PhD. That's a very dark place to be.

I have no way of evaluating your work, but I certainly have no inclination to believe your PhD will be of low quality. Do you know how many times JK Rowling was turned down before getting a publishing deal? Do you know how many hit songs were almost tossed in the waste basket because the songwriter thought they were bad?

I interpret your even contemplating quitting when you are close to getting the degree as a self-destructive act.

Something is wrong. That's what you need to address.

Answer 9

Since you are going the academic path, it is best to finish your PHD first, as you don't have any prior job experience, if you do then it is a different study because remember the only thing they will see is whether you finished your degree or not. After you work for a couple of years they won't even care what you did your PHD on rather they will ask your last boss how you did your job and etc.(note people care more about your contributions, for example your work ethics and etc instead of what you did your PHD on.). But for now you don't have any experience working so they don't have anything besides your degree, and you certainly don't want the first thing that appears on your resume to be university drop out.

Answer 10

There are many things to consider in your decision making.

First, you need input from people who know your field, and know the possible opportunities and likelihood to get them. In this, think about reaching out to people far from your institution or even your country, if moving for work is something you would consider. We are sometimes so isolated within a community of people that we can lose track of what exists and what is considered normal outside of it.

Second, you mention that you want to stay in academia, you need to think about what you are willing to sacrifice to do so, and consider what opportunities there would be for you outside of it. This will help you in figuring out when would be your threshold for letting go of your project to work in academia and exploring other routes.

Now, if you want to stay in academia, you almost surely need a PhD. Unless you feel prepared to start another PhD from scratch, then the one you're about to complete is the only chance you have. Look in your fields of interest, and find how many people without a PhD there are and what work they do, this will give you an idea of what you can expect if you don't have a PhD.

I will end by saying something that is at odds with the other answers, and it is that there are cons to finishing a PhD. I first need to separate between two things that I think are very different and that I get from your question.

The first one is whether a PhD is "good" or "bad", a "bad" PhD being one with few results, or that didn't advance a field, or that has mistakes or experimental errors, or that is not interesting. I will join the other answerers in saying that finishing a "bad" PhD is a pragmatic thing to do, hoping to do something better in your postdoc.

However, there is a second dimension and it is whether your PhD feels yours, and is in line with what you think or not. If you feel that you are in disagreement with every idea in your PhD, and now you need to write it and basically take a bunch of ideas and results, the methodology and possibly even the content of which you disagree with, and make them yours, then I would think long and hard about doing this. If you think you wouldn't be able to look yourself in the mirror after writing such a thesis, then I would consider not doing it. Obviously, this is something that would vary greatly with people, so you need to think about whether this is something that concerns you. Sometimes, it is better to take a bold stand by opposing something even if it has negative consequences as it can give us a momentum to do something else and restore our self-esteem, rather than trying to go too much against our own principles. Only you can know ;)

I wish you the best of luck.

Answer 11

Having no PhD is better than having a bad PhD, because being bad at something shows everyone else that years were wasted pursuing something you were not meant to do. Also, people can be more successful having no PhD, financially for example, so adding a bad grade to bad pay as a PhD is really as bad as it can get, IMO.