Would you date a girl with a PhD?

No, I prefer them to have BPD and HIV

tell that to this loser

What subject do they have PhDs in? Why did you cross it out OP?

Yes, "generally". I know a girl with a PhD in EE from Stanford and she's a massive slut and nympho. Loves using men for free drinks/dinners etc.

She's either makes terrible life decissions and is prone to falling for scams, or is too occupied. Maybe both

My net worth is already pretty high. She probably has considerable debts. If she can match the value of my assets and earnings, we could make it work.

>my net worth is pretty high
1m+?

PhDs mean nothing these days anyway. Any retard can get a PhD with enough dedication, and many of them don't even get a job fitting for a PhD.

Yeah man, something like that. I inherited boomer money.

Milena Velba has a master's degree and was a professional chemist before she realized she could make more money showing westerners her tits.

Attached: 1494794975426.webm (718x480, 1.96M)

Oh yeah? How do you figure? What's changed?

I'm not a chad trophy husband or highly educated so i doubt a PhD would want me

Honestly, no.

Every PhD I've ever encountered had absolutely no personality to speak of and their life experiences came to a grinding halt the day they began their Masters Degree. Ever since then there's a huge, nearly decade long, gap between then and now and within that time they dropped all hobbies, interests, and beliefs that were not entirely dedicated to acquiring their PhD or completing Post Doc work so they can get a high level job.

There's also an 80% chance that they are extremely smug about their PhD despite having forgotten almost everything else they've ever learned. They will never let you forget they have a PhD. They will never respect your opinion on anything even if it's not related to their field because you don't have a PhD. If you don't have PhD it's not because your field does not require one or because life circumstances didn't allow for it or because you want to remain a human, it's because you're too weak and stupid.

I've met two exceptions to this rule. Both suffered tremendously because they refused to shed their humanity while acquiring their graduate degrees and acquired or were set to acquire each one two or so years later than normal. They both were massive nerds who refused to give up their hobbies and interests and were outcasts amongst their cohorts.

I spent 6 months in a university research lab surrounded by PhD students and prospective PhD students. I even went on 5+ research trips with them. I never thought that wading cock deep in swamp water surrounded by blood sucking mosquitoes, angry swamp spiders, wild boar, water snakes, and stank would be less of a boring ball ache than sitting around the cottage with these absolute fucking trogs.

I've never met more boring mother fuckers in my entire life.

>PHD in education or social studies

attractive poses

Not him, but I can answer.

Masters and PhD programs do not require a related undergraduate degree. They simply ask that you meet the bare minimum requirements and have a solid idea of what you want to study and who you want to study said thing under. If you remotely fit the bill then you'll have several interviews, but the one that matters is the interview with the advising professor. Said person will mostly choose based on how much of an asshole you seem, because if you got to that point then they know you did the small amount of legwork and aren't entirely retarded.

Universities are constantly in need of graduate students to pump money and time into the system via teaching, grants, exposure, tuition, and research completion. They'll rubber stamp anyone into a program these days because they use graduate students as a form of underpaid slave labor for labs, tutoring, assistance, and lower level courses.

You can jump into a PhD program without having a Masters and they'll simply give you the Masters once you've completed the work required for one and finish a test or you can simply keep trudging on until you've finished your PhD. Most programs require little to know fundamental knowledge of the field. All they require is a willingness to learn the knowledge required to understand the specialized knowledge used for your graduate degree.

This ultimately means that your average PhD knows
>Fuck all aside from their research
>How to manipulate doners and funders to acquire grants
>How to manipulate journal editors to get published
>How to present research and gain exposure
>How to functionally operate their specified lab

her face looks like a hot male chad's face. like if you cut her hair she'd look quite attractive as a man IMO.
normally yes, unless they posed for stupid shit like OPs pic (it implies smoothbrainery, which also implies illegitimacy of her degree in particular)

this is entirely true (I did an undergraduate degree in CS and now I'm doing a philosophy degree), though I think the requirements for prior relevant degrees might get stricter for relatively more reputable programs. that being said,
>How to manipulate journal editors to get published
is this an actual thing?? how do people go about 'manipulating journal editors'? don't they need to somehow know who's going to be peer-reviewing their shit? TELL ME THESE JEWISH SECRETS PLEASE. also
>How to present research and gain exposure
if you have a strong publication record, what's the point of gaining exposure? I loathe conferences and literally just publish articles, but would this fuck me over in the end?

>life experiences
to be fair to count as a legitimate robot I think you can't have 'life experiences' either. life experiences are inherently normie things. if you're a robot you might as well go for a phd, since it's not like there's anything more fulfilling that'd crop up. if by 'life experiences' you mean like actual interesting robot hobbies (i.e. games, niche movies, not-shit music etc.), then I think pretty much any non-NEET (whether they're getting a phd or whether they're just some middle management normie) lacks these, so a deficit of hobbies isn't unique to phds in particular.

i assume that if a woman passes a ~120 IQ threshold the world is hers if she decides to pursue an advanced degree in a technical subject, institutions elite or not trip over themselves to award degrees in EE, physics etc to women. a white or asian male with a PhD in one of these subjects is a much stronger signal of competence

here ya go bud en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism_and_educational_inflation

Thanks for answering for me, pretty much my answer. Let me add some though.

Most studies can't be replicated or are very brittle. Has to do with too specific of configurations, context-sensitive theories, culture, bad research methods, and so on. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. This problem applies to every field, even physics.

Most of these PhDs do research in a very specific field, often predetermined by their institute. If they fail to break through, they lack practical experience and they also lack knowledge of the majority of the field, or related fields.

Its not that PhDs are completely useless. Its that they make a lot of opportunity costs (even in EU, where getting a master's first is often a requirement). And then they lack the practical experience for the non-academic world, and their theoretical experience gets them nowhere. This is even worse for fields that often present bogus, like social studies (specifically gender studies), which often flat-out lie or misrepresent statistics. Many of these guys' last solace is finding an analyst job, otherwise they work far below their level of education. At least a master's has some practical experience and gets in the world quicker, while having a theoretical edge over their peers.

Further: see pic related. I remember hearing from year 1 on, only like 1 to 10% of PhDs actually make it to a job on their level. That's nuts, that's a massive losing trade, years of investment only to do bachelor-level work anyway.

>How to manipulate journal editors to get published
Pick a sub-domain that is more preferred. Talk with journal editors and publishers, get buddy-buddy. Same way office politics work. Humans are not rational, not even academia.

Attached: NSF_PhDs_Academic_Jobs-thumb-615x414-114239.png (615x414, 51K)

the only phd student that could possibly bear my retardation would be some bitch in the social sciences who sets her twitter name as dr. retard, phd and posts 12 hours a day about systemic racism

don't most journals go through two steps though (one where the editors receive your paper and one where they submit it to peer reviewers who ultimately decide whether it should be accepted)? aren't submissions to peer reviewers necessarily anonymous? how would this work? also re your chart, does this not imply that if you wanted a job in academia, studying a meme humanities degree would be the way to go? why exactly is it so low for stuff like engineering and physical sciences?

>is this an actual thing??
Yes and is a major source of issues within modern academia. My experiences are mostly within Biology and under the care of a very reputed professor. I do know that each field has its own issues.

My lab mentor would first write his paper in a very clear and legible manner and let it get rejected by the editor. He'd then massacre it with academicese and lots of needless jargon and every time, without fail, he'd get the green light.

>How to present research and gain exposure
Useful for your early days and for acquiring position after you get your PhD and get into your Post Doc. We had a Post Doc who barely gained any exposure finish his Post Doc and couldn't acquire any position because the question became "Who the fuck are you?" followed by "Fuck off, I've never heard of you."

My lab mentor got denied publication in a journal entirely because the people making the decision had never heard of him in their lives. He got the same research published a few years later once he had established himself with the exact same people and just updated the data a bit.

Exposure gets your contacts which gets you a network which gets people having seen your name somewhere and can stick a face to it.

>though I think the requirements for prior relevant degrees might get stricter for relatively more reputable programs.
No. They're pretty much the same across the board. It's almost entirely up to the advising professor if you get in. Some professors are super strict, but most couldn't give a flying fuck.

Most robots are insanely lazy and have no drive. Most could acquire good jobs with little personal contact if they simply learned to code Java and crafted a good handful of personal coding projects. You can learn Java in 12 weeks via the University of Helsinki, but they won't.

They are anonymous, but often their job is often a formality and they'll rubber stamp almost anything the editor gives the green light.

>My lab mentor got denied publication in a journal entirely because the people making the decision had never heard of him in their lives. He got the same research published a few years later once he had established himself with the exact same people and just updated the data a bit.
>They are anonymous, but often their job is often a formality and they'll rubber stamp almost anything the editor gives the green light.
This is so depressing wtf? What's the point of going into academia if you still have to be a sociable normie?
>Most robots are insanely lazy and have no drive. Most could acquire good jobs with little personal contact if they simply learned to code Java and crafted a good handful of personal coding projects. You can learn Java in 12 weeks via the University of Helsinki, but they won't.
I wouldn't exactly call acquiring a good job a 'life experience'. Like there isn't anything intrinsically more rewarding by being a code monkey (which I used to be) than by studying some niche bullshit in academia. The former gets hopelessly dull and lonely, and the latter is interesting and lonely, though neither seems like some particularly attractive life experience.

brains?

coomriginal

Attached: brians.jpg (1200x800, 146K)

>Ph is that thing about water
Acidity, user. Not water.

Attached: mfw227.jpg (600x600, 22K)

Look up Peter Boghossian. He trolled a bunch of psych journals by writing fake feminist nonsense and they gladly published almost all of it. One paper was Mein Kampf but with all the Nazi terminology swapped for feminist terminology. Another was about how dog parks are a tool of the patriarchy because sometimes the dogs hump each other.

You can get a PhD for that now?

This . Rules are just formalities and meant to be broken. Again, academia is human, and humans are not rational. Backdoors always exist.
>also re your chart, does this not imply that if you wanted a job in academia, studying a meme humanities degree would be the way to go? why exactly is it so low for stuff like engineering and physical sciences?
Honestly, that surprised me on seeing it as well. I have a hypothesis, but read it with a giant pinch of salt:
Education: you're almost never putting a person of lower level than the course to teach it, so you're almost always defaulting to a PhD-holder to teach bachelors, masters and PhDs.

Humanities and social studies vs STEM:
Social studies in general are easier to bullshit your way through. Read history, take your time, perform statistical analysis, and such. The fields aren't as competitive and there aren't too many people required to do the practical part, freeing resources on the lowest ends and the highest ends of the spectrum. You don't want a PhD doing the lowest of low work, so they put funding in to ensure PhDs don't drop all the way down doing work someone without an education could.

Meanwhile, STEM is highly competitive, with harsh requirements for doing lab research. This puts a lot of pressure on people and makes them doubt the choice to follow through with PhD-level work. Add to that fields like CS where there are plenty of jobs that still pay well or even better, provide less pressure and where you can somehow substitute a master's for a PhD. There is much less pressure for universities to fund the field, instead leaving it to big corporations like Google, NASA, Big Medical institutes, etc., which will put much harsher requirements on their candidates since, well, these are private corporations that need to make profit and can't rely on tax money. STEM also has much more coming from outside (Asia is huge in STEM, much less in Humanities) and this is very likely US-only.
.

>What's the point of going into academia if you still have to be a sociable normie?
Humans are social creatures so thus most things in society require a good amount of socialization to get ahead. In the sciences, the entire point behind graduate degrees was to prepare you for either professorship or running your own lab. Both of those are highly sociable positions because you need to rub elbows with the right people in order to maintain your job and funding.

For however much of a Sheldon Cooper a professor seems to be, they're often doing a lot of socialization as part of their job.

>I wouldn't exactly call acquiring a good job a 'life experience'.
You're focusing too much on the life experience. My point was that do perform as needed in academia (within the sciences) you have to shed basically all the excess weight of your life and convert all of that energy into drive and determination. Most robots may not have traditional life experiences, but they still have interests and hobbies even if it's just playing video games and jerking it to hentai. My other point was that becoming a code monkey is infinitely a better and less ball aching choice than dealing with all of the malarkey of academia.

It was an issue of drive versus anything. Shedding what you have in your life, not matter how little or small, is a huge mental task to undertake and a typical robot won't often have the capacity to do it because if they did, they wouldn't be where they are in the first place.

>be me
>work with a female PhD engineer
>order her 50 bottles for field sampling, 5 different bottle sizes per set.
>she still somehow manages to mix them up
>screws up her field sampling completely
>tries to blame me for it
>calls in an angry tone how she is frustrated with me
>I just order shit for you like everyone else
>contractors never have problems with their bottles I order them
PhD's are just arrogant and stupid, they are only good at writing tests at Uni and doing research on paper, they're failures socially and at life.

People with a PhD don't automatically make more money than everyone else. That's not how it works.

My rich broker friend says that you will never hear about the failures. You only hear about the doctors and wealthy people with PhDs. You never hear about the loner who makes it big. There are more wealthy entrepreneurs without a college degree than there are wealthy people with graduate degrees. Let that sink in, normal fags.

all this whores sucked off they professor.

PhD in taking BBC? Yes, yes I would.
coomer.jpg

Couldnt care less desu

What qualifies as a "life experience" anyway? Seems like a big old meme to me.

that is the most niggery sentence I've read all day

>Quotes everybody and doesn't read the entire thing
How can you be this retarded and triggered. I () even stated that multiple times. Its mostly humanities and social studies where this rings true, solely because there are almost no mid-level jobs for these fields, only low and high. I even presented STEM as an example where it isn't true, where there are plenty of Masters and Bachelors earning more than PhDs, not even including the entrepreneurs, contract workers and the likes.

you finna prove wrong user?

She didn't earn it, so no.

Doing things. Anything. It's really awkward to talk to someone who's 30 something and the last thing they did of note was when they were 22. They've gone so long without doing anything that they no longer have anything that interests them worth talking about
>No games
>No shows
>No movies
>No outdoor activities
>No anime
>No hentai
>No podcasts
>No friends / acquaintances not part of their graduate cohort
>Nothing unrelated to research

Like 80% of the department's graduate students were like this.

I've met true to life neckbeard robots who simply watch anime, masturbate, and play video games all day who are less boring and empty.

>No, I prefer them to have BPD and HIV
fucking based

How will her PHD affct the cooking and cleaning?

food science my dude