A Ph.D. in the sciences is not a career guarantee but a way to demonstrate your ability to do unique research. Institutions can afford to be selective regarding hiring since there are so many PhDs candidates and not enough positions available. They want to ensure that the person they hire is a “one-shot wonder” and not someone who can consistently produce. Some persons earn advanced degrees when they shouldn’t and end up being “overqualified” for several positions. You will encounter a variety of challenges if a stepping stone is missing. In the modern world, conducting scientific research becomes challenging without a Ph.D.

Without a Ph.D., you cannot work in academia in the STEM fields. The PhDs are the ones who are most likely to produce unique work and find solutions in a non-academic setting. Non-PhDs are nonetheless creative, despite many fewer of them, and they tend to be the odd outliers. Obtaining a Ph.D. is your best option if you’re neither Michael Faraday nor Freeman Dyson and want to be active in research.

Rather than demonstrating actual scientific competence, PhDs are an instrument of authoritarianism. A Ph.D. is about academic excellence, NOT natural science. Some innumerable innovators and researchers have little to no formal schooling. Faraday is among the most outstanding examples; he lacked a Ph.D. and had no formal education. Nevertheless, he was a pioneering natural philosopher. The gatekeepers of so-called science who have no concept of nature reject and mock such individuals.

Innovative thinking is necessary for invention. Academicians keep a list of impossibilities and imprison themselves inside a dogma box. Therefore, it is almost hard in this situation to reject those beliefs and think beyond the box. Even if an innovation can be empirically proven, it might kill your career if it conflicts with academic theory. They are firmly committed to what they have learned and won’t stray from it, at least not very far.

Therefore, being a business science gatekeeper is essential to academic performance. They stow their paper bag away and lock it. They belittle and discredit everyone who constructs something valuable. Thus, innovation and PhDs are diametrically opposed. One is for wisdom; the other is for renown. In the past century, no notable inventions have been made. All of the contemporary technology we use are scaled-down versions of those developed by Victorian science in the 19th century. Instead of relying on PhDs to do your study for you if you are interested in innovation, conduct your own studies without worrying about academic acceptance.

In short, Ph.D. is losing its value because it used to be sufficient for becoming a scientist; now, it’s often just necessary but not sufficient. These days most scientists also spend time as a postdoc under someone’s supervision before they start running their own labs. Not having a Ph.D. in this highly technological world makes one an inferior candidate for any research scientist position. Most such applications will never be read to get a job.