Eric, a question if I may:
Is there room for a modern PhD that values breadth over depth?
The goal of completing a Ph.D. program is to become the most knowledgable person in the world about a specific topic. While this is a valuable goal for disciplines that reward specialization, it does not provide enough flexibility for autodidacts with a range of interests.
A P.h.D. typically takes between 3 and 6 years of self-directed study. If candidates spend between 35 to 70 hours per week, this amounts to 5,250 hours on the low-end and 21,000 hours at the extreme end.
Of course, not all of this time is spent on research. In fact, modern P.h.D. students spend more time than necessary dealing with administrative functions like teaching, grading, and paperwork for the university.
What would you recommend to someone planning their own "personal PhD"? That is, four to six years of self-directed research on a specific topic.
This is something I think about often. Many citizen scientists like Franklin, Edison, and Darwin were not the result of PhD programs but instead curious professionals who conducted independent research.
Other specific questions:
- What is a suitable replacement for the role of advisor? Is there a representative person outside of academia who would provide the same type of advice?
- What type of fields are best suited to personal PhDs? Low capital investment (ie, no expensive lab equipment) seems like a constraint?
Like I said, I think about this often and have written more on the topic here: https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/the-lifetime-curriculum...