When I was 16 I knew everything. As I got older I discovered that I knew a lot less, but more in detail about the things I did know. By the time I get to 60, I expect to know an infinite amount of detail, about nothing.
Let us assume (total knowledge) = (what you know)(how much you know about it).
The graph as drawn suggests PhDs have less total knowledge than Masters degree holders, and of course, academia would never stand for such a thing.
So a much more reasonable guess for the graph would be to hold total knowledge constant, so that what you know is proportional to 1/(how much you know about it). Thus, at the two extrema, we would have "Know nothing about everything", and "Know everything about nothing".
Fortunately, this is consistent with observations, since the PhD approaches "everything about nothing", while adolescents are generally observed to consider themselves experts in everything, while demonstrating that they know nothing about anything.
The way that University administration (and much of the public, probably) see this is totally different, in that as one moves towards PhD it is assume that breadth increases (somehow). So, faculty, for instance, are put in charge of important stuff of which they a) a clueless and b) don't care, but a) everyone assumes they are expert and b) everyone trusts that they care.
Many problems a most universities and colleges can be partly or even wholly fixed by a) removing responsibility for anything but teaching and research from faculty, and b) recognizing that not everyone is good at both teaching and research and assigning responsibility accordingly.
The way I have always heard this joke is that you have a choice of two career paths: either you learn more and more about less and less, until eventually you know everything about nothing, at which point you are a PhD, or you learn less and less about more and more, ending up knowing nothing about everything - as a journalist.
I don't know either. But if I did, I'd be sure of all the details.
When I was 16 I knew everything. As I got older I discovered that I knew a lot less, but more in detail about the things I did know. By the time I get to 60, I expect to know an infinite amount of detail, about nothing.
Let us assume (total knowledge) = (what you know)(how much you know about it).
The graph as drawn suggests PhDs have less total knowledge than Masters degree holders, and of course, academia would never stand for such a thing.
So a much more reasonable guess for the graph would be to hold total knowledge constant, so that what you know is proportional to 1/(how much you know about it). Thus, at the two extrema, we would have "Know nothing about everything", and "Know everything about nothing".
Fortunately, this is consistent with observations, since the PhD approaches "everything about nothing", while adolescents are generally observed to consider themselves experts in everything, while demonstrating that they know nothing about anything.
yup. Looks pretty good to me. I'm just about dead on in that sweet spot.
Wifey and I tell the teens to leave home now, while they still know everything!
"Your wise man don't know how feels... to be thick as a brick" (hat tip to Ian Anderson). But how can he not know, and be wise?
But how can he not know, and be wise?
Wisdom is recognising that one is fundamental ill informed and totally ignorant about almost everything and learning to live with it.
This is important. (funny, but important.)
The way that University administration (and much of the public, probably) see this is totally different, in that as one moves towards PhD it is assume that breadth increases (somehow). So, faculty, for instance, are put in charge of important stuff of which they a) a clueless and b) don't care, but a) everyone assumes they are expert and b) everyone trusts that they care.
Many problems a most universities and colleges can be partly or even wholly fixed by a) removing responsibility for anything but teaching and research from faculty, and b) recognizing that not everyone is good at both teaching and research and assigning responsibility accordingly.
How can we know anything for sure?:)
The way I have always heard this joke is that you have a choice of two career paths: either you learn more and more about less and less, until eventually you know everything about nothing, at which point you are a PhD, or you learn less and less about more and more, ending up knowing nothing about everything - as a journalist.
I'd imagine one's breadth of knowledge increases somewhat as one moves to post doc and prof
The Y-axis really should be labeled:
"What you *Think* you know"
(Actually, to be clearer, I'd label it "Things you think you know something about")
John S Wilkins averred @#2
...which will qualify you as either a theologian or a Faux News commentator.
Oh dear... I started as a theologian...
Time is circular!
Hmmm... That graph should end with an asymptote y=0. Should be like a negative exponential function. :)