I feel like this article missed the mark, getting a PhD used to be something for affluent people who genuinely felt like contributing toward the progress of society.
There’s always a disconnect between a romanticized ideal and what is practically possible. And reading the comments what some departments do to secure funding seem like a far cry from the ivory towers universities were known for.
Someone Ph.D track in my research group was paying tutors and having homework performed for them.
While it is certainly possible that the role falls on people who want it enough, there simply aren't a lot of people financially able to do 5-7 additional years of school on a meager research stipend, esp. if they are graduating their bachelor's program with debt. You can buoy yourself with side work or internships, but what if the thing you're passionate about isn't something that excites industry?
G. Perelman is a recluse. He sees the point of mathematicians is to advance math, not mathematicians. He's so much the opposite of what this blog post seems to shoot for.
"almost no publications or citations to show"
Not accurate, he published relatively few papers (less than 20), but several in top journals like Journal of the AMS. His papers also have been cited plenty
Isn't this true for every job?
Doctors break up their day into 15 minute patient visits. Policemen spend a lot of time on domestic disputes. Software engineers spend more time understanding someone else's code than writing their own.
wonder how many jobs actually track expectations?
But for every smart observation there are exceptions: Fields medal recipient (well, he won it but rejected to take it) G. Perelman (born 1966 and jobless last time I checked) has almost no publications or citations to show. But he will be remembered forever for proving the Poincaré conjecture ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman ).