[vincent-toups]

Counterpoint: I've got a Phd (Physics). I did not pursue physics as a career but I think about and read physics research papers and textbooks _almost every day_ and derive enormous pleasure from the pursuit.

Sure, I could teach myself everything I learned in grad school on my own time (I guess) but to me, those stipended years wherein I had no responsibilities other than to learn were the best years of my life, and they have served as the springboard for more learning in this, much more busy, period of my life.

Would it be better if I had made full professor somewhere? Sure, but in the end the education was its own reward. I consider the trade offs a bargain.

[dfmooreqqq]

I agree completely with this. I have an Applied Physics Ph.D. and have a similar experience. I think that if you are getting a Ph.D. for a reason other than enjoying the learning and the education, then it doesn't make too much sense. However, if you have a great pleasure in the pursuit of the field and the research in it, then it makes sense to get a Ph.D.

We don't give enough credit these days to education being its own reward.

[narrator]

Getting a Physics Phd is fine because it looks great on a resume. It shows that you are very good at applied math. A History Phd is almost a negative, IMHO.

[vincent-toups]

Not really the point I am trying to make: if you love History, getting the PhD might be worth it. Money isn't everything.