[nkurz]

Your point is correct, but I'm not surprised by the difference. I think "legibility" is the term of art here. Writing a paper like this makes it almost[1] certain to the institution he is applying to that he is capable of writing a paper of this quality, while all the other metrics (GPA, GRE, etc) are much more probabilistic. Since someone incapable of writing such a paper is probably unsuited for a PhD, it seems entirely appropriate to choose applicants who have demonstrated ability to clear this bar over those that have not.

[1] "Almost" to account for the slight chance that he didn't actually author the paper but somehow managed to get his name put on it anyway.

[godelski]

I agree and there's a lot in my comment to point to that. But my point is to distinguish between the metrics and the goals. I'm certain the author included in their CV that they had a pending paper when applying, so there is a signal, albeit a weaker but publishing is a weak signal to begin with.

I agree that you need to use metrics. But we need to be clear that metrics are not enough and very incomplete themselves. With something like admissions, I'm not sure there's anything except noisy signals and the strongest one by far is the interview.

> Since someone incapable of writing such a paper is probably unsuited for a PhD,

I very much disagree with this. The explicit purpose of schooling is to train people. Many undergrads are not going to have the opportunities to publish. It is not hard to train someone to write something publishable and this is not something I would be much concerned with myself given how much writing they're going to be doing over the next few years. The far more valuable skills are in being able to perform research which is quite ambiguous (there are at least 2 ways to read this sentence and both are correct: research type v measure). Your first 2 years of your PhD are almost exclusively training, with more class work and learning how to begin research. This isn't a job you're applying for, it is a training program.

[nkurz]

>> Since someone incapable of writing such a paper is probably unsuited for a PhD

> I very much disagree with this.

Your disagreement is justified. I phrased that poorly. I meant it as a shorthand for "incapable of being trained to write such a paper". Showing that you already have the skill is proof, everything else just points to the possibility with varying degrees of accuracy.

I in turn disagree that "the purpose of schooling is to train people", at least if "schooling" refers to PhD programs. I think it's more that there aren't enough applicants who are able to perform without extensive training, so in practical terms PhD programs need to be willing to provide training. But at the same time, it's perfectly understandable that they would prefer to take applicants who have demonstrated ability to perform over those with statistical potential.

I'd prefer something like "The purpose of PhD programs is to advance the field". I'm personally in the odd category that I've co-authored several computer science research papers despite having dropped out to become a programmer prior to my BA. I've demonstrated my ability to perform much of the role of a PhD while simultaneously demonstrating that I perhaps shouldn't be relied upon to finish!

[dlemire]

> I'd prefer something like "The purpose of PhD programs is to advance the field".

If you read Wikipedia under 'Doctor of Philosophy', you will find that a Ph.D. was once more of a prestigious title you got after doing the scholarship:

"The first higher doctorate in the modern sense was Durham University's DSc, introduced in 1882. This was soon followed by other universities, including the University of Cambridge establishing its ScD in the same year and the University of London transforming its DSc into a research degree in 1885. These were, however, very advanced degrees, rather than research-training degrees at the PhD level—Harold Jeffreys said that getting a Cambridge ScD was "more or less equivalent to being proposed for the Royal Society."

It is still possible to get a doctorate in this manner. Please see wikipedia under 'Doctor of Philosophy by publication'.

"A Doctor of Philosophy by publication (also known as a Ph.D. by Published Work, PhD by portfolio or Ph.D. under Special Regulation) is a manner of awarding a Ph.D. degree offered by some universities in which a series of articles usually with a common theme are published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals to meet the requirements for the degree, in lieu of presentation of a final dissertation. Many PhD by Publication programs require the submission of a formal thesis and a viva voce."

It is offered in several countries in Europe. The wikipedia entry is incomplete: it is not just offered in the UK.

Furthermore, it is relatively common to get advanced degrees from well known universities (e.g., Harvard) without having an undergraduate degree.

[godelski]

I see your point and I think that brings us a bit closer to alignment. But I think if someone is __incapable__ of writing such a paper there would likely be many larger flags and they probably should not have been able to pass their undergraduate curriculum.

I do want to make it clear: I'm not opposed to arbitrary filters when there is a high number of applicants and you simply need to reduce the number. I am opposed to pretending that such a filter is not arbitrary. I think we need to be clear about how strong of a signal any filter is, and be quite explicit that they are not all equal indicators. That is my main point: being explicit about the strength of a signal.

On regards to training, I do agree that schooling isn't __just__ training, but I'd fully disagree that this isn't one of the most important aspects of it, even in grad school. Your first two years (in US systems) are nearly identical to a masters and highly focused on classes. What are classes but training? Even being a TA or lecturer is, in part, training (full instructor of record would not be). Post conditional, I still think you are in training at least up until candidacy. That is much more arguable given the variability of advisors, with some being very hands on (training) and some being very hands off (on your own).

I'd prefer something as "The purpose of PhD programs is to train people to advance the field." Because by all accounts, it seems like you've done this (even with the self-deprecating humor. That is exceptionally common in PhDs too lol). I still maintain training because this isn't the end, but the beginning. Post PhD is where you can choose to go to be an academic researcher or industry researcher (or abandon research). Those are the actual jobs (which should have continued training) but your degree is more akin to a certification from your institution. You do come out with a body of work that is distinct from the institution, but the institution's goal is not to keep you around and continue performing work. They are explicitly formed to graduate you. To educate you. And what is education except a form of training?

Fwiw, I think we are decently aligned, but sometimes text is hard to communicate, especially post by post. I do think your critiques are valid, even where I disagree.