I agree with most points in the article, with the notable exception of the Thesis. Writing individual papers vs planning and executing 3 or more years of research into a successful project with a cohesive narrative are entirely different tasks. Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/124705/58645
Also, the opening quote is unfortunate, in that it probably contradicts the article and makes many false assertions (while Dyson Freeman might be forgiven for thinking at the ripe age of 90 that a PhD is a harmful choice for "a woman who pretends to do research she is not well-suited for, only to get a paper that means nothing", I don't think it's something that can be used as a serious argument by people in academia today...).
Finally, the whole article is extremely reductive, focusing only on negative aspects, without touching any positives; i.e. it's effectively a 'rant' rather than a nuanced analysis.
However, the biggest beef I have with it is the whole "therefore the phd needs to be abolished" conclusion, which is a complete non-sequitur, and effectively the "Politician's fallacy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism). No, PhDs do not need to be abolished. They do need to be upgraded to come with some protections, but that's a very different argument. At the moment, there are very few protections, and most if not all career training beyond the immediate scope of the relevant research simply comes down to supervisors' good will. However, talking about abolishing the institution because it's "broken" is no less a serious proposition than overthrowing governments and leaving countries into chaos because governments are "broken".
Also, the opening quote is unfortunate, in that it probably contradicts the article and makes many false assertions (while Dyson Freeman might be forgiven for thinking at the ripe age of 90 that a PhD is a harmful choice for "a woman who pretends to do research she is not well-suited for, only to get a paper that means nothing", I don't think it's something that can be used as a serious argument by people in academia today...).
Finally, the whole article is extremely reductive, focusing only on negative aspects, without touching any positives; i.e. it's effectively a 'rant' rather than a nuanced analysis.
However, the biggest beef I have with it is the whole "therefore the phd needs to be abolished" conclusion, which is a complete non-sequitur, and effectively the "Politician's fallacy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism). No, PhDs do not need to be abolished. They do need to be upgraded to come with some protections, but that's a very different argument. At the moment, there are very few protections, and most if not all career training beyond the immediate scope of the relevant research simply comes down to supervisors' good will. However, talking about abolishing the institution because it's "broken" is no less a serious proposition than overthrowing governments and leaving countries into chaos because governments are "broken".