Students and Graduates!
A PhD doesn’t make you smarter.” Bold claim—or honest truth?
The idea that a PhD proves superior intelligence and show how real expertise comes from focus, method, and clear communication. In this solo session, rarity fuels the myth, where limits sit, and how to talk about research without distance or jargon. Here's the breakdown:
Why the “PhDs are smarter” myth sticks
What narrow expertise actually looks like
Methods, questions, and building arguments
The role of patience, graft, and curiosity
How jargon creates distance in outreach
Using plain language to invite dialogue
Setting boundaries on expertise with honesty
Encouraging others to pursue the path by example
Thank you all for tuning in, it has been a pleasure!
Website: https://www.phdlounge.co.uk
Donation tab - https://www.phdlounge.co.uk/donate
Buzzsprout subscription - https://www.buzzsprout.com/1808542/support
Instagram: @phdlmf
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luismaia94/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/phdloungepodcast
Read the transcript
Hello students and graduates.
Welcome to PhD Lunch, the
podcast of late night talks in
which PhDs have a drink and talk
about their research topics.
There's something almost every
PhD hears.
You must be so smart.
But here's a reality check.
Obtaining a PhD doesn't make us
smarter.
But why is that?
And where does this claim stem
from?
First, it's not about total
knowledge or superior
intelligence.
APHD means you've deeply studied
one specific thing.
It doesn't mean you know more
than someone with ABA, an MA, or
no degree at all.
This belief may come from the
small percentage of pH DS in the
world, roughly between 2 and 3%
in people's minds.
That makes you stand out for
possibly the worst reasons.
This degree takes a long time,
requires a bit of patience and
plenty of work ethic, And as
these soft skills are not
advertised, most people think
that they are not exactly cut
out for a pH D, making it sound
exceptional.
Second, a pH D is a focus
exercise just as much as a labor
of love, as you become an expert
in a very narrow field.
For example, in my dissertation
about Greco Roman cities in
Syria and Mesopotamia through
the post Colonial terminologies,
Hybridity and First Base, I only
explored 3 case studies in which
I can now be considered an
expert, using them as context
for my research argument if
you'd ask me.
But what about other cities in
the Greco Roman world?
I could only share my ground
knowledge as I would need to
study them closer.
It is true that you must have
some prior knowledge of what you
studied during your BA and MA,
and you must be smart in the way
you approach your PhD
dissertation.
However, the PhD teaches you how
to ask questions, how to use
methods, and how to build
arguments.
But your expertise has limits
and it's meant to be debated.
Lastly, the PhD isn't a linear
path to make someone smarter
just because academic jargon was
used or restricted public access
volumes were consultants.
That mindset will very likely
create uncomfortable and
unnecessary distance when you
share your research with others,
both fellow scholars and
interested lay people as well.
Instead, the PhD is built from
our due diligence in terms of
how our skills are applied and
processed in the practical
manner to complete the arduous
journey of achieving the degree.
This not only comes from writing
essays or having good grades in
exams and assessments, but from
your curiosity and experiences
that come outside of university,
such as a working in a a year in
industry, having internships and
life overall.
So next time you're confronted
with this claim during a
conversation, try to explain in
plain and simple language that
you're doing a PhD not to be
smart, but to obtain more
knowledge in your field you are
passionate about and lead those
who want to take this
adventurous path by example.
Thank you all for tuning in, it
has been a pleasure.