There comes a time in every aspiring academic or aspiring researcher when they face the decision:

Should I get a PhD?

The answer often seems obvious.

After all, a PhD is the highest academic degree awarded by most universities. It represents years of dedicated study, original research, and demonstrated expertise within a field.

For many people, pursuing a PhD is exactly the right decision.

Imagine a student in their late twenties. They have completed a bachelor’s degree and perhaps a master’s degree. They enjoy research. They hope to teach at a university, supervise graduate students, publish papers, attend conferences, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge throughout a long academic career.

For this person, a PhD serves many important purposes.

• It provides advanced training in research methods.
• It provides mentorship from experienced scholars.
• It helps define a research problem and scope a dissertation.
• It creates professional connections and academic networks.
• It provides access to laboratories, archives, equipment, and funding.
• It opens doors to academic and research careers.

For this person, the PhD is not merely a credential. It is professional preparation.

The PhD is a necessity.

But what if the situation is different?

Imagine a second person.

This person is much older, possibly already retired or close to it. They have already spent decades working as an engineer, scientist, software developer, physician, business leader, writer, or other professional. They have written reports, solved difficult problems, managed projects, evaluated evidence, and communicated complex ideas throughout their career.

• They’re no longer trying to enter academia.
• They don’t need a faculty position.
• They don’t need tenure.
• They don’t need a grant-funded laboratory.
• They don’t need a university salary.

Yet they remain intellectually curious.

They still read. They still write. They still investigate questions that fascinate them. They still want to contribute ideas.

The question is no longer:

Can I do meaningful intellectual work?

The question becomes:

What would a PhD actually do for me?

Are they looking for the same things as the younger candidates, or are they looking for something else?

• Legitimacy.
• Status.
• Recognition.
• Permission.

This distinction matters because a PhD serves several different functions simultaneously.

It is:

• Training.
• Mentorship.
• Professional qualification.
• Access to academic networks.
• Research experience.
• A signal of expertise.
• A marker of legitimacy.
• A source of personal satisfaction.

For some people, all of those functions are essential. But for others, only one or two remain relevant.

One must also consider the potential drawbacks to pursuing a PhD:

• The long time commitment of 5-7 years.
• Possibly a move to the university to attend on campus.
• The expense of a PhD program, or the teaching and research assistantships often needed to offset that expense.
• Putting life on hold to go back and finish a degree later in life.

The mistake is assuming that legitimacy alone is sufficient reason to pursue a PhD.

The Historical Question

One thing worth remembering is that the PhD hasn’t always held the position it does today.

Many of history’s most influential thinkers, scientists, inventors, and writers lived before the modern doctoral system became widespread. Their ideas were judged primarily on the quality of their work rather than the letters following their names.

Here are just a few of them:

• Benjamin Franklin — helped lay the foundations of electricity research and invented the lightning rod.
• Michael Faraday — discovered electromagnetic induction and helped establish the science of electromagnetism.
• Charles Darwin — developed the theory of evolution by natural selection.
• Jane Jacobs — transformed modern thinking about cities and urban planning.
• Rachel Carson — helped launch the modern environmental movement through her writing and scientific advocacy.

This isn’t an argument against PhDs. Modern research would be impossible without universities and doctoral programs.

It’s simply a reminder that a credential and a contribution are not the same thing.

A PhD may help you make a contribution, but it cannot make the contribution for you.

The signal of legitimacy

Modern society often treats the PhD as a symbol of intellectual legitimacy. The degree signals seriousness, expertise, and authority. In some fields that signal is critically important.

But signals and substance are not the same thing.

• A person may need a PhD because their chosen profession requires one.
• A different person may pursue a PhD because they want permission to take their own ideas seriously.

Those aren’t the same motivation.

Before deciding whether to pursue a PhD, it may be worth asking a simpler question:

Am I seeking a tool, or a blessing?

The answer may tell you more than any university brochure ever could.

Perhaps the real question is not:

Should I get a PhD?

But rather:

What am I hoping the PhD will give me that I do not already possess?

Only then can we determine whether the degree is a necessity—or merely an option.

My Life Example

I am retired. I was an aerospace engineer for over 30 years. I have a master’s degree.

So I’m familiar with the requirements for research and for writing research papers. These aren’t foreign concepts to me.

I have an idea for a conceptual framework I’d like to write about and research. So I don’t need a research advisor to guide me or help me select a topic.

I’ve retired, but I’m busy on a second career as a fiction writer. I don’t have the chunk of time in my schedule that I can just bow out of my writing and tell fans and readers, “Sorry but I’m leaving the series hanging for seven years, see you afterward.”

But I’ve craved the PhD. I wanted to pursue a PhD when I was younger but the stars didn’t align for me. For years, I quietly assumed I would return to it someday. It would be the missing piece that I never accomplished earlier in life.

Is that enough reason to pursue it, though? Do I really need the degree?

I’ve decided the answer is, No.

I don’t need the credential for legitimacy. I don’t need a PhD as a foot in the door for a specific field. I’m not planning to pursue academia.

I’m following my own interests. I have confidence in my own skills to write articles and research papers when I want, or to learn on my own how to do the pieces I may not know now.

What I am, I’ve decided, is an unDoctor.

The unDoctor

I’m not arguing against PhDs in general. But they have a specific niche usage that’s not for everyone.

I’ve evaluated the costs versus benefits of a PhD program, and decided it is not for me. Not now, not later. I haven’t the time in my busy schedule to pursue it, and it’s not really a requirement for what I want to do.

So, this is the essence of an unDoctor:

• An independent researcher that doesn’t require the PhD to carry out useful research.
• An independent thinker that doesn’t need to wave a flag of legitimacy.
• A lifelong learner whose education didn’t end with a degree.
• Someone who evaluates credentials as tools rather than goals.
• Someone confident enough to follow evidence wherever it leads, with or without institutional backing.
• A person who values contribution more than certification.

Perhaps you don’t need a PhD. Perhaps you do.

The point is to understand why.

If you’ve concluded that the work you want to do doesn’t require the degree, welcome: you may already be an unDoctor.

– unDr. Dagne Drake