A well-known but unspoken double standard is built into the graduation requirements for graduate students who intend to pursue a career in academics as opposed to those that are looking to leave science (at the earliest possible moment, in some cases). The future academics are expected to produce more novel data and to prove themselves more thoroughly before being allowed to graduate than the future non-academics. [Where future industry scientists fit into this scheme isn’t clear. Big grey area surrounding that]. The existence and implementation of this double standard has always been a controversial and inflammatory subject among my classmates.

Some future academics in my class are continually incensed that students are being allowed to graduate having done less work than the academics. Some have gone as far as to say that they feel their degree devalued by some people “getting off easy.” The future non-academics (that would be me) become horrifically irritated when faced with this attitude. As I see it, my PhD is supposed to train me for whatever it is that I intend to do after I graduate. Why should I have to cure cancer in order to graduate and spend the rest of my life blessedly far away from a lab? Non-academic employers may not be as interested in the amount of data I produce and the caliber/grandeur of journals that I publish in, but rather the other skills I have acquired, such as writing, working in a team, and so on.

Of course, I don’t want to be released into the wild with the knowledge that my degree is somehow inferior to that of others. I rest easy in believing there is no such thing as an easy PhD. There are only degrees of torment that one is subjected to. While I understand where my PI-to-be classmates are coming from, I don’t feel bad about being measured with a different yardstick. I know that I have learned and I have grown… and that I need to graduate. Soon.