Is an expert, someone with years of practical experience or someone with a Phd that doesn't know how to apply any of the theory in to practice? In, most cases, an expert is someone that has a balance of both and the practical experience to match, but not necessarily someone with a Phd. In fact, invariably, an expert does not have a Phd and usually finds the whole approach pointless. However, the way things move in the world, one is an expert one minute, and pretty much an outdated expert the next. It takes at least 10 years of practically applied experience to become an expert at something. By which time, either the approach or the technology becomes outdated. So, is it even worth becoming an expert? In some areas there is no other way. However, in most cases an expert is a pointless notion as it is all fairly subjective. But, conservatives will still focus more weight on academics than on experience. Ultimately, people learn the hard way when their financial pockets run dry and they need someone to deliver on a solution in the shortest amount of time rather than take any further risks with useless Phds who have no clue whatsoever and have provided quantifiably and qualitatively zero results in terms of return on investment to an organization. The safest bet for organizations is to develop a team of astute generalists that can adapt to change who have the ability to self-learn, self-explore, and self-grow in their practical endeavors, which is the whole point of what a degree is supposed to prepare and enable an individual at point of their graduation.
