The phrase “PhD” stands for “piled high and deep,” an old joke suggests. This could come to mind with the recent tragedy involving Jason Arday, a man who committed suicide after being exposed as having a fraudulent doctorate. The problem with Arday is not isolated; experts have identified systemic flaws and corruption in the doctoral evaluation process.
Daniel Sokol, who has written extensively on this subject for over 15 years, knows the depth of the issue intimately. He has represented failed doctoral students in Britain, noting that many of his concerns apply to the United States as well. A PhD often serves as a gateway to influential circles, granting academic authority and access to power.
Sokol explains: “Poor theses can pass, and good ones fail.” The evaluation process typically involves two examiners—one from the candidate’s university (the internal examiner) and one from another institution (the external examiner). However, these examiners are paid only £200 to £250 per thesis—a fee that does not reflect the time and effort required. In some cases, they have admitted to not reading the entire thesis during oral defenses.
The system is also affected by political leanings and personal relationships. Supervisors often select examiners who align with their students’ viewpoints, while examiners may fear professional repercussions if they reject a student from a well-regarded institution. This environment mirrors that of politics, where decisions can be influenced by connections rather than objective standards.
Sokol notes that an academic at a prestigious university claims to never fail a PhD thesis—no matter how poor the work. This highlights the depth of the corruption in the system.
This issue was exposed in the Sokal Hoax: In 1996, Alan Sokal, a New York University physicist and self-described “academic leftist,” submitted a deliberately nonsensical essay to the journal Social Text. The journal published it without scrutiny. Years later, Sokal revealed his work was a parody.
In 2019, Mike McDaniel observed that academics were attempting to prove that peer reviewers could not distinguish between legitimate scholarship and nonsense. One such hoax article was a reworked version of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
