Is a PhD really essential?

I started my doctorate with the pre-defined intention of one day being able to open my own engineering office.

I explain:

All my stints in engineering offices, as an employee or intern, were very stimulating. What intrigued me was that all my former bosses had a doctoral certificate hanging on the wall. Could it be a simple coincidence?

Could.

At first I thought that the reason for the Ph.D. it was because most of them were former university professors and that it didn't mean much of the day-to-day life of a design office. It would only be the normal path for those who followed the academic field. My point of view has changed over time. I realized that in the case of civil engineering (unlike other areas) technical knowledge and professional experience count a lot when making decisions, providing consultancy and signing technical responsibility terms. The development of challenging and important projects is assisted by qualified professionals. All of them, with few exceptions, over 60 years of age.

The computing area is full of young people, like me, who program and develop finite element models using a thousand different programs with a modern graphical interface and accurate results. But we always turn to our mentors, with advanced age and a lot of experience to support our endeavors. Always they to calm our young and doubtful souls.

That's when I noticed that the doctoral degree was an enriching (but not mandatory) passage for a person who had the ambition to become the head of a design office. Calling responsibility took courage.

My passage through the doctorate was not easy, but it was very rewarding. I learned a lot and learned a lot about what we don't see and don't do in the professional field. I believe that the biggest challenge, for those who like to apply the technique, is to lay the beams of a bridge that sustains the communication between academia and the professional market. Pragmatism is a constant at this time. It is quite complicated to “convince” your boss to apply a new technique. Is not it?

The beginning of the doctoral course was very confusing. I felt completely out of place. In my case, this feeling of exclusion was compounded by the fact that I chose to study at a university abroad. The language was the first challenge. Despite speaking fluent English, it is different to think, reason and technically present concepts in English in a fluid way. I had to transfer everything I had on my technical mind into English. As a result, even today I can explain technical concepts more fluently in English than in Portuguese. On top of that, as I was in Italy, I had to learn Italian. My course was supposed to be in English. But this was left out for various reasons (let's say Italian is not very practical in English) i.e. learning Italian was necessary.

The first six months were stressful. I diagnosed myself with imposter syndrome. But that passed. Talking to other doctoral students, I realized that this feeling was common. Abroad people talked about different techniques and in general people from different cultures study differently and communicate differently. These patterns exacerbate the feeling of not belonging.

I found a mentor who was very demanding and very busy. He had just returned to Italy after a ten year period in New Zealand and I was his first doctoral student in Rome. Much of what I had to learn, I did myself. But I think this is a very common ritual in the area. I realized that if I didn't develop my technique I wouldn't move. I followed the path I believed in and sought what I wanted to develop. In the end, it was liberating. The advisor's role is precisely to try to get the best out of his advisee. There are many ways to do this, and each advisor has their own.

The point was that my path was being traced, and at the end of the course, which lasted four years, I found myself thinking about which path I should follow. I remembered the reasons I started all this and in the end it was just that, despite the infinite possibilities. The good relationships we form during the period are important. In one of these, I ended up meeting who my partner is today.

I met her casually, on a farewell to a friend we had in common. She is a Brazilian architect who has a similar professional path, despite the area being different, we know that she is interconnected. Much more than we imagined.

It was talking about the obstacles between Architect and Engineer that we came to a common conclusion: that these two professionals, in general, do not work together. We believe this to be a glitch. A well-designed project should be seen in a complementary way. Even better, if in its design it is already thought of in a complementary way. That is, Architect and Engineer working together.

That's how our office (Mancini & Marchiori) was born. An office that works only with design, but in a connected and intelligent way. In conception, we always discuss what are the possibilities we have and try to eliminate as much as possible the points that can generate conflicts in the future. This is stimulating. The project is born intelligently and we gain in productivity and final customer satisfaction.

Finally, without going too far, the doctorate is not mandatory but it definitely broadens our point of view. We learn more, we learn to learn more, we learn to overcome some barriers and contribute to the development of new techniques. If all this is important for professional growth? Of course yes. But, more than that, the doctorate helps to mature.