“PhD” stands for “piled high and deep,” an old joke goes. This could come to mind with the recent and tragic death of Jason Arday, a fabulist who had a fraudulent doctorate. The problem with Arday isn’t limited to him; as an expert on the matter states, the entire PhD evaluation process is flawed and corrupt. In fact, he quotes an academic at a prestigious university who claims that he never fails a PhD thesis—no matter how poor it is. In other words, Arday’s death (he committed suicide) relates to a larger issue: the death of academic excellence.
Daniel Sokol, with 15 years of experience representing failed doctoral students in Britain, knows whereof he speaks. Much of what he describes applies to the United States as well. A PhD is often a gateway into influential circles—teaching future leaders and shaping public discourse. It confers “expert” status and sometimes direct access to those in power.
Sokol explains: “Poor theses can pass, and good ones fail.” He elaborates on why this happens: Universities promise academic integrity but often fall short. A PhD does not guarantee intellectual ability or excellence—there are many mediocre holders of the degree. Some issues stem from ideology; examiners may favor theses aligning with their beliefs. Yet there is more to it.
Consider late Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.)’s admission that he hadn’t read the Patriot Act before voting for it: “We don’t read most of the bills,” he confessed. Similarly, PhD theses—often 100,000 words long and representing years of research—are frequently evaluated inadequately. The thesis is typically assessed by two academics: one from the candidate’s university (the internal examiner) and one from another institution (the external examiner). Yet PhD examiners earn only £200 to £250 for their work, a pittance compared to the time required. Sokol has seen cases where examiners admitted they hadn’t read the entire thesis during oral defenses.
This problem is mirrored in the United States, where examiners receive little or no compensation. And you get what you pay for. Sokol points to a professor who never fails a thesis: an old friend of his claims any F grade would be appealed, simply avoiding the hassle of complaints.
What happens when a candidate plagiarizes or uses ghostwriters—today’s AI tools? Sokol states there is strong incentive for examiners to turn a blind eye. Investigating takes months and involves numerous appeals. Examiners are often chosen by supervisors, creating conflicts of interest. Supervisors may pick examiners favoring their students’ approaches. Examiners who fail prominent students might fear professional repercussions in academia—a small world where relationships influence judgment.
In other words, academics behave much like politicians. This academic corruption explains not only why scholars act foolishly but also why they are easily fooled. Consider the Sokal Hoax: In 1996, Alan Sokal, a New York University physicist and self-described “academic leftist,” wrote an essay that was a word salad of academic jargon. He described it as “especially egregious,” discussing how “catastrophe theory” became a “concrete tool of progressive political praxis.” His essay’s title was: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”
He sent it to Social Text, a left-leaning journal that published it without question. Afterward, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that it was a parody. This esteemed journal published his nonsense as actual scholarship. When academia reacted, there was no self-reflection. In 2018, observers noted widespread discussion about three academics—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—who placed over a dozen hoax articles in top “cultural studies” or “identity studies” journals. These professors consider themselves left of center, just like Alan Sokal.
In 2019, pundit Mike McDaniel observed: “What’s remarkable is they set out to prove the editors and peer reviewers—professors with doctorates—could not tell the difference between actual scholarship and absolute nonsense couched in contemporary social justice eduspeak. One paper was a rewrite of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, titled: ‘Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.’”