In the USA, PhD ABD is ludicrous only to the arrogant academic. PhD ABD gives very important information to non-academic employers. Namely, it signals rigorous training in the production of knowledge process, as attested by passing qualifying exams necessary for Candidacy. By definition Candidacy attests one has the tools to endeavor in that process; i.e., dissertation project. A Master's degrees' objective is different: it is training in specialized analysis. A distinction in title to reflect the distinction in training is therefore appropriate.
PhD ABD also signals that one has chosen to work in the productive sector v. in Academia. Plenty of reasons to make that choice!
Whether someone left the PhD program due to their inability to complete the dissertation/coursework successfully or their free choice is very easy to tease out (e.g., in an interview process, via transcripts showing performance, etc.).
So to the orthodox I say: be more open-minded. Show nuanced discernment. Note that your fundamentalism is against Academia's core mission!
In the end, a PhD ABD who knew he/she was in the wrong place and cut their losses is much better off (economically, and arguably socially and psychologically) than a 7-year frustrated post-doc that can sign PhD after their name! Due to structural problems in higher-ed that is where most PhDs land. The people vilifying the PhD ABD in pejorative terms here and elsewhere sound like the latter trying to prove that although they are unhappy, at least "they did not fail" like the PhD ABD.
As a PhD ABD I can attest that could not be further than the truth! I am much happier with my lot! One, by the way, which most people call remarkably successful!
Yours truly, M.M., PhD ABD
I'm studying in Southampton. Not purely acoustics, its an Audio Engineering BSc, but acoustics is the direction I have taken it.
Good to hear someone with experience and a knowledge of acoustics would be interested in reading my findings. I've taken not of the forums I have posted on and will repl the discussions once I have completed the analysis. ;)
So for the most part I will be taking noise and vib measurements to establish the connection between what people believe is unsafe rock and the acoustic emission that marks this. Once/If this is done I will explore other ways to test the rock for the indicators, using different measuring tactics.
To decide what is safe I have come up with a method;
1. Test solid rock in anechoic chamber find suitable testing method and establish solid rock.
2. Construct unsafe rock in chamber to give an idea of what's to look out for
3. take method to rocks and have as many climbers as I can make their personal judgement of multiple rocks. Good through to bad. Get recordings. Use as benhmarks.
Its pretty hard to say whats "bad" rock, but Its much easier to say whats "good" rock, Thats why I am starting there and then anything else can be examined as possible bad rock. Good point about not knowing what is bad, Its tricky and if you have any suggestions on how I could clarify this I'd be all ears.