PhD - intelligence or persistence?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Well, according to this: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf Physics majors score about as well on the Verbal portion of the GREs as English majors do. I'll let you guess how well English majors do on the Math portion compared to Physics majors. On average Physics majors are going to be smarter than English majors; it's not even close. I know quite a few Physics PHDs; they're all extremely smart and knowledgeable in many areas. |
Anonymous
Hahahahaha. No. Even in top programs most people do not have genius level IQs, nor perfect test scores. In my field the school doesn't matter as much as your scientific pedigree, which is based on your PI and not the school. Many of the best PIs are at top schools, but there are plenty at other institutions who are very very well respected. - PhD in organic chemistry from PI who subsequently won the Nobel Prize |
Anonymous
Huh? People went where they wanted to go or into a random job for better money. It's a personal preference. I have chosen the program because it gave me more money than a STEM program, as I never had any passion, only abilities. Same happened with the first job after the program: random because of money, it was all the same to me. I don't count people who work as economists or teach, that's a given. There will be always people who study and miserable and there will be always those who have fun and study. |
Anonymous
Putting aside the ridiculous claim of this PP -- who clearly is NOT a physics PhD -- anyone who has taken the GRE knows that the verbal portion is basically a vocabulary test filled with words that you will never see anyone, English PhD or otherwise, use. My understanding of hard vs. social sciences, and sciences vs. humanities, is that for nearly all hard sciences you join a lab and your dissertation topic is handed to you based on who you work with. For social sciences and the humanities, the topic is largely left up to you, and the critical thought required to pursue it is really the differentiating factor between who makes it and who flames out. In my own social science PhD program, a batch of people folded after their first year (generally, the people who didn't have what it takes, intellect-wise), a batch folded after exams (again, not smart enough or they determined that they really couldn't do the lifestyle and would leave with a Masters), and the biggest batch disappeared during the process of coming up with a dissertation topic. All through classes, you just need to be smart. But once you need to take the process of learning and transition into knowledge creation, it becomes more about persistence, drive, and work-ethic. TBH, I kind of envied my friends in the hard sciences, who may have kept ridiculous hours and needed to know how to do ridiculous math, but who generally skipped the angst associated with the prospectus defense. |
Anonymous
Your understanding is wrong. I joined a research group in the hard sciences and was told to come up with a project myself. I received no guidance until I was 2+ years into my program and ready to publish a paper. Then my advisor clued in and engaged my research. Many students washed out before they ever got to the point of PI engagement. I certainly wasn't handed a project. Nope. Besides, all of science is knowledge creation. Even those who are given a starting point don't know where it will lead. If we knew the results of the research it wouldn't be worth doing. |
Anonymous
You're story doesn't run counter to what I said. 2+ years is the point at which you start developing your dissertation idea in most programs -- aka the same time people in my program had to write prospecti. So, at the same time our guidance is stepping out, your guidance is stepping in. And all graduate students need to come up with project ideas and topics and research early in their programs, for class papers and conference presentations. And knowing research methods and having investigative skills -- investigating the results of a hypothesis, you know, standard scientific method stuff -- isn't the same as building your dissertation topic from scratch. |
Anonymous
Previous PP again -- it sounds like the difference, in some ways, is when the "culling" occurs. For us (social science/humanities) the majority of people who fail do so at around the prospectus stage. It sounds like for you guys, the majority fail during the earlier stages. |
Anonymous
|
I thought they were afraid to leave school.
Not really motivated to work. |
Anonymous
No. You misunderstand. I was expected to come up with a project, execute the project and write a draft manuscript before my advisor engaged. That's several steps past the "prospectus" stage. People in my program dropped out at all stages, some when they failed exams early on and others when they failed to get the necessary research results for a dissertation. We didn't have the same prospectus review. We found out that our "prospectus" sucked when we didn't get results at the bench. For instance, someone may plan to make a new steroid and set about the synthesis. Seven years later they might get to the last step and learn that the final bond couldn't be formed. Then they would then have to either try to save the project by rewriting their hypothesis (if even possible) or start over with a new project. Failing at a chemistry PhD can be a messy and drawn out process. |
Anonymous
NP. You don't seem to understand anything about being a scientist; the PPs story does run counter to what you are saying. No one handed me a dissertation topic. I don't know any fellow scientists who were handed a dissertation topic. Receiving guidance with your dissertation in the sciences is just that, guidance. You do the work, the analyses, the writing, all of it, yourself. Before that you do other projects, take qualifying examinations etc. There is no stress-free time when you are a science Ph.D. And, yes, you are expected to keep ridiculous hours. |
Anonymous
|
A certain intelligence level is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a Ph.D. Different level for the different disciplines.
After that I'd say you need resilience and motivation - some of it is persistence, sure, the work is grueling in any program worth its salt. But it also helps to be interested in the subject you are working in. And most importantly, it takes a certain level of resilience once you have attached yourself to an advisor to understand that for a few years you depend completely on that person's approval and s/he can literally destroy you. I had my choice of 12 highly regarded PhD programs, all with full fellowships (tuition plus living stipend; never pay for a Ph.D.). I chose one, with a highly regarded advisor. First two years was mostly coursework and preliminary projects, and the advisor was an excellent teacher in the classroom, charming, well-read, a dream. Once I had "signed" with him, turned out to be a sick bastard. Managing him over the next three years was nothing short of a Sigfried and Roy tiger performance, until I managed to get his signature on the final product. Excellent life lessons learned there, but boy was I jealous of some of the less impressive, yet genial and supportive advisors some of my friends had. |
Anonymous
If you say so. I mean, two of my three advisors were from STEM fields, and one of them more than anyone described how the prospect of developing your own research program is significantly more difficult in the social sciences/humanities than in the hard sciences, but I'm sure your program was very hard. Or hers was easy. Or something. My degree was more-or-less like a psychology degree -- but not quite -- and my peers in that program 100% fit the model I describe above. Sure, they put their own twist on it, they develop their own hypotheses, they come up with a research question, they do all the testing and writing, but it's all incrementally building onto a research program designed by their PI. I'm not saying it's not hard work. But, time to degree statistics don't lie, and it takes consistently less time to get a Physics PhD than a humanities or social science PhD. And that's not because those humanities degree seekers are sitting around sipping g&ts all day. Anecdotally, I think the smartest people I met in grad school were those who studied the "theoretical" arm of whatever field they were in (political theory, literary theory, theoretical physics, etc). Least flashy, slowest progress, but most intellectual heft required. |
Anonymous
|
This is what it's like when phd's get a hold of a thread.
Where is the sleeping meme? |
Anonymous
I agree with all of this. I divorced my advisor after he made a move on me. The experience was terrible, and one of the reasons I left academia (ultimately, I did get my PhD). |
Anonymous
Yeah, a debate using words instead of photos. So terrible, I know! |