PhD - intelligence or persistence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financing

If you're paying for it, you're doing it wrong.

Does it not require financing?

It doesn't matter who is paying the point is if you don't have $ behind you, you are out of luck. Persistence my ass, get your money together.

Yep! You make it financing of the school but you need money to live on as well.

Everyone I know had tuition paid and a stipend for living expenses.

[Anonymous]

Both. Ypu also need to put off life for awhile. Your 20s you will be broke and always studying while your peers are steadily making more money and have free time after work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Persistence.

Persistence and the willingness to prioritize the program over health and family. Which is why I'm ABD. There were several divorces in my program each year. A couple people hospitalized for stress or exhaustion. Several miscarriages. I missed pretty much every first for my oldest child and skipped a funeral. It was ridiculous.

I've never quit anything else in my life. Proud I got as far as I did, but proud I saved my sanity and family when I left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol guys big difference depending on what field you're talking about.

Signed, persistent and intelligent physics phd

Wow. I'm seriously impressed with a physics Ph.D.! My hat's off to you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both. Ypu also need to put off life for awhile. Your 20s you will be broke and always studying while your peers are steadily making more money and have free time after work.

We took it as just more years of partying. Less money but definitely not less time. Never felt broke, travelled a lot and had lots of fun.

[Anonymous]

You need intelligence, obviously, but without persistence, creativity, relentless focus, and very good interpersonal skills, you're not going to make it. And then, even if you check all of those boxes, you can still run into departmental politics that will derail your good work.

[Anonymous]

Among the people i know with phds:

- they range from "above average" intelligence (not particularly bright, but not morons) to very bright
- they all have some family financial support. Yes, they got funding and a small stipend (say, $15k). But the family money was what allowed them to not worry about not saving for retirement for those 10 years, or family bought them a cheap studio apartment when they were 23 so they already had a toe in the real estate market by the time they graduated, family money paid for periodic vacations during the tons of down time they had as an academic.
- the liberal arts phds had an inflated sense of self. While the stem phds were interested in their topic and spending a career in research, the liberal arts phds just wanted to be a plush teaching schedule and thought their obscure phd topic was a lot more important to the world than it really was.
- they were all persistent, but that persistence was driven as much by the desire to not have to work in the real world (aided by their lack of financial stress) than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Among the people i know with phds:

- they range from "above average" intelligence (not particularly bright, but not morons) to very bright
- they all have some family financial support. Yes, they got funding and a small stipend (say, $15k). But the family money was what allowed them to not worry about not saving for retirement for those 10 years, or family bought them a cheap studio apartment when they were 23 so they already had a toe in the real estate market by the time they graduated, family money paid for periodic vacations during the tons of down time they had as an academic.
- the liberal arts phds had an inflated sense of self. While the stem phds were interested in their topic and spending a career in research, the liberal arts phds just wanted to be a plush teaching schedule and thought their obscure phd topic was a lot more important to the world than it really was.
- they were all persistent, but that persistence was driven as much by the desire to not have to work in the real world (aided by their lack of financial stress) than anything else.

NP with the geographer (hydrologist) fiancé whose father was in prison. No family support, as I'm sure you can imagine. He did, however, have very caring mentors and developed relationships with patrons (for lack of a better word) along the way. He's whip smart and hardworking, but what's helped him the most is that he's extremely charming and likeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Among the people i know with phds:

- they range from "above average" intelligence (not particularly bright, but not morons) to very bright
- they all have some family financial support. Yes, they got funding and a small stipend (say, $15k). But the family money was what allowed them to not worry about not saving for retirement for those 10 years, or family bought them a cheap studio apartment when they were 23 so they already had a toe in the real estate market by the time they graduated, family money paid for periodic vacations during the tons of down time they had as an academic.
- the liberal arts phds had an inflated sense of self. While the stem phds were interested in their topic and spending a career in research, the liberal arts phds just wanted to be a plush teaching schedule and thought their obscure phd topic was a lot more important to the world than it really was.
- they were all persistent, but that persistence was driven as much by the desire to not have to work in the real world (aided by their lack of financial stress) than anything else.

Almost none of the PhDs I know fit even one of your categories.

-And the liberal arts PhDs tend to be more interested in their topic and spending a career in research than STEM PhDs - they have to be dedicated to their research area enough to pursue it despite their very slim chances of enjoying a "plush teaching schedule," given the academic market which is so much worse for liberal arts than STEM PhDs.

[Anonymous]

Relentless intellectual curiosity. Which is related to both intelligence and persistence, but not strictly equivalent to either. The PhDs I know range from slightly-above-average to high intelligence (some with awful common sense), and range in persistence as well - but the one common factor is that they are all asking questions constantly, reading, learning new things just for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who is paying for a PhD in Occupational Leadership from a no name school. My assessment on the value of this PhD is obviously different from someone who is receiving a stipend from a university while they pursue their degree in Physics or whatever.

Why does your assessment of the value matter? If it keeps him motivated to increase his knowledge and he isn't going broke doing it, then why does your opinion of the school matter? You care too much about what people think and what others tell you to think. You are in good company though, as most humans are childish no matter what their birth age is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the people i know with phds:

- they range from "above average" intelligence (not particularly bright, but not morons) to very bright
- they all have some family financial support. Yes, they got funding and a small stipend (say, $15k). But the family money was what allowed them to not worry about not saving for retirement for those 10 years, or family bought them a cheap studio apartment when they were 23 so they already had a toe in the real estate market by the time they graduated, family money paid for periodic vacations during the tons of down time they had as an academic.
- the liberal arts phds had an inflated sense of self. While the stem phds were interested in their topic and spending a career in research, the liberal arts phds just wanted to be a plush teaching schedule and thought their obscure phd topic was a lot more important to the world than it really was.
- they were all persistent, but that persistence was driven as much by the desire to not have to work in the real world (aided by their lack of financial stress) than anything else.

Almost none of the PhDs I know fit even one of your categories.

-And the liberal arts PhDs tend to be more interested in their topic and spending a career in research than STEM PhDs - they have to be dedicated to their research area enough to pursue it despite their very slim chances of enjoying a "plush teaching schedule," given the academic market which is so much worse for liberal arts than STEM PhDs.

I know a lot of PhDs and barely any of them fall into any category but the first one. Particularly the housing/family support category -- in fact, most professional degree-seekers I've talked to have support (discounted housing, down payment support, car, etc) but very few of the doctorate-seekers had the same... probably because PhD programs are basically free.

Obviously, there are all sorts of societal factors that allow generally better off people to pursue a low-income "job" without a lot of guaranteed future job security, but I don't think that's what PP was talking about.

[Anonymous]

Gotta push back on the family support.
I am the product of an unwed teen mom and no dad. She had 3 kids by the time she was 26, a severe mental illness...and no job.

I used pell grants, stafford loans for undergrand, worked fast food, and as a research assistant, worked my ass off, published by the time I Was 21 and got an NIH grant to pay for my doctoral degree.

Now I run a nonprofit. I really was turned off by my NIH postdoctoral experience so left academe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the people i know with phds:

- they range from "above average" intelligence (not particularly bright, but not morons) to very bright
- they all have some family financial support. Yes, they got funding and a small stipend (say, $15k). But the family money was what allowed them to not worry about not saving for retirement for those 10 years, or family bought them a cheap studio apartment when they were 23 so they already had a toe in the real estate market by the time they graduated, family money paid for periodic vacations during the tons of down time they had as an academic.
- the liberal arts phds had an inflated sense of self. While the stem phds were interested in their topic and spending a career in research, the liberal arts phds just wanted to be a plush teaching schedule and thought their obscure phd topic was a lot more important to the world than it really was.
- they were all persistent, but that persistence was driven as much by the desire to not have to work in the real world (aided by their lack of financial stress) than anything else.

NP with the geographer (hydrologist) fiancé whose father was in prison. No family support, as I'm sure you can imagine. He did, however, have very caring mentors and developed relationships with patrons (for lack of a better word) along the way. He's whip smart and hardworking, but what's helped him the most is that he's extremely charming and likeable.

STOP posting personal details about someone who is not you. Most people got that a geography Phd is more about naming the states. You don't need to keep proving he's smart to anonymous people.

[Anonymous]

Passion or cynicism. Cynicism is more reliable (and quicker). Passion, when it works, tends to produce better work.