PhD - intelligence or persistence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would agree with this.
Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. I would say you need both intelligence as well as persistence but what will bring you over the finish line is persistence.
Sign me ABD

[Anonymous]

I have the brains but for me the outcome of the degree will be proof of persistence.

Al I can say is do something you really love. PhDs can be spirit and soul destroying. PhD comics are good humor about some of the realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would agree with this.
Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. I would say you need both intelligence as well as persistence but what will bring you over the finish line is persistence.
Sign me ABD

Me Too! Year 8!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would agree with this.
Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. I would say you need both intelligence as well as persistence but what will bring you over the finish line is persistence.
Sign me ABD

Me Too! Year 8!

Year 8? Wil it be year 50 someday?

[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.

I only agree with the first bullet. I'm from a modest background and did not have much financial support from my family at all during my Ph.D. program. I can only think of one classmate who had parents pay entirely for a posh apt. in addition to other liberal financial support (she also never finished, incidentally). Most lived frugally and did not take fancy vacations during grad school. The last two bullets, frankly, are spoken like someone who doesn't have a Ph.D., but has spent a lot of time thinking about those that do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would agree with this.
Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. I would say you need both intelligence as well as persistence but what will bring you over the finish line is persistence.
Sign me ABD

Me Too! Year 8!

Year 8? Wil it be year 50 someday?

Probably not. Even as a part-time/"Really! I'm working on my dissertation", every school has a time limit (clock usually starts once you have passed your comps). In my case (10 yr limit), they sent me a letter in year 9 and said "one more year..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

My ds is thinking about a physics major in college. Can you give some insights on the field...job prospect, is phd pretty much required for a decent job in the field, do you wish you had just gone engineering route (I ask this b/c someone in another thread said it).

[Anonymous]

Coming from a second or third generation UMC family & going to an SLAC and/or being an all As kid in high school (doesn't necessarily relate to either intelligence or persistence).

[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.

I only agree with the first bullet. I'm from a modest background and did not have much financial support from my family at all during my Ph.D. program. I can only think of one classmate who had parents pay entirely for a posh apt. in addition to other liberal financial support (she also never finished, incidentally). Most lived frugally and did not take fancy vacations during grad school. The last two bullets, frankly, are spoken like someone who doesn't have a Ph.D., but has spent a lot of time thinking about those that do.

I think for those of us who didn’t come from UMC families, getting a PhD represented upward mobility and it didn’t feel like a huge sacrifice to live like a grad student when you were getting paid to do something you loved and when you had a lot of control over your schedule. I could cook and think at the same time and my favorite form of entertainment is still having people over for dinner and talking late into the night. Not an expensive proposition.

I didn’t feel important (or deprived) — just lucky to find a place (in a world just as real as the corporate sector) where I enjoyed my work and found simpatico colleagues. It wasn’t perfect — academia has its own set of problems and some real a-holes, but it was worth it, and that was true even with no financial support from family.

[Anonymous]

Either or both, it really depends on the department and the supervisor. I know some people who were practically give their PhDs and aren't very bright; as well as others who are well above average intelligence and chose really challenging topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I only agree with the first bullet. I'm from a modest background and did not have much financial support from my family at all during my Ph.D. program. I can only think of one classmate who had parents pay entirely for a posh apt. in addition to other liberal financial support (she also never finished, incidentally). Most lived frugally and did not take fancy vacations during grad school. The last two bullets, frankly, are spoken like someone who doesn't have a Ph.D., but has spent a lot of time thinking about those that do.

I think for those of us who didn’t come from UMC families, getting a PhD represented upward mobility and it didn’t feel like a huge sacrifice to live like a grad student when you were getting paid to do something you loved and when you had a lot of control over your schedule. I could cook and think at the same time and my favorite form of entertainment is still having people over for dinner and talking late into the night. Not an expensive proposition.

I didn’t feel important (or deprived) — just lucky to find a place (in a world just as real as the corporate sector) where I enjoyed my work and found simpatico colleagues. It wasn’t perfect — academia has its own set of problems and some real a-holes, but it was worth it, and that was true even with no financial support from family.

I was first gen FT college (vs PT/night school) and went to an HYP not a SLAC. My grad school cohort (at another HYP) wasn’t trust fund kids either. As faculty, I can think of only one grad student who fit the general description offered by the first poster quoted. He didn’t last. Barely passed his comps (took two tries), couldn’t think of a diss topic, and dropped out to go make tons of money. Different strokes.

[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.

I only agree with the first bullet. I'm from a modest background and did not have much financial support from my family at all during my Ph.D. program. I can only think of one classmate who had parents pay entirely for a posh apt. in addition to other liberal financial support (she also never finished, incidentally). Most lived frugally and did not take fancy vacations during grad school. The last two bullets, frankly, are spoken like someone who doesn't have a Ph.D., but has spent a lot of time thinking about those that do.

I think for those of us who didn’t come from UMC families, getting a PhD represented upward mobility and it didn’t feel like a huge sacrifice to live like a grad student when you were getting paid to do something you loved and when you had a lot of control over your schedule. I could cook and think at the same time and my favorite form of entertainment is still having people over for dinner and talking late into the night. Not an expensive proposition.

I didn’t feel important (or deprived) — just lucky to find a place (in a world just as real as the corporate sector) where I enjoyed my work and found simpatico colleagues. It wasn’t perfect — academia has its own set of problems and some real a-holes, but it was worth it, and that was true even with no financial support from family.

I come from a MC/UMC background; I have a STEM PhD (computational physics). My family paid for my college, but not my PhD. My PhD was funded by a combination of State of NY, NSF and AFRL. My collegues were in the same boat; I saw no correlation between family money and PhD Success.

And I saw brilliant people wash out -- they did not have the persistence. Usually, they just disappeared. I saw hard working but average people flame out, usually in the qualifying exams.

For the specific bullets:
1) You need to be able to think on your feet (oral exams; defenses), and be persistent enough to work through a bad spell/burnout. To me, a PhD means the person is reasonably bright, and will grind through the rough spots.

2) Family money is not required. I finished my PhD with $2000 in the bank, and $5000 in loans. No one gave me anything. The thing is, my degree got my foot in the door at a reasonably high salary -- about 90K in today's dollars. I now earn closer to 200K doing applied research. I enjoy my job and am respected. And, in the last 25 years, my net worth has gone from -$3000 to 1.5 Million. With no family help.

3) No comment. I am in a STEM field.

4) I was persistent; I worked through tough times and arguments with my advisor. I had very limited support from my family; I was living on 11K per year, but it was enough in the up-state NY town. I pursued the doctorate not because I wanted to avoid the real world, but because I knew what I wanted to do in the real world. Note that when I started, I thought I wanted to be a Professor, until I saw what they actually did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I only agree with the first bullet. I'm from a modest background and did not have much financial support from my family at all during my Ph.D. program. I can only think of one classmate who had parents pay entirely for a posh apt. in addition to other liberal financial support (she also never finished, incidentally). Most lived frugally and did not take fancy vacations during grad school. The last two bullets, frankly, are spoken like someone who doesn't have a Ph.D., but has spent a lot of time thinking about those that do.

I think for those of us who didn’t come from UMC families, getting a PhD represented upward mobility and it didn’t feel like a huge sacrifice to live like a grad student when you were getting paid to do something you loved and when you had a lot of control over your schedule. I could cook and think at the same time and my favorite form of entertainment is still having people over for dinner and talking late into the night. Not an expensive proposition.

I didn’t feel important (or deprived) — just lucky to find a place (in a world just as real as the corporate sector) where I enjoyed my work and found simpatico colleagues. It wasn’t perfect — academia has its own set of problems and some real a-holes, but it was worth it, and that was true even with no financial support from family.

I come from a MC/UMC background; I have a STEM PhD (computational physics). My family paid for my college, but not my PhD. My PhD was funded by a combination of State of NY, NSF and AFRL. My collegues were in the same boat; I saw no correlation between family money and PhD Success.

And I saw brilliant people wash out -- they did not have the persistence. Usually, they just disappeared. I saw hard working but average people flame out, usually in the qualifying exams.

For the specific bullets:
1) You need to be able to think on your feet (oral exams; defenses), and be persistent enough to work through a bad spell/burnout. To me, a PhD means the person is reasonably bright, and will grind through the rough spots.

2) Family money is not required. I finished my PhD with $2000 in the bank, and $5000 in loans. No one gave me anything. The thing is, my degree got my foot in the door at a reasonably high salary -- about 90K in today's dollars. I now earn closer to 200K doing applied research. I enjoy my job and am respected. And, in the last 25 years, my net worth has gone from -$3000 to 1.5 Million. With no family help.

3) No comment. I am in a STEM field.

4) I was persistent; I worked through tough times and arguments with my advisor. I had very limited support from my family; I was living on 11K per year, but it was enough in the up-state NY town. I pursued the doctorate not because I wanted to avoid the real world, but because I knew what I wanted to do in the real world. Note that when I started, I thought I wanted to be a Professor, until I saw what they actually did.

I have a social science PhD and agree with all of this (although, I, unfortunately, do not make $200K )

For #4, this was very similar to me -- the career I wanted required a PhD, although ultimately I changed my mind about said career. There were rough patches during my time in grad school, and I will admit to pushing through some of them in part because I was a young grad student in the middle of the recession in the midwest and even though I think I could have gotten a decent job, there definitely was some security in my 5 year fellowship. So, although I don't generally think #4 is true, it was a little true for me.

[Anonymous]

Good work habits - and thus both persistence and the ability to overcome paralyzing perfectionism - are very important. You need to be fairly intelligent but you don't have to be brilliant. This really came home to me when I took up martial arts. I had always thought that if you made it to black belt that you had to have your hands registered as lethal weapons (not truly but it was that kind of thing). But then I saw people who got black belts just because they stuck with it and did all the work. They had to be somewhat athletic of course but they didn't have to be brilliant athletes by any means. It's the same for PhD programs.

It took me 9 years to finish my dissertation while it only took dh 5 years. This was because I had this bad perfectionist streak and I didn't know how to finish things. I worried a lot about my work - all the time! - but I didn't get it done. Meanwhile dh just blew through his work because he could focus well and complete stuff!

On another note I was also in an interdisciplinary program and did not have a helpful advisor - so there's that as well. If you're looking to go into an academic field, avoid interdisciplinary degrees. There are people who can do them and excel but mostly I was looked at with suspicion by hiring committees because I didn't have a mainstream degree and I didn't have teaching experience in that field so I learned it all as junior professor.

And the comments pps are making about getting your school funded are spot on. I wouldn't go into a PhD program if I didn't get a teaching or research assistantship or fellowship. It's not just a question of funding but it's also how you look when you go out on the job market. If you didn't qualify for an assistantship, hiring committees may be less disposed to look at you. Of course, that is for the academic job market. I don't know how the applied market would look at someone without an assistantship.

Anyway, all this is to say that you need to know how to work regularly and get things done in addition to being somewhat smart. Being very very smart isn't much help if you can't produce.

[Anonymous]

Getting the PhD is just the beginning, which clearly requires hard work and intelligence. What is more important is what you do with your PhD. Some of my PhD classmates went into teaching, some went to private sectors, only the very top is doing research, continue to push frontier.