PhD - intelligence or persistence?

[Anonymous]

For me it was persistence. I have a social science PhD. I did it while full time single parenting 3 kids and working. Yeah. It was a crazy time but I pushed through. Actually, if I felt like I could have quit, I would have but the only way to be done was to finish so I did. I have loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financing

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

+1

Of course, but that doesn't mean your fellowship is going to be enough money to live on well, or to live on with a child, or give you insurance if you get ill and lose your TAship. Don't be so glib.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I say that the very top went into private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you get jobs in your field? My field was definitely no fun. We were broke and always studying.

[Anonymous]

Depending on your choices, you don't have to be persistent. In my department (Physics), when it came time to choose an advisor, I looked at the track records for labs that got their students out in 4-5 years total, and picked one. I was out in 4 years. I worked in a lab that was already built. Other folks who ignored those practical considerations and only followed their interests never made it out.

[Anonymous]

In my PhD program more than 75% of those who started never finished. You needed intelligence go get through the exams and persistence to finish your dissertation. I didn't know a single person with family money. Money wasn't an issue since we all had funding. But it was a ton of hard work to stick around. We worked our asses off at the hood--nights, weekends, holidays, early mornings. Lots of people washed out and gave up. The pressure to perform was intense.

- PhD in organic chemistry from an advisor who subsequently won a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you get jobs in your field? My field was definitely no fun. We were broke and always studying.

Related: it was econ, so people went into management consulting, investment banking, government, energy, etc.

[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.

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.

My response was to PP who seems to think all doctoral candidates have family support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your choices, you don't have to be persistent. In my department (Physics), when it came time to choose an advisor, I looked at the track records for labs that got their students out in 4-5 years total, and picked one. I was out in 4 years. I worked in a lab that was already built. Other folks who ignored those practical considerations and only followed their interests never made it out.

This is really important advice!!!!! You need to be practical.

[Anonymous]

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

Signed, persistent and intelligent physics phd

Shall we suppose you are assuming that a physics PhD required more intelligence than, say, an English lit or Political Science PhD? What are you basing that on, the relatively fewer number of phds in physics? Your assumption that the hard sciences are harder than the soft sciences? That more men get them than women? That's it more obscure, less intuitive to people? None of that means a higher degree of intelligence, just a certain sort, useful for a very specific purpose. Your higher education apparently didn't teach you much about humility or respect.

[Anonymous]

It depends on the field and the school, too. Physics at Caltech or UChicago? You need both in large amounts.

[Anonymous]

You either need a supportive partner or you need to be okay with being single (and putting off things like home ownership and kids).

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Unless you have the scores to get into a top 5 program in your field you are wasting your time. Get into a top program and they'll pay you to get the degree (tuition and stipend) and you'll get a job when you get out. Or pay your own money to get a shitty PhD and then complain when you never get a job in your field. Most people who get into top 5 programs, even in social sciences, tend to have near perfect GRE scores and genius level IQ's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you get jobs in your field? My field was definitely no fun. We were broke and always studying.

Related: it was econ, so people went into management consulting, investment banking, government, energy, etc.

well so is mine, and we most definitely did not see it as a time filled with more years of partying. it was quite miserable. judging by your list of where people ended up, I suspect I went to a better program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on your choices, you don't have to be persistent. In my department (Physics), when it came time to choose an advisor, I looked at the track records for labs that got their students out in 4-5 years total, and picked one. I was out in 4 years. I worked in a lab that was already built. Other folks who ignored those practical considerations and only followed their interests never made it out.

This is really important advice!!!!! You need to be practical.

This is what I meant earlier when I said passion or cynicism, LOL!