PhD - intelligence or persistence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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).

Just wanted to add about a similar experience. So uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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).

Just wanted to add about a similar experience. So uncomfortable.

There are plenty of crazy STEM advisors too. Mine had me do his laundry and dust his office. He had me come into the office at 3 AM to fix a paper jam in the printer. I invited him to my wedding and he assigned me a project on my wedding night, due the next morning. He was mad that I'd taken a couple of days off to get married. He also liked to walk through the labs, quiz students and fire those whose answers he didn't like. My PI wasnt interested, but several others in our dept were sleeping with students. Par for the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Lol, no I'm not a Physics PhD, but my spouse is. I've hung out with a ton and work with many. I also know many people with social science PhDs. Smart, but not even in the same league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In my case, a STEM/Computational Physics field, I was handed a project for my MS. As I was finishing it, I knew I wanted to continue the research. For me, there were many unanswered questions. I was not at a top program, but everyone knew, liked and respected my advisor. I looked around, and realized that if I were to continue in what I was interested in, I would need to either stay at my university or go overseas (Taiwan or Japan). I did apply to other PhD programs: Caltech, MIT, Berkeley....was admitted to all (I had a good Masters). But I stayed because I liked working with my Advisor.

Staying also meant that my classwork was done. I immediately worked on my dissertation proposal; it took me about 1 year to get it done because I needed to broaden my perspective and demonstrate the feasibility of the proposal. I also published a paper based on on Master's, and obtained funding from the NSF (advisor was PI; I wrote the proposal).

I was on track for a PhD in three years post MA, when the sh*t hit the fan. I ended up having a breakdown....things were not working as well as I expected, I could not handle the problem. I was not going to be able to demonstrate what I thought I would. Deep depression followed by questioning my intelligence. For about 6 months I was against a wall, and no progress was made. This is quite typical in my field. But, I persisted. I figured out where the data was leading me. And, with a nearly 2 year delay, I persevered. In the process, I realized, I did not want to be a professor; I saw my fellow grad students going through the same problems I did, some worked through it, many did not. There was very limited faculty guidance. The attitude was figure it out...that is what makes it research.

I did figure it out. And 25 years later, I am still in the field, doing research, but not associated with a university.

I believe this is a typical experience with a STEM PhD. The thing about the STEM fields is there are usually observables that can be used to destroy a bad idea. Sometimes, the student is not aware of those. It is more than just mental masturbation.

[Anonymous]

Like PP, I decided I didn't want to be a prof.

I realized that I didn't like the way my professors treated other people, and I couldn't work in an environment where teaching paid the bills but everyone was scornful of its importance. Mostly I just didn't want to spend my life hanging out with such people.

Also like PP, I am decades out and do research and other work in my field.

I'm glad I persevered because I have a good professional and personal life as a result of the degree, but I am also glad to be out of academe.

[Anonymous]

I’m a non-STEM PhD with a college-aged kid who (currently) wants to be a STEM PhD. Watching DC start down that path, the first hurdle really has been getting her head around the fact that lots of experiments/work can yield nothing worth publishing. I can already envision what PP means when s/he says failing at a Chem PhD can be a messy, drawn-out process.

As a humanities PhD, you feel as if success or failure is all about you — no circumstances beyond your control. It’s daunting sometimes and comforting at other times. (This may explain where another poster’s comment about big egos comes from). From the outside looking in, I suspect resilience is probably a crucial trait for a successful/happy career in science. You might get lucky at the PhD stage and not need it, but longer-term, I can’t see how you’d thrive without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a non-STEM PhD with a college-aged kid who (currently) wants to be a STEM PhD. Watching DC start down that path, the first hurdle really has been getting her head around the fact that lots of experiments/work can yield nothing worth publishing. I can already envision what PP means when s/he says failing at a Chem PhD can be a messy, drawn-out process.

As a humanities PhD, you feel as if success or failure is all about you — no circumstances beyond your control. It’s daunting sometimes and comforting at other times. (This may explain where another poster’s comment about big egos comes from). From the outside looking in, I suspect resilience is probably a crucial trait for a successful/happy career in science. You might get lucky at the PhD stage and not need it, but longer-term, I can’t see how you’d thrive without it.

I call getting insanely good job offers "circumstances beyond your control". Money is the reason lots of people don't finish. Not the lack of money but earning really good money. By then, the academic world long lost its appeal and many are ready to jump ship or delay until it fits into the work schedule.

[Anonymous]

Insanely good job offer typically comes when you’re close to finishing the PhD.

Should have said as a Humanities PhD *candidate* — was talking about finishing the degree — not succeeding as an academic. Although, arguably, the great job can be more likely to drive you out of the field than the good enough job.

[Anonymous]

As a tenured prof in the humanities, my take is that you need:

1) Persistence. A lot of really smart people out there, but not all of them have grit. You need resilience to get through the lonely times, rejections, setbacks, and relative poverty (compared to peers who, say, went to law school and are making multiple times what you make) for years. In the humanities, many PhDs take 7-10 years to finish.

2) Intelligence. You have to be able to read and decipher a lot of arcane material, write about it, and make arguments about it. You have to be somewhat quick on your feet to defend your ideas in seminars and before other colleagues. Many PhD programs also require at least reading knowledge in two foreign languages.

3) Professional smarts. A little different than street smarts. You have to know to seek programs that will land you a tenure-track job, mentors that are both well-respected and good to students, and assume the culture of academia. Every culture has a code that you need to break into in order to be accepted, and academia is no exception. There are thousands of cultural ques in academia that no one really explains to you.

4) Money. I tell my students that if they can't be fully funded for graduate school, they should really consider other options. Harsh reality. Top graduate programs will pay for tuition and living expenses. You won't be high on the hog, but you'll be able to get your Phd with minimal debt.

5) Luck. A colleague of mine happened to be writing her dissertation on contemporary Arabic literature when 9/11 happened. She was flooded with interviews when she was on the job market. After 9/11, a ton of colleges and universities opened tenure-track lines in Arabic. Of course, she was also smart, accomplished, and personable, which helped her to land a tenure-track job. But, she doesn't discount the timing, which was entirely beyond her control, in her professional success.