Reply to PhD - intelligence or persistence?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "PhD - intelligence or persistence? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Lol guys big difference depending on what field you're talking about.

Signed, persistent and intelligent physics phd[/quote]

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.   [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]  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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics