Anonymous wrote:I have one. It doesn't matter what it's in. Given what I do, people assume it's in this or that. I also make bank. 500K plus

What do you do?

Anonymous wrote:Will teaching law be done via AI?
Will AI do the pharma research?

Teaching yes. AI is extremely good at teaching.

It is more of a tool and accelerator in scientific research.

Anonymous wrote:I have one. It doesn't matter what it's in. Given what I do, people assume it's in this or that. I also make bank. 500K plus

There are many who make much more than that without a PhD.

Anonymous wrote:My brother got his because his dream job was a tenure track college professor in the field and a PhD was the only way to achieve this. He likes both the research and the teaching.

I think this makes a lot of sense. I know a theoretical physicist at Goldman with a PhD from Caltech. He said he realized through the PhD that he did not have what it takes to be a leading researcher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got one because I didn’t want doors to be shut.

I was too young: went straight from undergrad. Today, I wouldn’t.

Doing a dissertation is a drag. You are at the mercy of faculty decisions, if your adviser takes a leave or leaves.

Mine was fully funded. I don’t know if that is true today.

It is lonely, unlike law school,business school or med school you are not part of a big group of students.

All top phD programs in the US are fully funded. No one should do a phd without funding.
The better known publics and privates have large cohorts, 80+ students per year in many STEM departments at MIT, UCB, Stanford, UIUC et. Sometimes phDs can have a better experience in smaller departments that accept 6-15 every year: more attention, more likely to publish a lot, presuming it is a big name school with solid funding. Small department at a known name can be better than a large department at a similarly known name.

This was true a year ago, but I don't know that it's true post-Trump. He's decimated funding for the sciences.

Programs cut the spots therefore much harder to get accepted to phD (2-10% for a range of schools that used to be 5-20%). The spots that remain are all fully funded.

But with a shortage of graduate students to do research, would a school create a spot if a student offered to self-fund all or a portion of their degree? Maybe.

I was funded with an NSF GRF (3 years), then a state fellowship (1 year) and then my PhD advisor paid my final year from grants. I know NSF GRF has been hit hard, as have grants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got one because I didn’t want doors to be shut.

I was too young: went straight from undergrad. Today, I wouldn’t.

Doing a dissertation is a drag. You are at the mercy of faculty decisions, if your adviser takes a leave or leaves.

Mine was fully funded. I don’t know if that is true today.

It is lonely, unlike law school,business school or med school you are not part of a big group of students.

All top phD programs in the US are fully funded. No one should do a phd without funding.
The better known publics and privates have large cohorts, 80+ students per year in many STEM departments at MIT, UCB, Stanford, UIUC et. Sometimes phDs can have a better experience in smaller departments that accept 6-15 every year: more attention, more likely to publish a lot, presuming it is a big name school with solid funding. Small department at a known name can be better than a large department at a similarly known name.

This was true a year ago, but I don't know that it's true post-Trump. He's decimated funding for the sciences.

Programs cut the spots therefore much harder to get accepted to phD (2-10% for a range of schools that used to be 5-20%). The spots that remain are all fully funded.

Anonymous wrote:You think you will teach, and the program that wants your money assures you that someday you will teach, but the odds are greatly stacked against it.

Generally, don't even bother.

You do not know what you are talking about regarding phD. The programs do not take any student's money! PhD are paid: they pay the student, some of them 55k+ per year for living expenses, plus tuition, fees, health insurance all covered buy the school. Even mediocre phD pay the students a 35k stipend and cover all tuition and fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got one because I didn’t want doors to be shut.

I was too young: went straight from undergrad. Today, I wouldn’t.

Doing a dissertation is a drag. You are at the mercy of faculty decisions, if your adviser takes a leave or leaves.

Mine was fully funded. I don’t know if that is true today.

It is lonely, unlike law school,business school or med school you are not part of a big group of students.

All top phD programs in the US are fully funded. No one should do a phd without funding.
The better known publics and privates have large cohorts, 80+ students per year in many STEM departments at MIT, UCB, Stanford, UIUC et. Sometimes phDs can have a better experience in smaller departments that accept 6-15 every year: more attention, more likely to publish a lot, presuming it is a big name school with solid funding. Small department at a known name can be better than a large department at a similarly known name.

This was true a year ago, but I don't know that it's true post-Trump. He's decimated funding for the sciences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STEM PhD and have worked in STEM research for decades.

Could you do the same research if you had only a Masters in that STEM?

In the sciences a Masters degree usually means you flunked out of a PhD program. It's a black mark and designates that they thought that you don't have the intellectual chops for research. You won't be considered for roles leading research projects. You can be a researcher in a lab, but you'll never be in charge.

-chemistry PhD

Plenty don't want to anyways

It's a long career to never get to advance, even if you're very good, and to only be paid a low wage.

Anonymous wrote:I got one because I didn’t want doors to be shut.

I was too young: went straight from undergrad. Today, I wouldn’t.

Doing a dissertation is a drag. You are at the mercy of faculty decisions, if your adviser takes a leave or leaves.

Mine was fully funded. I don’t know if that is true today.

It is lonely, unlike law school,business school or med school you are not part of a big group of students.

All top phD programs in the US are fully funded. No one should do a phd without funding.
The better known publics and privates have large cohorts, 80+ students per year in many STEM departments at MIT, UCB, Stanford, UIUC et. Sometimes phDs can have a better experience in smaller departments that accept 6-15 every year: more attention, more likely to publish a lot, presuming it is a big name school with solid funding. Small department at a known name can be better than a large department at a similarly known name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STEM PhD and have worked in STEM research for decades.

Could you do the same research if you had only a Masters in that STEM?

DP.
No. A masters allows one to assist the phds at some companies, and get certain jobs a BS cannot, though many times BS or BSE from top schools gets the same jobs as BS + MS from lesser schools. Phd holders are not "eligible" for most of those jobs; they are overqualified. They are eligible for the much smaller assortment of jobs at the higher level, only open to phD: leading industry research and development, certain top-consulting jobs that require phD, and of course academia. Most Stem phD jobs are not in academia.

My kid got a BS/MS and a job in a STEM research field at a biotech startup. His boss strongly discouraged him from getting his PhD, kept saying he didn't need it. Honestly, IMO, it was bc boss didn't want my kid to leave. I think if my kid had stayed, he would have had challenges w/out the PhD. Company didn't make it and my kid transitioned to a job in finance. So no, he didn't need it but he also totally changed his career path.

I got one because I didn’t want doors to be shut.

I was too young: went straight from undergrad. Today, I wouldn’t.

Doing a dissertation is a drag. You are at the mercy of faculty decisions, if your adviser takes a leave or leaves.

Mine was fully funded. I don’t know if that is true today.

It is lonely, unlike law school,business school or med school you are not part of a big group of students.

My brother got his because his dream job was a tenure track college professor in the field and a PhD was the only way to achieve this. He likes both the research and the teaching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STEM PhD and have worked in STEM research for decades.

Could you do the same research if you had only a Masters in that STEM?

In the sciences a Masters degree usually means you flunked out of a PhD program. It's a black mark and designates that they thought that you don't have the intellectual chops for research. You won't be considered for roles leading research projects. You can be a researcher in a lab, but you'll never be in charge.

-chemistry PhD

Plenty don't want to anyways