Double undergrad? Top universities? Science making? (Math related)

Graduate School
1

Hi

I’m trying to decide what to do. My ultimate aim is being a scientist. I’m fascinated by science and I love … interesting stuff, lol. I like new concepts, ideas, academics, science, I enjoyed a lot the small amount of research I did. However, it was rather insignificant and still back in high school. However, I also try to keep in mind financial prospects. I don’t want to be dirty rich, but not being poor helps with life comfort. You can afford good quality housing or an effective doctor.

I wonder whether a graduate degree is the right path. I think that an inspiring environment might be an advantage, as well as having a paper and potentially getting closer to the resources I might need.

Now. Judging by my academics, what my friends do, and so forth, I’m capable of top 50 or 100 universities. It would not be a strain. I might roll on and get there. I know English, I know German. I might learn French if in need. I live in Middle East Europe. The very top universities could be a strain for me. I don’t handle pressure too great. I’ll be blunt. I easily get depressed if forced to interact with people who criticise me a lot and for everything I do. Been there and done that. It’s important for me to be in a nice place in which I can be… a human being. Hence I wonder if it’s worth it to fight for the very top universities. Because logically speaking, the top of the top results can’t be achieved in a sustainable way. You have to give everything. I have the grades, I can produce some research material. I’m good at test taking.

Then comes the question of the college major. My college situation is complicated. However. I am now a computer science student. I come from a math-oriented backround. I decided against engineering degrees, because of the job market and quite honestly, I enjoy the subject more than other tech branches. I enjoy physics and mathematics as well. I imagine I would either pursue a degree in some sort of pure subject, for example computer science, or in a subject like machine learning or applied mathematics or scientific computing. I’m interested in theoretical physics as well, but atm I know little about it. I’m a bit worried about my math skills. I could learn more in a math or physics degree, and some courses don’t admit students without those degrees. However, the schooling when it comes to those subjects is poorer where I live than CS. Universities are hostile. Good grades? They try hard not to give those. I mean, they really try. I’m not colourising it. The main criterion for the good grade is whether the professor likes you and if you stalk him, despite being called names and hearing other rude things from him. If he doesn’t disappear asap and is available at all, of course. Nevertheless, the issue of maths skills still bugs me. I won’t have them without anonther undergrad, but is it worth the time spent? The hassle?

But what can I learn in a master’s degree about it, really? In my college, the bachelor’s degree takes 3,5 years and master’s just 1,5. Is a PhD more worth it? Given that I might underperform if I go to master’s elsewhere because of adaptive reasons. And that taught courses might be boring and not so productive, in all honesty. What would they prove, too? That I can memorise the material? The only potential benefits are two. one is possibly getting into the circle of being closer to the resources. Only possibly, because I might drop out of this circle due to underperformance. The second potential benefit that might also be not true is getting to know inspiring people. A loaded course and a difficult environment might not support that. Also, I forgot about spending time in cooler places than I live in now and travel benefit.

I hope I covered everything. If I’m being unclear somewhere, please ask. Thank you for responses in advance. You know, it helps me even to talk about it and try to put it all into words. :slight_smile:

2

I mean… ugh. I had really bad luck with my first years in college. I hate it. The worst time in my whole life, what was supposed to be the best. I’m feeling so old. Everyone is asking me questions and criticises me for what I had no influence on. I would go back and earn more qualifications, improve, make my life what I want it to be, not what randomly came out because of unfavourable circumstances, but how many times can I go back? I can’t handle the people criticisng me for not fulfilling their expectations. At the same time, I feel horribly alone when I’m with people who have a different mindset, who value different things. Which is why I can’t stick with the here and now. There seems to be such a bad choice. I wish I had a way to take the math courses without having to deal with the jerky insitutions that teach them (so that I had even the possibility to get good grades without becoming a stalker and feeling like a rag) and without wasting any more time. I regret that life is so short. I basically wasted two years. Of course, I had problems to deal with, and it’s not like I did absolutely nothing, but nothing spectacular happened during this time that I could put in my resume. It was more like… finding myself. I know what I want from life more. But nobody cares about that… All people want is someone who flies away to outer spece, no matter in which direction. They like conviction, no matter if one that has valid grounds or not. And they like extroverts who make lots of noise with little actual content.

3

So the first thing that I will say is that if you don’t handle criticism well, then being a research scientist is not really a good career choice for you. Criticism is a mainstay of the career path from the moment you start a PhD program and all the way through your career. Doctoral students get lots of criticism (constructive and otherwise) - from their advisors, from their instructors, from other mentors in the department, from paper and grant and fellowship reviewers, even from peers. And it will only intensify as you become a postdoctoral scientist and then either an assistant professor or an industry scientist. It’s a cornerstone of the work - scientists must be able to review the work of other scientists to ensure its quality.

So if your mental health is easily affected by criticism, sometimes harsh - and you don’t handle pressure well - do yourself a favor and avoid this career path. It’s not great for someone who doesn’t handle pressure well and who can’t take criticism on a regular basis.

If you do want to become a scientist, you generally need to get a PhD. (But there are research careers that you can have with an MS - I’ll come back to that.) And if you want that, generally speaking you get it in the area you studied in undergrad. So if you want to be a theoretical physicist, you need to study physics in undergrad. If you study computer science and then want to switch to physics later, you’ll have to take a lot of physics coursework to catch up and make yourself competitive for PhD programs.

If you like computer science enough to major in it, you can consider becoming a computer scientist - that would encompass machine learning, scientific computing and even applied mathematics. That would align well with what you are studying now. But for computer science and ANY physical science field you are going to need a strong grasp of mathematics, so if you aren’t getting that at your current college you need to find somewhere you can get it.

I will also say that generally someone gets a PhD and becomes a scientist because they have a passion for a specific type of research or science, especially by the time they are in your stage. A general love for science and new concepts helps, too, but that’s usually a symptom and not a sufficient factor. Do you have a deep abiding love for some of the things you are learning in your classes? Enough to study it for hours and hours on end? Read books about in your spare time and talk about it with other interested people? That’s what being in grad school is like.

A PhD isn’t more ‘worth it’ because it’s longer. You can learn a lot in 1-2 years. What is the determining factor of what degree you need to get depends on what you want to do. There are LOTS of positions in which you can do research and contribute to new, innovative theories, ideas, concepts, and products with a master’s degree. Most of them are in industry and government jobs; some are at universities. You don’t need a PhD for that. You only need a PhD to do very specific kinds of scientist jobs - if you want to design and drive the research agenda.

4

It’s not just “criticism,” but an openness to “critique.” As so much of stem is collaborative, a willingness to both share opinions and receive them is important exercise. It’s often how you take “good” to “better.” The power of multiple minds, others’ experiences, learning, observations. It helps to enjoy that, not take it personally.

5

Being a “scientist” requires a doctorate.

6

First of all, I would like to mark that I do not mean constructive and meritorical criticism, but thigs that are mild/moderate abuse. Continued over a long period of time. (I was writing the previous post in a bit more whiny stae than today, though… I think putting those things into words helped too)

Thank you a lot for your reply juillet. :slight_smile:

“Do you have a deep abiding love for some of the things you are learning in your classes? Enough to study it for hours and hours on end? Read books about in your spare time and talk about it with other interested people? That’s what being in grad school is like.” - Sounds very fun :slight_smile: I do read like that. My classmates laugh at me solving differential equations for fun. Missing out on those discussions seems like the greatest loss.

“So if you want to be a theoretical physicist, you need to study physics in undergrad. If you study computer science and then want to switch to physics later, you’ll have to take a lot of physics coursework to catch up and make yourself competitive for PhD programs.”
Yeah… theoretical physics seems out of my reach. Maybe it’s for my benefit, because it is a difficult thing to be working on, in terms of technical possibilities of humankind as a whole at this moment versus the challenges. This is what discouraged me from physics in the first place.
But applied mathematics, scientific computing or AI seem doable and like interesting pieces of work. And doable if I take a couple of courses, not a whole additional major. That would seem good, because I would omit a lot of material I would want to omit. Like lab work.

I’ve heard a lot of things about PhD. Some of it is how nerve-wrecking it can be and how PhD students have empty fridges, but I also feel like … the science making could be rewarding. The academic discussions, it’s something I love. Also, I’ve heard that universities are a far better places for scientists/ inventors than companies, because you at least get to sign your work.

" There are LOTS of positions in which you can do research and contribute to new, innovative theories, ideas, concepts, and products with a master’s degree. " - this would seem a lot better, quite honestly.

Can I ask another question? How about less competitive PhD programs? They must be easier to complete (and in other aspects) and you can still be a scientist? I guess you can be further from the resources. The funding, the knowledge. From The community. But what if the funding would be available?

Yeah, I think I understand now… it’s about being a scholar, hmmm, not neccesarily an inventor.

7

Tons of PhD programs in all kinds of scientific fields welcome computer science majors, because all of the sciences now use computing A LOT in their research. Just look up graduate admissions for a variety of science PhD programs and you will see what I mean. You would be especially welcome and well-suited for any PhD program titled “computational” anything (like Computational Biology), “informatics” anything (think Bioinformatics, etc.), “quantitative” anything (for example Quantitative Ecology), and similar PhD majors that have a strong quantitative component. These types of programs seek out Computer Science majors, as long as they got some research experience as an undergrad already. Getting research experience is very important for PhD applications, as is a GPA of at least 3.0 (minimum 3.5 for some programs).

8

What system of GPA is this? What is the best and the worst score? If we grade from 1 to 5, for example, in one place where I studied 1 was the best. And in another a 1 is a fail and 5 is the best.

Looking for something mixed with e.g. biology never came to my mind, because I don’t have… side interests, so to say. But it seems like a good idea too. Provided that I could catch up on whatever branch of knowledge I was about to dive into. Biochemistry, materials science and geology seem like the three main branches in which there is something to do, probably apart from a more… systems look at different things like ecology or the market. Or machine translation. I have my personal views at machine learning atm, ha ha, and deep thoughts, but I’d probably need to dive deeper into the subject to conclude anything on the direction in which it is currently going. My friends mainly post articles from The Guardian on social media, so…

9

That’s why it’s really important that you be super passionate about the science that you are doing, because graduate school is very stressful and nerve-wracking and you will be poor through most of it. The science, the scholarship, the participation in the academic enterprise - it all needs to be very important to you personally to make it worth it.

I’m not sure if less competitive/selective PhD programs are less difficult than selective ones in terms of the amount of work you have. The expectations are higher at selective programs, for sure, since the students they admit are generally already operating at a higher level. So the quality of work that comes from the students may be overall higher (maybe), and generally the resources they have access too are also better, which means expectations are higher. But the volume of work is likely similar - the reading, the academic discussion, the coursework, the comprehensive exams, and the dissertation.

Plus at less competitive programs, you may have heavier teaching responsibilities to help pay for the PhD since those programs may have less access to grant money and you will be less competitive for national fellowships like the NSF. I love teaching, but boy does it suck up a lot of time without meaningfully contributing to you finishing the degree.

And unfortunately going to a less competitive program does impact your ability to get a job later, especially within academia.

…eh, that kind of depends on the degree and the department. A student who wants to be competitive for computational biology programs that are housed in biology departments, for example, should still have taken some undergraduate biology coursework. Some departments are more willing to admit students without the coursework than others.

10

Alright. Thank you. That sheds a lot of light.

I guess it would make sense to have some background in biology and chemistry is I were to do a PhD in bioinformatics.

I’m trying to work out what I would want to specialise in. Yeah… I still feel like it would be somewhere between applied mathematics, AI/big data, and computer science.