<p>you guys might think you’re natural math geniuses now but once you get to stuff like non-euclidean linear algebra, complex analysis, and worst of all real analysis, 99% of self-proclaimed “natural geniuses” will have a “welp, guess i’m actually ■■■■■■■■” moment.</p>
<p>not that those classes are impossible, but you’ll actually have to study</p>
<p>also don’t over-estimate the difficulty of getting a phd in math, it’s not like all my TAs are geniuses, most of them just work really hard</p>
<p>I personally think of movies like “good will hunting” and “a beautiful mind” lol.</p>
<p>good movies btw</p>
<p>I think MITHopeful might be a phony.</p>
<p>Even if you don’t do your work, you can at least get a C.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence the vagueness of my post.</p>
<p>We’re talking about I didn’t do over 50% of the work. Like there’s a lot I didn’t do.</p>
<p>I actually had an F in calculus after 10 weeks. My parents had to sign stuff, and it was all pretty funny.</p>
<p>What site are you taking the class on?</p>
<p>virtual virginia. my state’s online education system.</p>
<p>Most likely MIT has a 0% for all the assignments he didn’t turn in for the entire course, and thus a F.</p>
<p>idk why he’s such a drama queen about it all though. probably for the attention or something.</p>
<p>not really being a drama queen. It’s actually a 50% right now.
Anyways, I’m not the focus of this thread. let’s move on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Love how everyone somehow ‘misunderstands’ your posts. THERE IS A REASON WHY LOTS OF PEOPLE GET A CONDESCENDING IMPRESSION FROM YOU. AH</p>
<p>I don’t understand this. Isn’t it well understood that Physics is on like a whole different level than Mathematics? Shouldn’t a PhD in Physics be much harder to obtain than a PhD in Mathematics? What’s so difficult about a PhD in Math?</p>
<p>Applied Mathematics Ph.D is not as hard, but still hard, as a Ph.D in Pure Mathematics. The Stuff that pushes you. a Ph.D in physics, that’s hard ****.</p>
<p>It doesn’t seem to me that a PhD in Math would be that difficult…</p>
<p>PhDs in Pure Math are by far the most difficult… More so than Physics. Because new topics in pure mathematics more “uncharted” than new topics in physics (esp experimental physics). Anyone who has not read a math dissertation (or any dissertation for that matter) should seriously **** about any PhD being “not that tough”.</p>
<p>Pure mathematics. There’s so much in it that requires a lot.
Abstract analysis, topics that I more than likely will never understand completely… etc.</p>
<p>Also I’d like to add that I lol’d at AIME qualifier = Math Genius</p>
<p>Okay, having liked math in high school and taken it in a top university, I can testify that unless you think math can be your LIFE, you should not major in math. There are no practical applications for it beyond a certain point, and it also becomes obnoxiously cumbersome</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not…? Why would a Physics PhD be necessarily that much harder? Theoretical maybe, experimental shouldn’t be much different from other sciences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No you can’t. Just because it doesn’t apply to art history…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hater.</p>
<p>^ That’s true. Comparing it to art history in terms of practicality is comparing apples and oranges :b</p>
<p>You don’t really have to be a genius to get a Physics PhD. For theoretical physics, yes, you probably do. But for experimental (or computational) physics, you don’t need to be extremely smart. You just have to find a way to get through Jackson’s Electrodynamics (there probably will be lots of help since many fellow grad students will also struggle with that book). Even then, grades in grad school hardly even matter as long as you pass the grad school classes (which nearly every grad student manages to do). And you don’t need to be that smart to get in, since the Physics subject GRE isn’t much harder (or even that different) than AP Physics C.</p>
<p>Key point: you can get a PhD in physics and STILL be completely ignorant about quantum field theory or any field of theoretical physics that goes beyond 1930.</p>
<h1>====</h1>
<p>Also, with math PhDs, there <em>might</em> be a way to get one if you’re not a genius. There are math professors who do math research that’s computational (sometimes, educated guessing with computation is a good way to “guess at” theory). You just have to find a way to get through Dummit/Foote Abstract Algebra and “big Rudin” analysis. Some people can use friends for that. </p>
<p>===</p>
<p>I don’t know how smart I am, but my massive case of attention deficit disorder has a huge impact on my ability to study physics (or anything math intensive). But I’m still sure that I could get a PhD in physics if I wanted to (but I’m copping out and doing astrophysics, which is much easier ;)).</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>PS: APs and SAT IIs don’t say anything; neither does qualifying for the AIME (all they say is how much your math education didn’t suck - since math education is downright slow and horrid at many pubic schools, and some students are given opportunities for enrichment while others are not). Any reasonably intelligent person could ace them all with sufficient enrichment and STILL struggle immensely with college math (they’re all developed to be passable to non-geniuses, and IQ doesn’t even increase after age 15). I self-studied my way to a 5 on BC Calc, qualified for AIME, and got 800 on SAT Math IIC - all in 10th grade, and I still managed to do worse (in certain course) than some people whose 10th grade stats were far worse than mine. Whether it’s primarily intelligence or attention deficit disorder, I don’t know. It’s a lot easier to generate novel hypotheses for your problems when you’re actually enthusiastic about studying math, but I don’t have that enthusiasm that others do</p>